(October 19, 2013 at 9:13 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Whether P1 or P2 must be discarded depends on your view on the word "objective," which ironically is subjective. If you think something objective must exist outside ANY subjective determination, by any entity, then if God decided on our moral code, P2 fails because He made a subjective determination.
If you accept that a subjective entity can create an objective system of morality (for example, if an Earthwide code of laws could be established that were so complete you'd know whether each and every action should be judged moral or immoral), then P1 does indeed fail, as you say, since under that definition, God is not required.
So however you define the word "objective," ONE of the two premises must fail to that definition, but not necessarily both.
This should be an interesting mental exercise for any theist:
"Define the word objective in such a way that both P1 and P2 can be shown to be simultaneously true."
However, the thing is, I do not think that the meaning of the word "objective" is upto anyone's subjective interpretation. Words having an established meaning that cannot be arbitrarily changed, redefined or creatively reinterpreted is the cornerstone for any communication. I cannot start a discussion by saying "anything made by gos is objective" and then use that definition as evidence that anything you regard as objective is therefore made by god and thus, evidence for god.
Here, I'd say that you have defined the word correctly, you are just a little off on its application. This, ofcourse, relates to the question of whether or not a subjective entity can create an objective system. What we generally regard as objective (rules of logic, science) or subjective (beauty, art) goes a long way in clarifying the application of the principle.
When an object X (which maybe a physical object or a concept) is being considered by the subject Y (any subject - not necessarily just you), then, if the question "what is X" can be answered without a reference to the subject's will or desire, then X is objective, otherwise subjective. So, for example, while all ideas and concepts in existence are created by subjective entities, if the nature of those concepts are determined by things other than those creative subjects, then those concepts are considered objective. For example, the rules of logic, while developed by humans, are about how reality works in an abstract sense - which is why they are considered objective. The laws of nature as determined by science are about actual physical phenomena within reality - therefore objective. Whereas, the question of beauty is about what the subject would find attractive - which is why it is subjective. Similarly, the units of measurement may have been chosen arbitrarily - but they are defined according to some independent physical phenomena (swing of a pendulum for time or a specific rod being kept somewhere) - and given that fact, they are no longer dependent on the subject and thus are considered objective. On the other hand, the units of measurement that do depend upon the subject - such as a pinch, a fistful, an arm's length - are, correctly, regarded as subjective.
Now, let's step into murkier waters - where the object is not obviously dependent on something physical. But then, for something to be objective, it need not necessarily depend on something physical. Take the rules for engaging in scientific inquiry. Are those rules subjective? Science is about determining facts regarding how nature works - this much, while established arbitrarily, is a conceptual fact. That purpose is inherent within the concept of science. Thus, what we need to do in order to determine those facts in not up to subject. Those rules are determined by rational consideration of how nature works and that is why they are objective. On the other hand, consider language. Language is informing you about what is in my mind. In order for the communication to work, we know that ideas must be expressed in specific forms and with specific words that cannot be changed arbitrarily. That would be the one objective rule of language. However, this tells you nothing about what those forms or words should be - which is why, the rest of the rules are subjective. So, according to this, we can establish that subjective entities can come up with objective standards if the goal of those standards is inherent to the object they apply to.
Which brings us to morality. The problem here is that we do not know of any inherent goals applicable to human actions. For morality to be objective, it needs an end that can be determined by the nature of morality itself. And while different philosophers have come up with different ideas about this purpose, they usually end up regarding their chosen purpose as self-evident and do not bother to justify it. For example, "morality is about minimizing harm", "it is about greatest happiness to greatest numbers", "it is about getting closer to god" - these are all claims regarding the purpose of morality and if any of them could be justified as being a derivative of the concept of morality itself, then that moral system would be objective. But, as long as that is not established, all we can do is assume that the goal is set according to the law-givers subjective wish - whether that law-giver be a philosopher or a god - which makes it subjective as well.
