Is there such a thing as morality or ethics?

_{News
October 17, 2021

Ethics, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, theism

6}_{Categories
Ethics
Intelligent Design
Naturalism
theism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty now challenges neurosurgeon Michael Egnor: There is no way to know whether a moral doctrine represents any reality apart from belief:

Michael Egnor: You’ve agreed with me that there are people who act out of respect for an objective moral law.
Matt Dillahunty: I agree with you there are people who act that way because of their belief and whether they believe it’s objective or not is irrelevant. They can believe it’s subjective and still do it. [01:29:30]
Michael Egnor: So, you don’t believe that it’s objectively wrong, for example, to kill innocent people, or rape babies, or exterminate the Jews?
Matt Dillahunty: Hang on. We just went through a whole bunch of stuff and when you got to a point where it was exposed that you were wrong about what you said, you went back to: I don’t think it’s objectively wrong to rape people and kill babies. That’s not what we were just discussing. We were discussing altruism and whether or not there’s a justification for it.
Michael Egnor: Yeah. But it’s what we’re discussing now, Matt. My question is, is it objectively wrong to do certain things, outside of opinions? [01:30:00]
Matt Dillahunty: I’ve already answered this and I’m sorry that you don’t understand it. I will try one more time.
When you declare what a foundation of morality is, once that’s done, you can compare the consequences of various actions with respect to that foundation, with respect to that goal. That comparison can be objective in the same way that the rules of chess are ultimately arbitrary. They didn’t have to be that way. We made up the game. It is objectively against the rules for you to move your pawn forward four spaces at the beginning of the game. Now, you can say, is it objectively wrong? Well, no, we could have house rules, but we’re talking about these rules.
News, “8. Does morality really exist? If so, does it come from God?” at Mind Matters News

C.S. Lewis (1898–1963) certainly disagreed with Dillahunty in The Abolition of Man (1943), where he talks about the Tao that forms the basis of all human morality.

Takehome: Michael Egnor insists that a moral law exists independently of varying opinions. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, that has always been the traditional view worldwide.

The debate to date:

Debate: Former atheist neurosurgeon vs. former Christian activist. At Theology Unleashed, each gets a chance to state his case and interrogate the other. In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and broadcaster Matt Dillahunty clash over the existence of God.
A neurosurgeon’s ten proofs for the existence of God. First, how did a medic, formerly an atheist, who cuts open people’s brains for a living, come to be sure there is irrefutable proof for God? In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, Michael Egnor and Matt Dillahunty clash over “Does God exist?” Egnor starts off.
Atheist Dillahunty spots fallacies in Christian Egnor’s views. “My position is that it’s unacceptable to believe something if the available evidence does not support it.” Dillahunty: We can’t conclusively disprove an unfalsifiable proposition. And that is what most “God” definitions, at least as far as I can tell, are.
Egnor now tries to find out what Dillahunty actually knows… About philosophical arguments for the existence of God, as he begins a rebuttal. Atheist Dillahunty appears unable to recall the philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which poses a challenge for Egnor in rebutting him.
Egnor, Dillahunty dispute the basic causes behind the universe. In a peppery exchange, Egnor argues that proofs of God’s existence follow the same logical structure as proofs in science. If the universe begins in a singularity (where Einstein’s equations break down), what lies behind it? Egnor challenges Dillahunty on that.
Is Matt Dillahunty using science as a crutch for his atheism? That’s neurosurgeon Michael Egnor’s accusation in this third part of the debate, which features a continued discussion of singularities, where conventional “laws of nature” break down.
If the “supernatural” means “outside of conventional nature,” Michael Egnor argues, science routinely accepts it, based on evidence.
Dillahunty asks 2nd oldest question: If God exists, why evil? In the debate between Christian neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty, the question of raping a baby was bound to arise.
Egnor argues that there is an objective moral law against such acts; Dillahunty argues, no, it is all just human judgment.
Does morality really exist? If so, does it come from God? Matt Dillahunty now challenges Michael Egnor: There is no way to know whether a moral doctrine represents any reality apart from belief. Michael Egnor insists that a moral law exists independently of varying opinions. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, that has always been the traditional view worldwide.

You may also wish to read:

Science can and does point to God’s existence. Michael Egnor: Natural science is not at all methodologically naturalist — it routinely points to causes outside of nature. If we are to understand natural effects, we must be open to all kinds of causes, including causes that transcend nature.

The Divine Hiddenness argument against God’s existence = nonsense. God in Himself is immeasurably greater than we are, and He transcends all human knowledge. A God with whom we do not struggle — who is not in some substantial and painful way hidden to us — is not God but is a mere figment of our imagination.

Atheist Claims about logical fallacies often just mean: Shut Up! In the recent debate, Matt Dillahunty accuses theists of “the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity” because we examine his claims and find them incredible. What atheists fear most is having to explain themselves, and the invocation of fictitious “fallacies” is one of their favorite ways to evade scrutiny.

and

Theists vs. atheists: Which group has the burden of proof? Because Dillahunty refuses to debate me again, I’ll address his claim that atheists have no burden of proof in the debate over God’s existence in this post. Both atheists and theists make positive statements about the nature of the universe. If atheists shun the ensuing burden of proof, it should count against them.

Comments

Kairosfocus @151, Nicely summarized. I'd also note that the person who gets to frame an argument in their own terms has already won, which is why I reject binary philosophical classifications. What follows them are pointless and endless arguments. -QQuerius_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PST}

Subjectivity can be seen as? Quoting some arbitrary dictionary, quoting an arbitrary invidual John Hoberman? 1+1=2. Subjectivity is that a personal opinion is chosen, and that a personal opinion expresses what it is that makes a choice. Any other definition of it is wrong. Although the definition could be improved on in the details. The definition means that the subjective part of reality, is the part of reality that makes choices. It also means the subjective part of reality, creates the objective part of reallity, because choice is the mechanism of creation.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PST}

ET @148, While it's obvious to many people that our culture is collapsing due to moral corruption in all our institutions, there's no shortage of people who will argue about it all the way down. And when their pointless argumentation fails, the next step is legal coercion, and the next is simply force. It's all happened before, which is why our leaders feel that it's essential to erase our knowledge of history. Less embarrassing that way. -QQuerius_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PST}

F/N: I observe a suspicious switch of terms or two, so I note for record, MNY having refused to be simply civil:
he proof that objective morality is nothing but corruption, is that your understanding of subjectivity is wrong
For the record: 1 --> the issue at stake is the credible existence of objective, so, well warranted, moral truths, where it is noted that our individual and group perceptions are prone to errors. 2 --> therefore as a matter of prudence we should do due diligence to truth on the subject of morality, involving right reason and sound warrant. 3 --> where, morality is the study, practice and substance of right conduct, i.e. of fulfillment of the prime duties of responsible, rational, significantly free, self-moved agents. 4 --> such duties having been identified as involving the Ciceronian first duties of reason, which are inescapable, inescapably true, self-evident and well warranted thus constitute objective, known moral truths. These guide and guard, they do not force compliance. 5 --> namely, duties to truth, right reason, prudence (including warrant), sound conscience, neighbour, so too fairness and justice, etc. It being known that these first principles can be elaborated in analysis and identification of codes, including the Decalogue, and onward sound civil law. 6 --> This was historically done and played key parts in developing major reforms of genuine liberation. 7 --> In that context, subjectivity can be seen as the substance of conscious experiences of an agent of this order such as we are. 8 --> AmHD:
sub·jec·tive (s?b-j?k?t?v) adj. 1. a. Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: "The sensation of pain is a highly subjective experience that varies by culture as well as by individual temperament and situation" (John Hoberman). b. Based on a given person's experience, understanding, and feelings; personal or individual: admitted he was making a highly subjective judgment. 2. Psychology Not caused by external stimuli. 3. Medicine Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or complaint perceived by a patient. 4. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
9 --> Where, such, as noted, can be error prone leading to concerns about objective moral truths. As was already addressed in outline. 10 --> As a note on the other side of axiology, beauty prompts an intuitive response of aesthetic appreciation and is demonstrably subject to intelligible principles of skilled composition. Though, our senses can be warped or dulled here, too. See London's spoiled skyline. KFkairosfocus_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PST}

ET:When same sex couples can procreate with their chosen partner they can have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Lots of heterosexual couples are unable to procreate. Would you care to rethink your criteria? It is all just a scheme to undermine society. Just a bit paranoid are we? Heck, some 84 million complete imbeciles voted for Joe Biden. And now the USA is paying a big price for their stupidity. And what price is that pray tell?JVL_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PST}

@querius The proof that objective morality is nothing but corruption, is that your understanding of subjectivity is wrong. It is not some kind of coincedence that you support objective morality, and are also clueless about subjectivity. There is only 1 correct answer to the question of how subjectivity works. Your answer is wrong. Which means your ideas about love, emotions in general, personal character, God, choices, must therefore also be wrong.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PST}

JVL:
Sounds like a good argument for gay marriage to me.
Anything sounds like a good argument for gay, ie same sex, marriage to you. You don't need marriage to love someone.
In the sense that loving your neighbour means supporting and standing up for him, treating him with respect and dignity, giving him the same civil rights as you.
When same sex couples can procreate with their chosen partner they can have the same rights as heterosexual couples. The ONLY reason for the same-sex marriage push is because insurance companies refused to allow same sex partners the same coverage as married heterosexual couples. All other alleged benefits are available to unmarried same sex couples. It is all just a scheme to undermine society. And it's working. Heck, some 84 million complete imbeciles voted for Joe Biden. And now the USA is paying a big price for their stupidity. They are pretty much the same people who support same sex marriage.ET_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PST}

PS: A reminder. First duties of reason as core, built-in law of our morally governed nature:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable . . . first duties of reason: "Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to their legitimate authority; inescapable, so first truths of reason, i.e. they are self-evidently true and binding. Namely, Ciceronian first duties,
1st - to truth, 2nd - to right reason, 3rd - to prudence [including warrant], 4th - to sound conscience, 5th - to neighbour; so also, 6th - to fairness and 7th - to justice [ . . .] xth - etc.
Likewise, we observe again, that objectors to such duties cannot but appeal to them to give their objections rhetorical traction (i.e. s/he must imply or acknowledge what we are, morally governed, duty-bound creatures to gain any persuasive effect). While also those who try to prove such cannot but appeal to the said principles too. So, these principles are a branch on which we all must sit, including objectors and those who imagine they are to be proved and try. That is, these are manifestly first principles of rational, responsible, honest, conscience guided liberty and so too a built-in framework of law; yes, core natural law of human nature. Reason, inescapably, is morally governed. Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we sometimes seek to evade duties or may make inadvertent errors does not overthrow such first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law, then, is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
kairosfocus_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PST}

JVL, there is no need to entertain fashionable colour of law hobby horses, save to note that intelligible natural law is of universal jurisdiction and marriage is literally written into our XX and XY genes. KFkairosfocus_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PST}

Kairosfocus: and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Sounds like a good argument for gay marriage to me. In the sense that loving your neighbour means supporting and standing up for him, treating him with respect and dignity, giving him the same civil rights as you.JVL_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PST}

Mohammadnursyamsu @133, Have you ever heard the saying that all True-False questions on exams are ultimately false? Try it out. True/False: The sky is blue. True/False: The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. and so on. In courts of law, prosecutors often try to trap the accused or witnesses with questions such as "Yes or no, have you ever contemplated . . . " leading them down a yes/no path that destroys their credibility. How much more can one get misled by trying to fit everything into exactly two categories, which themselves are subject to interpretation and controversy? That's all I'm going to say on the subject. -QQuerius_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PST}

PS: I suspect MNY does not recognise that the concept of an intelligible built in law of our nature witnessed by conscience and acknowledged by sound states long predates Darwin et al and has often been understood as laws of Nature and God in Blackstone's terms, 1765. KFkairosfocus_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PST}

Origines, kindly note the context Paul makes in Rom 2 and 13:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . . 13: 8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
The Decalogue is involved indeed but is then also set in a wider context of intelligible, built in law attested to by conscience: implications of the neighbour love principle. KFkairosfocus_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PST}

MNY:
You talking about a lawgiver and objective morality, ....
When Christians talk about "objective morality" they refer to God as a lawgiver and laws such as the ones presented in his 10 commandments.
MNY: ... and then combine that with natural selection being a law of nature, then obviously social darwinism would ensue. ...
Why in the blue blazes would anyone combine the biblical 10 commandments with "natural selection"? What does that look like? I have never heard of such a thing.
MNY: ... Except for having the benefit of the history of the holocaust, showing that social darwinism leads to disaster.
I have no idea what you are talking about.Origenes_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PST}

Objective morality is the overriding main cause in ideology, of both nazi and communist attrocities. That is my analysis about it. And obviously both nazis and communists would also still talk about love and such. You talking about a lawgiver and objective morality, and then combine that with natural selection being a law of nature, then obviously social darwinism would ensue. Except for having the benefit of the history of the holocaust, showing that social darwinism leads to disaster.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PST}

@Origenes KF saying so that opinions about beauty aren't chosen, is no argumentation. There are lower level decisionmaking processes involved in forming an opinion that the painting is beautiful. The lower level decisionmaking processes then present the resulting opinion to the higher level decisionmaking processes, as a basically finished opinion. So in that sense an opinion on beauty is not chosen, in that normally the higher level decisionmaking processes aren't doing any choosing on it. But in case of considering an opinion on a painting by Hitler, then higher level decisionmaking processes could be engaged in choosing an opinion whether the painting is beautiful. Subjectivity is logical. Subjectivity is solely about expressing what it is that makes a choice. That is the function of subjectivity. And only chosen opinions can express what it is that makes a choice, facts do not apply to that.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PST}

What's the reason for for instance, school shootings in the USA? Lack of objective morality in schools, or schools having thrown out the basic understanding of making choices, subjectivity and emotions, in throwing out creationism? It is very obvious that if you throw love out the window, that you can expect chaos.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PST}

MNY
To say a painting is beautiful, the opinion is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, therefore chosen.
To say "this painting is beautiful", to put it differently, lie about it or not to say anything at all, is a matter of free choice, as I have said several times already. To actually find a painting beautiful, to have a "beauty response", as KF puts it, is NOT a matter of free choice. MNY:
To be forced to say the painting is beautiful, provides a logically invalid personal opinion.
Maybe so. But it is irrelevant to the matter at hand. MNY:
(...) subjective means, that it can only be identified with a chosen opinion, and objective means that it is identified with a 1 to 1 corresponding model. That is the logic underlying ordinary subjective statements, like to say, “I find this painting beautiful”, and ordinary objective statements, like to say, “there is a camel out back”.
We can use different words for both expressions, for "I find this painting beautiful” and for "there is a camel out back”. The fact that we have freedom of choice WRT our expressions obviously does not tell us which of the statements is subjective or objective.Origenes_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PST}

Sandy, 118:
Why atheists argue for truth and try to bring evidences(no matter how true or false) in their favor? Because they can’t escape from the basic rule of moral law to JUSTIFY YOUR BEHAVIOUR. The fact of appealing to false evidences doesn’t change that unwritten rule of trying to explain why they hold a particular opinion.
Yes, this is a case of the branch on which we all must sit. A mark of inescapable first truths. Here, regarding duty and right conduct. The attempt to assert and expect acceptance of the claim, there are no objective moral truths is thus doubly incoherent. First, it is itself an appeal to the duties it would overthrow. Second, it is or directly implies a truth claim about duty. It is self-referentially incoherent and self-defeating. Thus, an error and point of confusion. However, many will regard truth claims about abstract principles as suspect, as not subject to scientific inquiry. They need to look at mathematics and logic and take pause. Then, they need to realise that first duties of reason are antecedent to and foundational for both Mathematics and Science. But many will stoutly resist as they fear that built in law of our nature points to a lawgiver antecedent to our existence; one, who is author of that nature and its built-in intelligible laws. One who is inherently good and utterly wise, necessary being creator, whose laws are in key parts intelligible, non-arbitrary and wholesome. KF KFkairosfocus_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PST}

Origines, indeed, the beauty response is spontaneous and not directly chosen. However, recognition of beauty can be warped or dulled on one side, or enhanced and refined on the other. KFkairosfocus_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PST}

MNY, only in your imagination have I discarded the subjective. I have consistently highlighted an uncontroversial epistemological point, that we are prone to error and so need to warrant knowledge claims. In the context of morality, drawing on Ciceronian first duties and noting Epictetus' point on inescapable first principles -- branch on which we all must sit -- I have concluded for cause that duties to truth, right reason, prudence (including warrant), sound conscience, neighbour, so too fairness and justice etc are inescapable and so inescapably true. I highlighted that even would be objectors cannot but appeal to our intuitive recognition and knowledge of those duties. A point which you actually exemplify in your untoward insinuations about lying and lack of innocence etc. Such accusations imply duties to truth, sound conscience, neighbour etc. Conscience, BTW is an inner and subjective voice, others have no direct access to one's conscience. However, it can become dulled, benumbed, endarkened, hardened, calloused, silenced, warped. In the past, many were dulled to racial injustices etc. Accordingly its soundness must be safeguarded, hence other duties that lead to warrant and prudence, so too the validity and value of objective moral truth, truths about duty. Where for particular corrective example, duty to neighbour . . . to love neighbour [hardly cold-hearted calculation!] . . . implies duty to value, respect, cherish and to do no harm thus doing first duties of justice etc. Recognising objectivity of duties to justice -- due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities -- is not the cause of grave moral wrongs by Nazis, Communists or Capitalists for that matter. I repeat, well founded warrant is an appeal to duty, not force. And more, for record. KFkairosfocus_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PST}

@querius You are obviously breaking down and discarding subjectivity in general, not just my explanation of it. To say a painting is beautiful, the opinion is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, therefore chosen. To be forced to say the painting is beautiful, provides a logically invalid personal opinion. You assert personal opinions aren't chosen, which means you consider personal opinions to be forced, while forced opinions are logically invalid. There is things being forced, cause and effect, and things chosen, possibilities and decision. There isn't any other mechanism, as far as I know. Obviously the word "chair" was chosen when it was coined. But otherwise the word chair, in it's use, is forced. The evidence forces to the conclusion that a chair is there. The evidence does not force to the conclusion that a love for the way the painting looks is there. Objective words are forced in their use, subjective words are chosen in their use. The word "beautiful", expresses a love for the way the painting looks. Out of this love the word beautiful was chosen to be spoken. Which means the emotion love is on the side of what makes a choice. That is the only logic function of emotions, to do the job of making a decision turn out A instead of B. Obviously you have no understanding of emotions, which is an outrage. 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact Emotions belong in category 1, as being an attribute of a creator. Personal character like courage, cowardice, likewise belongs in category no 1. That means emotions can only be identified with a chosen opinion. It is a matter of chosen opinion whether someone has love in their heart. Q Is it true that social darwinism is objective morality? A Yes, and lots of religious accepted God's law of natural selection as prescriptive Very obviously, objective morality leads people to be emtionless and calculating in moral issues, because that is the attitude that is appropriate for objective issues.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PST}

MN:
The word “beautiful” is chosen, in spontaneous expression of emotion with free will.
Sure. Every word a person uses is chosen. But that is besides the point. As I said, it is not a choice to find a painting beautiful or not. MN:
The emotion is not chosen ...
Correct. Indeed, it is not a choice to find a painting beautiful or not. MN:
... the emotion is doing the choosing ...
Nonsense. An emotion is not a person. Only persons make choices. MN:
You can tell that this is how it works, by the wide variety in personal expression of a single individual. The painting is beautiful, it’s great, marvelous etc. All the variety in expression is proof that it operates in a free way, which is by choice.
The fact that we can use different words, different languages even, to express ourselves does not tell us that the things we express are matters of choice, as you erroniously seem to argue. Again, it is not a matter of choice to find a painting beautiful or not. MN:
For religious to promote objective morality, it basically means to promote social darwinism. Social darwinism is objective morality. Saying natural selection is the will of God.
You completely misunderstand what people like Kairosfocus mean by "objective morality". You seem to have no grasp of the subject at all.Origenes_{October 24, 2021
October
10
Oct
24
24
2021
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PST}

I did my homework, figuring out what logic is used with objective statements, and subjective statements, in ordinary common discourse. It was rather simpler than the logic of tic tac toe, and much simpler than the rules of chess. The people who disregard subjectivity should get the judgement. Most clearly materialists, but I am getting the hang off it to pursue theists who disregard subjectivity as well. Discarding of subjectivity is not innocent.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 24, 2021
October
10
Oct
24
24
2021
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PST}

MNY, you have taken a step that is ill advised. KFkairosfocus_{October 24, 2021
October
10
Oct
24
24
2021
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PST}

Kairosfocus, I'm not sure anymore whether I'm being objective or subjective, but somehow I'm strangely reminded of Robert Benchley's famous observation that "There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't." -QQuerius_{October 24, 2021
October
10
Oct
24
24
2021
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PST}

@KF Your credibility that you take subjectivity seriously, is lacking. Because you assert morality as objective, and are ignorant of the basic logic of subjectivity. But I will say your comprehension of subjectivity is not exceptionally lacking. Generally everyone ignores subjectivity, and you are just one more who ignores it. It's still a total outrage. Somehow it does not click with you, that hey, subjectivity could be important. Even "importance" is subjective. The popsingers are singing about the subjective emotions, as the most important thing. It is the mainstay of religion. But still, you basically just ignore subjectivity. That is incomprehensible.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 24, 2021
October
10
Oct
24
24
2021
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PST}

MNY, please refrain from accusations like that; they are offensive beyond measure. Then too, I suggest that warrant of credible truth is not force but an appeal to duty before truth, right reason and prudence. KFkairosfocus_{October 24, 2021
October
10
Oct
24
24
2021
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PST}

@KF Objectivity does basically exclude freedom, because facts are FORCED by evidence. You are just talking outrageous lies. The truth of this matter is obvious, that the problem is that people reject subjectivity.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 24, 2021
October
10
Oct
24
24
2021
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PST}

MNY:
materialists conceive of making a choice, the same as like a chesscomputer calculating a move
That is the precise opposite of a choice on freely evaluated principles understood as first duties. principles that can be seen as self-evident and thus objectively the case as true. Objectivity as truth does not undermine or remove our freedom of choice. Indeed, duty is a concomitant of freedom, the voice of responsibility in response to discerning wisdom and soundness. Voices, manifestly, can be shut out, distorted or not heeded -- including conscience. Though, here, one would be ill advised not to heed. Also, in some cases, there needs to be considerable contemplation, evaluation, prudence and more to find the way of wisdom and virtue. All of which pivots on the built in freedom of the self-moved morally -- not mechanically and/or stochastically -- governed agent. The issue is not reality of agency or freedom but establishment of first duties as pervasive, binding, so not dubious or delusional figments of imagination or community pressure. That is, objective in the relevant sense. With, in the stakes, the possibility of individual and community moral growth through gradual renewal, reflection, reformation informed by well warranted principles. Something, which has been historically important and which now needs to be safeguarded against manipulation by ideologues who would impose evils and perversities on others under false colour of rights. A capital example being the slaughter of 800+ million unborn children over the past generation, mounting at another million per week. It is difficult to strike a balance, but that is the nature of philosophy, the department of hard fundamental questions including those of value, justice, beauty, ethics and truth. KFkairosfocus_{October 24, 2021
October
10
Oct
24
24
2021
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PST}

Prev 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 21 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply