Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

I'll grant that most will find it easy to dismiss subjective morality when defined as "the Subject shall act rightly in accordance with any whim at any given time to a given moral situation," but that's not my position so I don't really care to defend it. Like I said, I define subjective morality by the simple fact that values are strictly derived from individual experience and in this regard lack any objective quality. To say that something is wrong is only to say that you strongly disagree or dislike the intentions or the consequences involved. I would be more than happy to hear someone establish the existence of Plato's "the Good" in a credible manner but I doubt you'll accomplish much in the way of persuasion if your resources are limited to appeal to imaginary friends.  

If I am to understand what you are saying correctly you are saying that subjective morality is defined by the initial acceptance of a given Subject of a given schema of morality?  After such time it is then contended that the Subject in question will adhere to that schema regardless of any subsequent determinations by the Subject.

Alas I fail to understand how this even remotely constitutes subjective morality as the Subject is not permitted to act subjectively at any point beyond the initial point (a subjective morality that is not subjective).  I would imagine that based on this description most on this forum would hold that you have given a definition of subjective morality tantamount to handing ones moral judgments over to some type of fundamentalist blind faith in a schema.  You know Religion

You seem to be confusing facts and values. Of course there is an objective source for facts about the world... namely, the world, by which we receive impressions via the senses, and these obviously in contradistinction to the objects of pure thought.

It would appear that Kant, Einstein, and I are making the same confusion.  As the contention of each of us is that the value of subjective things is determined by some objective truth or reality.   Otherwise we have to say the value of subjective things is determined by the subject itself and thus everything is of equal value.

Yeah... persons who value the well-being of their species would find many of the acts committed in the name of divine inspiration utterly disgusting, while those who believe their actions are in accordance with the will of the Supreme Being would feel their actions perfectly justified.

I would correct this to say persons who value the well-being of their species would find many of the acts committed in the name of divine inspiration utterly fantastic.   Then I would point you to the prominent everyday role religions have played in education, law, science, social advancement, protection of the populace from oppression, and social relief and aid.   Though this is what they are doing 98% of the time you are going to want to focus on the 2% that supports your belief.

Rarely (if ever) do religions expressly state to commit atrocities.  But religion is practiced by the Subject who though accepting the schema will still act in such a manner according to their whim (subjective morality).  Naturally they will seek justification for that whim wherever they can find it and by means of distortions when possible or necessary.  The desire is to blame the religion as if the persons in question could not have distorted anything else to justify their desired course of action.

I don't see how what you consider a "proxy objective morality" is contrary to my conception of subjective morality at all. Ethical theories as diverse as Moses', Aristotle's, Bentham's, and Kant's, for example, all claim a modus operandi that each would proclaim as providing objectivity... and what are you left with? Many competing "objective moralities" that are ultimately determined by each philosopher's (subjective) evaluation of "the Good."

A proxy objective morality would be contra to the concept of a subjective morality in that final evaluation of the rightness or wrongness of the act shall not be subjective, but shall be in regards to the schema.  The proxy objective morality attempts to approach the actual objective morality by means of various imperfect schemas.  Ideally the proxy objective morality shall no longer be a proxy of the actual, but shall indeed be the actual objective morality.

Aristotle recognize that morality may more commonly be found in the median and created a schema based on this that is an imperfect effort to approximate actual objective morality (I am a fan of the Golden Mean as well).  Bentham recognized that morality while be exercised by the self, effects and affects beyond the self and thus should not be evaluated in terms of the self.  He built a schema upon this to approximate actual objective morality based on moral valuation not determined by the self.  Kant recognized that in order for the morality of any Subject to have any validity it must appeal to the actual objective morality.  In short they are not competing objective moralities.  Per realism they are all imperfect representation of the actual objective morality.

”The truth is the simplest and most complicated thing to have existed.  While no man misses it entirely, no man hits it precisely.” - Aristotle

With regards to your question about Aristotle, are you asking in reference to Nicomachean Ethics or his broader contribution to philosophy? I find his conception of the good life and his arguments about the "golden mean" compelling... but then again, I also believe that nothing could really be more important than for a human being to live their one short life with as much happiness and peace as possibly attainable, so I value things conducive to that end, such as health, friendship, freedom, security... whereas the religious ascetic who believes that all fortunes in earthly life amount to nothingness in comparison to the bliss that awaits in eternity, for those who appease the notion of deity as contained in their holy scriptures, is obviously going to have quite a different standard of morality than mine.

I had no questions about Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (As I am a realist and a huge fan).  We are in agreement on the importance of a human being to live their life.  Though theist do not contend as you do that this life is meaningless compared to the bliss of the next.  To theist the cause is greater than the effect, this life precedes the next where ones conduct and choices will be reflected.  As stated by Aristotle: “Virtue is not an innate condition but a form of habit. We become virtues by doing virtuous things.”  As such it may be said that in order to attain eternal virtue one must first attain a habit of present virtue.

You only live once…  So you better make it count!

They would be compelled to comply with such a rule to the extent that they value X (well-being, rational principles, etc.)... which again, that one ought to do so I believe is a subjective determination that has no basis outside of what said individual defines as most important to them.

Again you are arguing a subjective morality that is not subjective other than the initial adoption.  After that the Subject is compelled to comply with the rule adopted.  Now if you are to try and say that the Subject adopts rule X and complies with that rule only when X is in accordance with his subjective evaluations.  The question follows, what does the Subject due when the rule X does not comport with the Subjects subjective evaluations.  It is assumed that your answer will be they will act according to their subjective evaluation rather than according to rule X.  In which case you are wasting your time designating a rule X when the underlying truth is the Subject acts according to their subjective evaluations (which just so happened to commonly coincide with some rule X).  If this is your answer than we are talking about the subjective morality which I am referring to where each acts according to their whim in any given situation at any given time.

Now if you do not contend this position then you are saying (as stated above) that the Subject must act in accordance to the rule X they have adopted even if that rule does not agree with their subjective evaluation.  This is far from a subjective morality but is the beginning of the process to an objective morality by first adopting an objective proxy which shall serve as the determination of the moral quality of a given action.  This proxy is to be continually refined until one finally grasps the objective morality which shall serve as the determinate of the moral quality of actions.

Ha! I would agree with Schopenhauer that the term God defined honestly implies personality... which is to say, neither Plato's Forms nor Aristotle's notions of causality gets you quite so far... and while you may be able to infer the objective existence of almost anything you like so long as you can imagine it existing as such, I don't concede that you would always be rational in doing so.

Kant’s critique of Plato and Aristotle are the same. That while that which is commonly referred to as God may be inferred from epistemology, ontology, or teleology, none of those inference give rise to the particular personality of God.   However, we were talking about sufficient proof/evidence to make the inference of God no matter how vaguely understood or ill defined.  To which I made my response that there is sufficient proof/evidence of the three fields of knowledge to infer the possible probable existence of God though vaguely understood or ill defined.

As was told to Stimbo and Benny earlier on in this thread; through the various forms of knowledge you can get to the existence of objective reality.  You can further consolidate all aspects of that objective reality into a single entity which may be termed God.  But one cannot get to a specific personification of God without some kind of leap of faith or imagination.  The various forms of knowledge can get you 99% of the way there but it will not get you that last 1%.  And since God needs to be 100% proven (unlike anything else, which is the argument of the threshold of proof) that 1% is deemed (by those who are opposed to the inference) sufficient to say absolutely not!!!  We anthropomorphize any number of inanimate or animate objects, but when it comes to anthropomorphizing the God inferred by epistemology, ontology, or teleology, to get that last 1%...THEN WE ARE BEING RIDICULOUS!!

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. It sounds to me that you're trying to divorce consciousness from the brain, which I would say is not only radically unfounded in any logic or evidence (but then, what do you even mean by "consciousness" in such a sense?), but also, the brain is with every possible sound reason held responsible for generating the phenomena we understand to be consciousness, which is why I call it physical.

I am stating there is a difference between physiological reaction to stimiuli and metaphysical consciousness.  To your point I will concede the reactionary meat has a nerve center which responds to input stimuli with output stimuli (the means by which this nerve center produces the given output for the given input shall go undiscussed at present).  However, this sensory input/output paring at best is implicit circumstantial empirical proof/evidence of metaphysical consciousness and is not explicit direct empirical proof/evidence of metaphysical consciousness.  There does not need to be a consciousness present to match input any more than there is consciousness present in a calculator that provides any number of outputs based on the inputs entered.

That you think Darwin did not demonstrate consciousness to have evolved (as a production of physicals brains, which are an integral part of numerous organisms that he did demonstrate to have evolved) makes me wonder if you believe that your consciousness developed with the brain from infancy... or perhaps you think, like Socrates, that your "metaphysical consciousness" is eternal and transmigrated from one living creature to the next? Maybe your deus ex machina specially implants it in the shape of a small "metaphysical seed" late in fetal development? Perhaps consciousness floated along in a vacuum prior to finding a channel that could sustain it? Maybe you drank from the River of Forgetfulness in Hades which is why you don't recall your earlier forms of consciousness? And when you go to sleep, perhaps your metaphysical consciousness "decides" to cooperate with your body?

While I am a fan of evolution and believe it whole heartedly I must say Darwin did not demonstrate such nor does he even make reference to such in the Origin of Species.  Darwin contends that species shall adapt to their environment by means of natural selection.  He does not stipulate this adaptation shall be evolutionary or devolutionary; only that it will be more suited to the environment subsequent the change.  Darwin also focused on the evolution of plants and horticulture for his work which are devoid of the integral brains yet still evolved.  Now as living things plants react to their environment and respond to stimuli.  Are you contending they are conscious because they do so?  Are you contending they are not conscious because they have a peripheral nervous system rather than a central nervous system?

Ha ha.  I am going to have fun with this and say can you prove or have evidence that none of those alternatives are the case?  Naturally I am going to need explicit direct empirical proof/evidence.  I am willing to bet you cannot so they are hypothesis to consciousness

It must be convenient to have this notion on hand that is so ill-defined and elastic that it can literally fit into every possible gap of ignorance that human brilliance has yet to fill. Thunderstorms? God. Orbit of the planets? God. Morality? God. Consciousness? God.

Needless to say, I find that pretty boring and undifferentiated from saying "I don't know," which is to my mind far less arrogant, far more honest, and actually useful in stimulating both curiosity and conversation.

That it is!!!    For what it is worth I am an ardent support of strict adherence to the ideology that God may never serve as the foundation of an argument.   In order to avoid the very caricature you are making above.  Inference of God by epistemology, ontology, and teleology where not predicated upon the existence of God at the beginning of the arguments and avoid the caricature.

I find saying, “It just might be.  What else would that mean if it were” far more stimulating to curiosity and conversation than “I don’t know”.   Generally I would consider I don’t know the death knell of conversations.

...Except that you tried to invoke such rules in arguing for the objective existence of abstract goods, which you left undemonstrated, and not---as Einstein did---for the utility of the scientific method as a means of discovering facts about the physical world.

HA HA!!  Einstein left the great majority of his assertions undemonstrated for more than 20 years!! Some for more than 40 years!!

And the demonstration of his assertions is again by synthetic aposteriori or implicit circumstantial empirical evidence.  The same evidence which may be utilized in the inference and assertion of God.  As I said before, I endeavor to maintain the same threshold of proof for God as all other knowledge including scientific.

Don't you think that when persons and cultures, as diversely represented by secularists/atheists, polytheists, and monotheists as the pursuit of knowledge and education has been, are all able to contribute to that project, which pertains exclusively to the world around us and to our endeavors to accurately conceive of it, then perhaps it might suggest that any particular theology that is either invoked out of piety or security isn't really very crucial to that project, even though it has often proven an impediment? Or would you be under the illusion that Homer not only must have really believed in the power of the Muses to compose epic poetry, but such a belief is an integral part to doing so? That would be beyond ridiculous.

Historically it would be far from ridiculous and more akin to factual. Though I do confess that I find it sad that anyone would fail to recognize the prominence belief and faith have played in scientific, social, and cultural advancement.  Many of the greatest works of art, music, and literature were inspired by the belief in the imaginary guy(s) in the sky.  The belief of unity of all things with the single creator of all things and the desire to understand that creator lead to many of the breakthroughs in science.  You may not like it.  But history really does show that the belief in the imaginary guy(s) in the sky has led to the majority of advancement and masterpieces we know and love.

I thought we had an agreement  But you went continuum fallacy quick?   From circumstantial implicit empirical proof/evidence one may infer the existence of God such that it may be posited God is possible (which is to say probable even if slightly so) though vaguely defined or apprehended. If possible; then slightly probable; if slightly probable then probable (though not necessarily likely). To subsequent state that possibility cannot be an actuality simply because there is not a discreet point for determining the exact probability of the possibility to be an actuality is application of the continuum fallacy; akin to saying unless you can tell me exactly how many hairs a person must have on their head to be bald (or no longer bald) than you cannot infer that the removal of hairs from a person’s head who is not bald will make them bald.

(bold mine)
We can apply Hitchen's razor here and move on since you're just repeating assertions that I already repeatedly said I reject.

I reject your rejection and consider your assertion without evidence as greater claim than my own (as my claim is predicted on epistemological, ontological, and teleological inference and I have yet to hear your evidence on why I may not make such inference to support your rejection).   As such we may apply Hitchen’s razor in like manner and your rejection is unfounded.  I await your evidence disproving my inferences or to reject your rejection without evidence.

And seriously, if you're going to accuse someone of a fallacy, you should at least know when it is and when it is not appropriate to employ. An argumentum ad populum fallacy would require a person to argue that X is true because (at least in part) Y number of people agree... which is clearly not what I said. Please do try to be more attentive to what I write.

I believe the comment was in regards to your statement that many modern philosophers find the previous logic of philosopher supporting an epistemological, ontological, and teleological inference of God onerous.  In which case the implication of your statement is that because many (argumentum ad numerum or populum) modern (argument ad novitatem) philosopher find the logic onerous than it is likely that logic is invalid.  I assure you I am paying proper attention to what you are writing and the implications therein.