Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

JDK argues against objective morality—by assuming the truth of objective morality.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Moral subjectivists never fail to entertain me when they try to make their philosophy seem reasonable and workable. UD commentator jdk, for example, doesn’t seem to realize how often his unstated assumptions undermine – or even nullify – the very points he is trying to make.

In one exchange, he denies the existence of objective morality, but he does say, nevertheless, that he “judges” murder to be wrong – not objectively wrong – but wrong in the sense that a moral judgment is a subjective act. So I asked him to explain why he “judges” murder to be wrong. He graciously (and courageously) answered the question , and I now follow with my analysis:

JDK: [I judge that murder is wrong] because my mature sense of love, compassion, and empathy for other human beings is such that I desire for them as much right to life as I desire for myself.

I admire the altruistic impulse that informs this comment, but I must begin with a qualifying question: How do you know that your sense of love, compassion, and empathy is “mature” unless there is some objective moral standard to differentiate between a mature sense and an immature sense?

According to the objective standard, mature love (Agape) involves an element of making sacrifices for the other, whereas immature love (Eros) is based simply on feelings and the thrill of being pleased by the other. Subjectivism, however, does not make these kinds of distinctions and cannot, therefore, identify what is mature and what is not.

To truly judge the act of murder, it is not enough to express wishes and desires. One must consider principled reasons why potential victims are entitled to live – what is it about them or their nature that gives them that right? – and why murderers deserve to be punished – what is it about their act that demands satisfaction? Subjective morality cannot even begin to address those issues.

JDK: I also recognize the benefits to society in general for a safe social structure that allows everyone to have a reasonable opportunity to become as well-developed human beings as they can, again motivated by a sense of connection to my fellow human beings through emotions such as love, compassion, and empathy.

Again, you have stepped into the arena of objective morality. In order to know what benefits society, one must first know what is good for society. Among other things, the good of survival is connected to the good of procreating the species, which in turn, is connected to the good of forming communities, all of which are objectively good benefits because they are consistent with man’s social nature. This all makes perfect sense.

Subjective morality, on the other hand, does not recognize natural goods or natural rights, or natural obligations. Thus, it cannot address the subject of what “benefits” society. That is why it is so dangerous. (Moral subjectivism is more than just an exercise in irrational thinking. When humans try to fashion their own morality, an immoral culture of misery and death always follows. If objective morality doesn’t exist, then the moral code [and the civil law derived from it] is whatever those who are in power want it to be, and they want what is good for them, always at the expense of everyone else).

Moving forward, how do you know when humans are “well-developed” unless you acknowledge some objective standard that determines when they reach that threshold? The question that cannot be avoided is: “Well developed compared to what?

Are humans well developed if they possess love, compassion, and empathy but lack persistence, courage, and loyalty? Objective morality answers that question with a firm no: a well-developed human being is one that has cultivated both the soft and the hard virtues. Subjective morality doesn’t even recognize virtues as virtues. Yet you pay a quiet tribute at least to the soft virtues (empathy etc.), which are objective in nature, though you shrug them off as mere “emotions.”

Further, if there are no “shoulds” then why do you imply that society should have a safe social structure? Isn’t it because a safe society is an objectively good situation to be aimed for and an unsafe society is an objectively bad situation to be avoided?

JDK: In part, I desire such a society because I know that I and the ones I most closely love and care about can’t have a reasonable maximum of happiness and satisfaction with our being in an unhealthy society, so I have a interest in everyone having somewhat the same opportunities I do.

Once again, you are appealing to objective standards by assuming that happiness is a good thing for humans and that a healthy society is an objectively good thing in itself. Even in the physical realm, there is a difference between the perception of good health, based on subjective appearances, and the confirmation of good health, measured by objective medical standards.

In spite of yourself, you recognize the self-evident truth that objective morality exists, both at the individual and societal level. So much so, that even in the process of denying it you end up confirming it against your will.

Comments
JDK, assuming a self referentially incoherent, self-falsifying statement true undermines any implications read from it, per ex falso quodlibet. It is comparable to a divide by zero error. KFkairosfocus
June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
JDK is giving us a classic example of how lying liars, when they are caught lying, never fess up and repent. Instead, they double down on their lies and attack the messenger. It is often astonishing to watch the depths to which a truly pathological liar like JDK will sink. Let’s review: At 5 JDK responded to the OP by saying: “There are other things I’ve written about essential reasons why Stephen et al are wrong . . .” If this means anything, it means that JDK claims to have written the essential reasons why Stephone is wrong. Simple English usage: To show the reason an argument is wrong is to refute it. At 21 I noted that rather than attempt to address Stephen’s argument in this post, JDK asserted that he has already refuted it in some nameless posts he refused to link to. At 22 JDK said he never claimed to have refuted Stephen’s arguments. This was an obvious and rather clumsy lie. At 97 I pointed out how JDK lied. Now we will see JDK’s classic lying liar attack: Instead of fessing up and apologizing for his reprehensible behavior, at 98 he goes on the warpath. First, he doubles down on the original lie by with linguistic quibbles (another classic tactic of the lying liar): The phrase “giving the essential reasons why Stephen is wrong” is not at all the same as “refuting Stephen’s argument.” I mean really. What is the point of pathological spewing like this? Now the attack: “The fact that Barry sees things this way reflects very poorly, in my opinion, on his character.” Well, JDK, if you ever decide to give up the Internet Troll business and emerge from your mother’s basement and mingle with the rest of us, one of the first things you will learn is that catching out people in lies is not generally considered to reflect poorly on the person doing the catching.Barry Arrington
June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
jdk
This is a distinction that Barry doesn’t get. I get the feeling that Barry is more driven by his antagonistic personal feelings than he is by an intellectually honest reading of the disputes under discussion.
I think Barry wants people to tell the truth. Clearly, you allude to an objective moral scale every time you use words and phrases like “poor” or “better.” There is no question about it. That is why I asked you to explain your meaning of the words “mature” and “true.” If you had not evaded the question, you would have had no choice but to explain that you were either [a] consciously misusing those words or [b] appealing to an objective moral scale. Words really do mean things in spite of your claims to the contrary. That is also why I asked you to disclose the point in the fetus’s developmental process where you would desire for it the same right to life that you desire for yourself. It would be a bit clumsy for you to say that you feel “mature compassion” for humans when, at the same time, you support the destruction of the most innocent among them. So you give yourself a pass at the moment of truth. The most telling thing of all, though, is the way you use one hilarious excuse after another for evading my questions. It began with “I’ve already addressed it,” to “I am being misrepresented,” to “we have already been there,” to “you edited out my comments, which confused me,” to - and, this is a direct quote, - “We’ve already seen how you respond to my answers to questions like that” [therefore, I am not going to answer]. Remarkable! Meanwhile, you offer distractions by telling us things that we already know. Yes, it is true that objective morality would not exist without God. Effects have a funny way of following causes. So what? It has nothing at all to do with the fact that objective morality can be known to exist without any reference to God. It has nothing at all to do with the fact that, as I have proven, subjectivists do not even believe their own sales pitch. The take home point here is that your position is both irrational and dangerous. Those who presume to become a law unto themselves automatically become irresponsible citizens and do great harm to the common good. Barry realizes that bad ideas have bad consequences and he thinks those ideas (not necessarily the people who hold them) should be mercilessly attacked. That is my position as well. I want what is best for you, but I don't want your bad ideas to survive (though they have already contaminated the culture). In truth, you feel the same way about my ideas. You wouldn't be here if you didn't feel that way, but you pretend to take a live and let live posture. The difference is that we can defend our ideas but you cannot defend your ideas.StephenB
June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
kairosfocus:
Now, notice how the above brims over with the assumption that in our thinking, reading, writing etc we have binding duties of care to truth, right, fairness etc? {As in, exactly as SB pointed out.]
Do they not see this?Mung
June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Allan Keith:
If morality is objective and universal, what was it doing for the first 13.7+ billion years?
It was avoiding answering nonsensical questions.Mung
June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
jdk:
What I wrote is true.
LMAO! You crack me up. Seriously. What I say is true. What is true ought to be believed. People have a moral obligation to give assent to and believe what is true. However, it is true that there are no objective moral standards that obligate anyone to believe that there are no objective moral standards, such that one ought to believe what is true and disbelieve what is false. But I like to act like there are. I just can't help myself. jdk:
What I wrote is true.
So what. Why should anyone care about whether what you say is true or false.Mung
June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
JDK: I don’t think you understand what “assume” means.
In this context, it means 'taken to be true.'
JDK: Your (2) is wrong, because assumptions are statements that are taken to be true without proof.
That's not what I argue in (2). (2) simply states that it is possible that true statements are proven true.
JDK: Euclidean geometry assumes that through a point not on a line one there is one and only one line parallel to the given line. This is a fundamental axiom. It can not be proven true. It is assumed as true, and thus serves as an unprovable starting point for Euclidean geometry. My belief that “any metaphysical statement is unprovable is likewise an assumption I make.
Unlike your position, Euclidean geometry doesn't break down at the moment that its assumptions are proven to be true. Get serious.Origenes
June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
I don't think you understand what "assume" means. Your (2) is wrong, because assumptions are statements that are taken to be true without proof. Euclidean geometry assumes that through a point not on a line one there is one and only one line parallel to the given line. This is a fundamental axiom. It can not be proven true. It is assumed as true, and thus serves as an unprovable starting point for Euclidean geometry. My belief that "any metaphysical statement is unprovable is likewise an assumption I make.jdk
June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
JDK: But I don’t claim to be able to prove that “any metaphysical statement is unprovable”. It is an assumption of my philosophical position.
You assume the truth of a statement that undercuts itself if proven to be true. Way to go JDK! (1) JDK assumes that the metaphysical statement “any metaphysical statement is unprovable” is true. (2) True statements can possibly be proven to be true. (3) If the metaphysical statement “any metaphysical statement is unprovable” is proven to be true, then it immediately refutes itself. Incoherence and self-defeat.Origenes
June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
Cute, Origenes. Who cuts the barber's hair? But I don't claim to be able to prove that "any metaphysical statement is unprovable”. It is an assumption of my philosophical position. I think I could support making that assumption with various arguments and evidence, but I don't claim to "prove it".jdk
June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
JDK: A critical piece of my philosophical position is that we can’t prove anything about metaphysics, because all metaphysical arguments start from unprovable assumptions.
So JDK, you have a self-defeating statement as a critical piece of your philosophical position. Way to go JDK, that explains a lot. 1. Any metaphysical statement is unprovable. 2. "Any metaphysical statement is unprovable" is itself a metaphysical statement. from (1) and (2) 3. It cannot be proven that "any metaphysical statement is unprovable". 4. "Any metaphysical statement is unprovable" is either self-defeating or meaningless.Origenes
June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
For the record, the word refute means to prove someone is wrong. A critical piece of my philosophical position is that we can't prove anything about metaphysics, because all metaphysical arguments start from unprovable assumptions. Stephen obviously believes in a God with which we have a moral relationship, and thus objective morals exist in principle. I can't prove Stephen wrong. I can explain what I think the source of moral language is, and what it means, if that assumption of God is not taken, so that objective morality doesn't exist. But there is no way I would claim to have "refuted" Stephen, because Stephen's logic proceeds from beginning unprovable assumptions that I don't accept. Therefore, I have tried to explain my position and give reasons for various points, but I have not explicitly or implicit claimed to have proven Stephen wrong: that is, I have not claimed to have refuted anything. This is a distinction that Barry doesn't get. I get the feeling that Barry is more driven by his antagonistic personal feelings than he is by an intellectually honest reading of the disputes under discussion.jdk
June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
re 97 1. I am not a materialist. 2. The distinct I made between offering reasons why I think Stephen is wrong and claiming to have refuted him, is valid. 3. This is the second time Barry has called me a liar when in fact all he has done has disagreed with my interpretation of a situation. To lie means to tell a deliberate falsehood, knowing the truth but speaking otherwise. I have not lied, and I am not a liar. The fact that Barry sees things this way reflects very poorly, in my opinion, on his character. As the owner of this site, and as a representative of those who believe in objective morals, I would think he would strive to exemplify some of those morals, including intellectual honesty and civility. As I have said before, one of the flaws in the arguments and behavior of those who speak for objective morality is the dogmatic self-righteousness of its adherents. Here we have a classic case in point.jdk
June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
JDK @ 5 in response to the OP:
There are other things I’ve written about essential reasons why Stephen et al are wrong . . .
Barry @ 21
Rather than even attempt to address Stephen’s argument, JDK insists on arguing that he has already refuted it in some nameless posts that he refuses to link to.
JDK @ 22:
I did not claim that I had refuted Stephen. All I said is that I’ve written lots lately because this subject has been the topic of multiple posts. Please represent me accurately.
As I have said a number of times, one of the main arguments against materialism is the conduct of its adherents. Here we have a classic case in point. JDK says he has written things that show Stephen is wrong. When I pointed out that JDK had been reduced to claiming he had written other things that refuted Stephen, JDK claimed he had never said he had refuted Stephen. JDK is a lying liar. JDK, is feeling free to lie whenever it suits you part of that subjective morality you push so often? UPDATE: I see that Origenes at 23 has already caught this.Barry Arrington
June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
OA, Perhaps it is a surprise to you to learn that evolutionary materialism is ancient and that serious concern on its destructive societal impact is also ancient. The pivot of that concern has always been, on how it undermines the moral domain (which BTW strongly shapes the world of thought). Here is Plato, 2350+ years ago:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
I trust this will help re-balance your perspective and that it will help you to understand why those concerned to avert a collapse similar to that of Athens in the context of the Peloponnesian war, will be concerned deeply when we see the same hardy perennial errors coming up again and again from advocates of evolutionary materialism and fellow travellers. It should not be overlooked, also, that linked worldviews and cultural agenda facets are central to understanding why the obvious balance of the design inference on the raw merits does not readily decide the day. KFkairosfocus
June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT
JDK: It’s also an objectively true fact that often people’s sense of goodness only extends so far sometimes (family, or local community, or nation), and it’s true that most people, some much more than others, behave poorly to some people in some situations and much better in others.
Origenes
June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT
Old Andrew “My best guess is extreme self-righteousness.” Andrew here is a novel concept, rather than guessing why dont you just ask? Vividvividbleau
June 6, 2018
June
06
Jun
6
06
2018
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT
OldAndrew, here's a link to a great post by Gpuccio on Ubiqutin System: Functional Complexity and Semiosis Joined Together... https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ubiquitin-system-functional-complexity-and-semiosis-joined-together/ There have been many other great topics covered as well. Oddly enough many Darwinist here rarely comment in these great post. It's fascinating, enriching, excellent material. Did you happen to read it OldAndrew? JDK? Seversky? Wonder if they read it. I think I asked Bob'OH and he said no at the time.DATCG
June 6, 2018
June
06
Jun
6
06
2018
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT
I remember when I first found UD. I appreciated how moderators would address topics like this. Often times I'd see a false claim made within another post topic. The moderators would not bog down the original post with arguments off-topic, but pull false claims out and post it for a larger discussion. So readers could see how atheist and Darwinist routinely twist logic in their favor without basis. This is not about feeling superior. It's about pointing out flawed logic built on sand. By all means StephenB, KF, other moderators here do not hesitate to call out such flawed logic and claims. And better to do so in a separate post so it does not bog down the original post. Readers benefit as do I at times. If I don't like a subject, or think it repetitive I simply go on to the next post or wait for a new one. It's not as if the UD posters here are not posting on many varied topics. People have their pick of topics from evolution to physics and many others here.DATCG
June 6, 2018
June
06
Jun
6
06
2018
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
OldAndrew, It's called a discussion on a topic made by someone like jdk which as pointed out was wrong. Now you may not like it, but then you don't have to participate do you? You can simply look at other subjects that are posted here. Griping on your own high horse is just that. Many topics are covered here repeatedly because they come up repeatedly and are repeatedly abused by atheist, agnostics or mistakenly. Routinely here the other side does exactly what you stated as well, constantly picking on issues. It takes two to tango. Holding someone accountable in this forum is done all the time. "But if someone does not see that or doesn’t believe it, and still feels that lying is bad and caring for others is good, it’s hard for me to comprehend what sort of disturbed outlook obsesses over finding fault with it." Wrong, absolutely wrong. It's correcting failed logic. If you don't like it, move on. "My best guess is extreme self-righteousness." So, you judge others harshly and that is OK. But truth is you have no clue the motivations, you just "guess" what it is as if you are right and "righteous" in your condemnation of it. "The argument depends on telling others – ad nauseum – that if think that child torture is wrong but don’t believe in objective morality, then they don’t really think that child torture is wrong – they just think that they think that child torture is wrong." And yet you ignore how often atheist and agnostics here tell others ad nauseam how wrong ID thinkers are wrong, silly and deride them constantly with their own hubris. Funny how you overlook it. "Good luck with that. I can’t think of a worse possible way to persuade someone that you’re right and they’re wrong, even if you’re right and they’re wrong." This may be the one area you're right. Style may matter, how the message is delivered, debated, etc. But we're all human, correct? "I can think of quite a few equally pointless arguments to carry on for months and years on end, but I suppose those don’t come with the same gratification of feeling superior." Again, you are assigning judgment without knowing the heart of the person you're attacking. While ignoring those on the other side who might be "feeling" just as "superior" to everyone here as well. Why do you ignore that? You know it happens. Certainly you must admit it happens? Or, are atheist, agnostics here not smug, supercritical, sarcastic name callers and look down upon others here? I've seen it often, where have you been? None of us are perfect, including you and your own failure to acknowledge it's a two-way street. These discussions routinely take place because many of the same posters or new posters make many of the same false claims over and over again - ad nauseam. Lurkers or new participants reading may be confused if it is not answered and rebutted. That you grow tired of it is because you are familiar with it. So move on to another thread. You yourself having acted as you are superior to all others. This forum addresses many of the same subject over and over and over again because that is it's purpose. To debate evolution, Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, the underlying causes and beliefs of each side. Get over it with your own smug attitude - yes, you do come off as you're seemingly superior as well. But then, don't we all at sometimes? Most people here have strong opinions and keep insisting they're right. So certain topics repeat. If you can make a better case using better discussion and debate techniques in a non-superior manner - do so. Puff puff ;-)DATCG
June 6, 2018
June
06
Jun
6
06
2018
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
Seversky
Actually, several terms in this discussion are ill-defined. What do we mean by “mature and “immature” or “higher” and “lower”? Why is “mature” love a “higher” form than “immature”? It sounds as if mature love is distinguished by a degree of selflessness in that the well-being of the loved always takes priority over that of the lover but why should anyone or anything not human and of this Earth care about that at all? Isn’t it only of importance to us?
You are off to a good start by saying that the higher forms of love are distinguished by acts of selflessness and concern for the other. It’s also a question of loving the right things. A higher form of love is present in one who loves noble things, such as God, neighbor, wisdom, and truth, than in one who loves ignoble things, such as power, fame, money, and debauchery, The good news is that the human will can be trained to love the things that are worth loving and to disdain the things that are not worth loving. In that context, the task is to form the right kinds of habits – to practice behaving in ways that improve one’s character and increase the capacity for love. In fact, mature lovers do not always feel like loving, but they do it anyway because they have trained themselves to do loving things. It is much easier to love noble things if one cultivates virtues, such as prudence, temperance, justice, and courage, and eliminates vices, such as laziness, recklessness, injustice, and cowardice. The other good news is that man can build a large measure of natural virtue through practice and can even rise to the level of supernatural virtue with God’s help. The highest of all forms of love is found in the model of Jesus Christ, and the main task of the Christian is to form his character as closely as possible to that model – to rise to the level of self-sacrificial love. Indeed, this is both our earthly task and our heavenly task in the sense that we begin our heaven here by preparing for heaven in the hereafter. This is the purpose of man’s existence- to begin the union with God in this life and extend it into the next life. That is why God would care about how man conducts himself on earth. He wants as many success stories as possible.StephenB
June 6, 2018
June
06
Jun
6
06
2018
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT
My guess is that other lurkers here are learning some things, with different conclusions, about the relevant merits of our positions, although lurkers who agree with you are probably more prevalent than those that agree with me, due to the general perspective of the site. And of course, the question of whether I am learning anything, or otherwise benefitting from this, is a question that only I can answer, and the same for you.jdk
June 6, 2018
June
06
Jun
6
06
2018
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
jdk
re 83: We’ve already seen how you respond to my answers to questions like that. We have a whole thread where we’ve offered thoughts on that. No sense in starting over with new topics.
I think readers understand why you are afraid to answer my questions. You're credibility is going down, down, down. But that's OK. I want readers and lurkers to understand that subjectivists (not just you) cannot defend their philosophy. It's important for people to know that.StephenB
June 6, 2018
June
06
Jun
6
06
2018
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
KF @ 77: Excellent points!Truth Will Set You Free
June 6, 2018
June
06
Jun
6
06
2018
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 17
Oh, but there *is* a requirement for objective morality. If love is “mature,” then, by definition, it is of a higher form than immature love. Unless there is an objective standard that defines the highest form of love and the lower forms of love, then the phrase “mature love” is meaningless. Evolution has nothing to do with it because a higher form of love can precede a lower form of love. People don’t automatically become more loving over time, they often become less loving. The issue is whether or not a hierarchy of love forms exist. JDK assumed, unwittingly, that such a hierarchy does exist when he used the word “mature.”
Actually, several terms in this discussion are ill-defined. What do we mean by "mature and "immature" or "higher" and "lower"? Why is "mature" love a "higher" form than "immature"? It sounds as if mature love is distinguished by a degree of selflessness in that the well-being of the loved always takes priority over that of the lover but why should anyone or anything not human and of this Earth care about that at all? Isn't it only of importance to us?Seversky
June 6, 2018
June
06
Jun
6
06
2018
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
re 83: We've already seen how you respond to my answers to questions like that. We have a whole thread where we've offered thoughts on that. No sense in starting over with new topics.jdk
June 6, 2018
June
06
Jun
6
06
2018
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
to OldAndrew at 82: I really appreciate your post. What a refreshing outlook. Thanks.jdk
June 6, 2018
June
06
Jun
6
06
2018
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
jdk: How does this sound? Forget all about the editing or perceived editing and let's start over. You wrote: [I judge that murder is wrong] because my mature sense of love, compassion, and empathy for other human beings is such that I desire for them as much right to life as I desire for myself. What criterion do you use to differentiate between a mature sense of love, compassion, and empathy and an immature sense of love, compassion, and empathy? At what stage of a human fetus’s developmental process would you desire for it the same right to life as you desire for yourself?StephenB
June 6, 2018
June
06
Jun
6
06
2018
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
I agree with those who believe that morality is objective. I disagree with those who say that it is not. But it boggles my mind what anyone hopes to gain by endlessly picking at it and going at it again and again, saying the same things again and again. It comes across as fixated and self-righteous. On this, JDK's logic is sound: The objectivity of morality depends on the existence of God or on the existence of something else that makes that objective morality real. Some of us believe in that. Some don't. If someone does not believe in God or any other source of objective morality, they are still entitled to say that murder is wrong and that love is good, for whatever reason that they wish to do so. Let whoever says otherwise cite the source of their authority to look down on another person and judge their conscience, which is exactly what you're doing. I happen to believe that when anyone exhibits common aspects of morality, they demonstrate (non-scientifically) the existence of a source of such morality whether they know it or not. That's because the evolution of honesty and compassion are as much of a fantasy as evolution of an eye or a cell nucleus. But if someone does not see that or doesn't believe it, and still feels that lying is bad and caring for others is good, it's hard for me to comprehend what sort of disturbed outlook obsesses over finding fault with it. My best guess is extreme self-righteousness. The argument depends on telling others - ad nauseum - that if think that child torture is wrong but don't believe in objective morality, then they don't really think that child torture is wrong - they just think that they think that child torture is wrong. Good luck with that. I can't think of a worse possible way to persuade someone that you're right and they're wrong, even if you're right and they're wrong. I can think of quite a few equally pointless arguments to carry on for months and years on end, but I suppose those don't come with the same gratification of feeling superior.OldAndrew
June 6, 2018
June
06
Jun
6
06
2018
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
No Stephen, at one time post 72 had an additional sentence under what is there now, and it is to that that I replied in 75. I think the sentence that you started 74 with might have been the sentence that once was at the bottom of 72, but I'm not sure.jdk
June 6, 2018
June
06
Jun
6
06
2018
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply