Not Unbroken

_{Barry Arrington

January 12, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

I am broken.

I am not alone though. You are broken too. In fact, the whole world and everyone in it is broken. We recognize that there is the way things are and there is the way things should be and the two are not the same.

What shall we make of this universal awareness of our own brokenness in particular and the world’s brokenness in general? Denying the awareness exists does no good. It is there. It is glaring. It stares each of us in the face every day. Denying it is foolish because such a denial is not only false; it is obviously false and convinces no one.

So there it is; our awareness of our and the world’s brokenness. It exists and any thinking person must try to account for its existence. It cannot be ignored. How did that awareness come to be? Is the awareness based on something real or is it an illusion?

For Jews and Christians, of course, these are easy questions. We believe in a transcendent moral standard rooted in God’s character. God has not established the Good. He is the Good, and all goodness flows from him. Each of us (whether we say we believe in God or not) innately understands that Goodness exists and that we all fall short of measuring up to it. I don’t understand why the doctrine of original sin is so controversial. Of all the doctrines of Christianity, it is the one that is supported by what I would think to be undeniable empirical evidence based on our own personal day-to-day experience and thousands of years of recorded history.

For the materialist, however, it seems to me that the question is all but unanswerable. At least since Hume we have known that “ought” cannot be grounded in “is.” The materialist believes that “is” is all there is. It follows there is nothing on which to ground “ought.” This is what Dawkins means when he says there is no good and no bad. On materialist premises – if there really is no good and no bad — there is no reason to believe I and the world are broken. As Lewis famously said, a man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. And the materialist denies the existence of straight lines.

Yet that awareness of our own and the world’s brokenness persists nevertheless even for materialists. The standard Darwinist line, of course, is that the moral impulse is an evolutionary adaptation, and they delight in making up just so stories about why this or that altruistic behavior is adaptive, when they are not making up stories for why the opposite of that behavior is also adaptive. Altruism is adaptive. Sure. But so is rape and murder. Hmmm.

But when it comes to our awareness of our and the world’s brokenness, none of those stories matters. We are not talking about individual behaviors that may or may not have been adaptive in the remote evolutionary past. We are talking about the fact that we all know that a straight line exists and therefore we can call crooked lines crooked, even when we deny knowing any such thing. I suppose some Darwinist will be able to make up a just so story to explain why this is the case; after all the Darwinist capacity for story telling seems to be limitless. But I doubt any such story will convince anyone who is not already convinced. For those of us who are unable to muster the tremendous leaps of faith necessary to become and remain a materialist, the story is likely to be implausible to say the least.

Comments

WJM
Well, I agree that a moral law without consequences is a useless concept, but a natural moral law requires no judge or law-giver; it’s considered an innate aspect of existence,, which requires a good god as creator in order to imbue existence with oughts.
"Imbuing existence with oughts" is what a law-giver does in this case. The natural moral law and conscience itself points to a judge beyond the individual. That's where consequences come from. That's where justice comes from. There is a law-giver in the theistic perspective - creator of the moral law. Nature does not operate independently. Moral laws don't emerge from unintelligent sources. They come from a law-giver. That law-giver, logically, is the judge of human acts. That's why there's a moral law in nature.
Consequences are sewn into the fabric of existence as much as the consequences of ignoring gravity are sewn into existence.
I don't think we can necessarily observe the consequences of ignoring the moral law. Many people ignore moral laws (of various kinds) and appear to benefit from that. In many cases, we can't tell what the consequences are - only an impartial and all-knowing, just judge could determine that. We could say "nature itself administers justice" but consequences have to fit the action. A person does many good acts and never receives benefits in this life a person does evil and received benefits. Where are the rewards for good acts vs evil?
That may be our disagreement; I don’t hold that god commands morality in any common sense of the term; nor can god change his mind about what is good; good is an innate, immutable aspect of god and is necessarily sewn into the fabric of whatever god creates.
Yes, as I said, understanding of morality requires an understanding of the nature of the law-giver (or creator of the moral law). You understand God as all good and immutable. Thus, you expect morality to be the same.
If humans have no presumed means of verifying moral orders as valid (such as through conscience and reason), we have no means of identifying a potential erroneous application of faith in an authority. Without logic or conscience, how do you propose one goes about verifying the quality and nature of any supposed moral authority? “Direct command from God” requires some sort of means to verify that you’re getting a command from God.
I think I misunderstood your point. First, we generally have no absolute means of determining the validity of moral laws. We have to use several means to make the best judgement we can. Secondly, I didn't mean that we don't use logic or conscience or rationality in our decision-making or judgement of moral norms. I was talking about judging the norms themselves versus judging where the norms come from (the nature of the authority that gives them).Silver Asiatic_{January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

SA said:
A moral law without a judge and law-giver – without consequences – is an illogical concept.
Well, I agree that a moral law without consequences is a useless concept, but a natural moral law requires no judge or law-giver; it's considered an innate aspect of existence,, which requires a good god as creator in order to imbue existence with oughts. Consequences are sewn into the fabric of existence as much as the consequences of ignoring gravity are sewn into existence. That may be our disagreement; I don't hold that god commands morality in any common sense of the term; nor can god change his mind about what is good; good is an innate, immutable aspect of god and is necessarily sewn into the fabric of whatever god creates.
I disagree since one can verify the quality and nature of the authority also.
Without logic or conscience, how do you propose one goes about verifying the quality and nature of any supposed moral authority? "Direct command from God" requires some sort of means to verify that you're getting a command from God.William J Murray_{January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

WJM
In the case of Allah (and some views of the Christian God), the authority can issue moral orders that are (1) in conflict with previous moral orders, and (2) in conflict with conscience.
I see a problem in both cases. 1st, we haven't determined why a change in moral orders is illogical. 2nd, our conscience can be mistaken on some points. It needs education and clarification.
If humans have no presumed means of verifying moral orders as valid (such as through conscience and reason), we have no means of identifying a potential erroneous application of faith in an authority.
I disagree since one can verify the quality and nature of the authority also. If the authority is high enough (direct command by God) that is a greater means of verification than from one's own judgement. We can judge the moral life of the authority also - we could decide to imitate a certain moral life in a person who lives a specific code. Reason and conscience assist the process but they're not alone.
IOW, after the faith-commitment to a source of moral authority, if what issues from that moral authority is not required to conform to conscience or logic, we have no capacity to discover our error.
Logic, reason and conscience can assist with moral judgements but they can't be the ultimate authority. If God is the law-giver, knowing the nature of God is necessary in understanding moral authority.
Just as we have a capacity to empirically check our physical theories via physical senses arbited by logic, we must have a capacity to empirically check our moral theories against error.
Yes, true but the nature and quality of the authority that adjudicates the law is part of it. If the person is the lawgiver, judge and defendant - then that's subjectivism.
Either we have the mental/spiritual equivalent of a physical sensory capacity through which we can empirically (as it applies to the mental/spiritual realm) check moral claims, or we have no means by which to safeguard (as best we can) against error.
Key phrase - "as best we can". The very same method is used in determining the value of religious teachers, revelations and writings. There is no absolute means of verifying the source of religious revelation - but we judge the quality of the revelation on the nature of the prophet and what he/she taught.
Although eyesight and our other senses are subjective, we hold them to be sensing an objective world. Without that, we’re flying in the dark and subject to, like under subjectivism, any supposed moral command, no matter how egregious against conscience or irrational.
The moral law has meaning in a theistic model because it emanates from God. It can be discovered, in part, through nature. But we also have to consider human authorities who either claim to speak for God or have a deep understanding of God through direct communication or prayer, etc. Without that, the moral code has no real consequences. A moral law without a judge and law-giver - without consequences - is an illogical concept.Silver Asiatic_{January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

SA said:
We should use rationality and logic to discover the objective moral law, but not to create it.
Yes, logic is a tool that must be used on something else - a premise, for example; it cannot invent a moral code from whole cloth. However, where our views may diverge is what it is appropriate to apply logic to in order to understand moral law, and the extent to which it should be used. In the case of Allah (and some views of the Christian God), the authority can issue moral orders that are (1) in conflict with previous moral orders, and (2) in conflict with conscience. If humans have no presumed means of verifying moral orders as valid (such as through conscience and reason), we have no means of identifying a potential erroneous application of faith in an authority. IOW, after the faith-commitment to a source of moral authority, if what issues from that moral authority is not required to conform to conscience or logic, we have no capacity to discover our error. Just as we have a capacity to empirically check our physical theories via physical senses arbited by logic, we must have a capacity to empirically check our moral theories against error. Either we have the mental/spiritual equivalent of a physical sensory capacity through which we can empirically (as it applies to the mental/spiritual realm) check moral claims, or we have no means by which to safeguard (as best we can) against error. Although eyesight and our other senses are subjective, we hold them to be sensing an objective world. Without that, we're flying in the dark and subject to, like under subjectivism, any supposed moral command, no matter how egregious against conscience or irrational.William J Murray_{January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

WJM
Depends on what you mean by “an authority”, then. If you mean person or book, I disagree that those can be a sound basis for morality.
In the subjectivist model, the ultimate authority is the individual. The individual can even choose some moral system, but the reason for the choice is what matters - it's because of the moral authority given to the individual, not to an external, objective source. In theistic objective models, the ultimate authority is usually God. The authority of God is essential to the moral logic (human persons are created by God with a conscience to know right from wrong, and God judges moral acts, etc). But objective models can also use the authority of a person or book, but that authority has to be justified significantly enough to claim that there is an objective model at work.
... ultimately relying on such sources above one’s own conscientious and logical pursuit of moral comprehension puts one at risk (for example, radical Islam and various violent cults that expressly rely on authority, overriding their own conscience and reason).
If a person relies on his own judgement to create and administer moral laws for himself, that is subjectivism. Objective morality looks beyond the person to an authority. In the case above, you're judging the value of one objective moral code vs another (your own vs Islam) which is good, but Islam presents an objective moral code. That is superior to subjectivism since it can be judged (as you are doing) and corrected or improved upon. That is not possible with subjectivism.
Islam, for example, entirely eschews reason as tool for evaluating morality. Once you abandon reason, anything is fair game.
I sort of agree, but Islam is an objective code and it also follows from logical, or rational premises. By his nature, Allah has the right to command moral laws. Therefore, humans must follow the laws for reasons known to Allah alone, even if it doesn't conform to human logic. That is actually a logical defense and is rational. In other words, a person cannot arrive at a moral system on rationality and logic alone -- since morality is a system of justice and consequences. Morality requires a lawmaker and adjudication of the laws. Using rationality and logic alone as the source of a moral system is a form of subjectivism. An objective moral system references an authority outside of the individual. We should use rationality and logic to discover the objective moral law, but not to create it.Silver Asiatic_{January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

WJM 299
Appealing to consensus is problematic under both systems, but at least under objective morality one can have a valid basis for defying consensus.
As long as you know what the objective moral standard is.
Conscience interpreted by logic based on the premise that an objective morality exists, is binding on everyone, and the willingness to put forth some effort in examining our lives/experience in order to better accommodate and promote the good – pursued with great caution and mitigated by the humble knowledge that we are fallible observers and interpreters of the moral landscape.
Gee, that sounds a lot like my approach albeit you've added some feel-good clauses.
Sorry, I offer no list of instructions or tablet of chiseled rules. What I have is a difficult, ongoing process involving a lot of effort and honest introspection.
Sounds a lot like my approach.
Whatever, why not try and form a general human moral standard based on cross-culcutural common moral beliefs?
Will you abandon such a standard as soon as it does something like asserting that homosexuality is immoral? Or that atheism isn’t to be tolerated? Or that it is immoral to have more than one child? Moral subjectviists are all for the consensus until they strongly disagree with the consensus.
I will always stand up for what I think is morally correct. And there are times when I am in disagreement with societal norms. Again, I'm not talking about my personal standard but about a good way to come up with a workable, enforceable societal norm.
You’re free to tell me if I’m wrong in those assumptions. I assume that if the consensus said that atheism is immoral and atheism wouldn’t be tolerated, you’d ditch the consensus?
I'm frequently in disagreement with the consensus. But generally I can live with the one in England where I reside.
The consensus doesn’t determine what is moral; it’s folly to try and make such an argument.
No, but it can come up with a workable, enforceable compromise.
You cannot logically appeal to consensus as the zenith of moral authority and then say you will not submit to the authority of consensus other than on minor points if you disagree with it. Consensus either is, or is not, that which has ultimate authority over what is moral.
I think you've misunderstood my point. I don't think there is a zenith of moral authority so I work for a consensus that we can live with.
You’ve blatantly said what has ultimate authority: you. So, you are either holding your own subjective, personal preferences above any consensus (moral subjectivism), or you are holding objective moral standards, which you subjectively access via conscience and interpret as best you can (hopefully using reason) as superior to consensus.
I don't think I'm thinking or saying either of those two things actually. You keep wanting to force an absolute moral standard which I don't think exists so I'm not thinking anyone, including myself, holds it.
Which would you say would actually be superior to consensus and give you not only the right to disagree with, challenge and disobey consensus if necessary, but the obligation to do so if consensus is wrong: personal preference, or an understanding that consensus in some instances was in contradiction with an objectively true moral good?
I try hard to stand up for what I think is right and just. Some places I could not live as I disagree with significant aspects of the local cultural moral norm.
Whether or not a majority comes up with a good or horrid set of morals is entirely irrelevant to the point; you will ditch majority rules as soon as you disagree strongly enough, thus majority or consensus cannot be your moral authority. Thus, logically, personal preference must be your actualmoral authority despite your dragging consensus and majority into the debate.
I would move if I felt in too great of conflict with my neighbours with no chance of changing things. Of course I will think I'm right! But, you know what . . . over the years, I've changed my mind about some things. I'm not consistent or objective either.
This is the part where introspetive analysis would reveal that yes, you will ditch majority, consensus, and anything else if you disagree with it strongly enough, logically meaning that subjectivist morality ultimately boils down to “because I feel like it”.
Who said I ever 'accepted' the consensus? I only suggest it as a reasonable way of making societal choices!! We should probably quit though. I think we're talking at cross purposes.Jerad_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT}

But this can happen with objective moral standards as well.
Appealing to consensus is problematic under both systems, but at least under objective morality one can have a valid basis for defying consensus.
I agree that public consensus is not ideal but unless you can present an objective, enforceable moral standard then what else have we got?
Conscience interpreted by logic based on the premise that an objective morality exists, is binding on everyone, and the willingness to put forth some effort in examining our lives/experience in order to better accommodate and promote the good - pursued with great caution and mitigated by the humble knowledge that we are fallible observers and interpreters of the moral landscape. Sorry, I offer no list of instructions or tablet of chiseled rules. What I have is a difficult, ongoing process involving a lot of effort and honest introspection.
I don’t see why there must be something superior.
For the reason I just said. Unless you're willing to adopt whatever the consensus says and bend your own views accordingly, there must be something superior to consensus by which you can assert consensus wrong and work against it.
What do you propose?
Conscience interpreted by logic based on the premise that an objective morality exists, is binding on everyone, and the willingness to put forth some effort in examining our lives/experience in order to better accommodate and promote the good - pursued with great caution and mitigated by the humble knowledge that we are fallible observers and interpreters of the moral landscape.
Whatever, why not try and form a general human moral standard based on cross-culcutural common moral beliefs?
Will you abandon such a standard as soon as it does something like asserting that homosexuality is immoral? Or that atheism isn't to be tolerated? Or that it is immoral to have more than one child? Moral subjectviists are all for the consensus until they strongly disagree with the consensus.
You do seem to like to make assumptions about me and my motivations. You seem to have a preconceived notions about how I’m going to think or react.
You're free to tell me if I'm wrong in those assumptions. I assume that if the consensus said that atheism is immoral and atheism wouldn't be tolerated, you'd ditch the consensus? The consensus doesn't determine what is moral; it's folly to try and make such an argument. You said it in your very next line, which I will bolden:
I have my own standards but I’m interested in finding a workable, enforceable consensus. I’m not going to change my standards based on the consensus but I may have to compromise on, hopefully minor, points.
You cannot logically appeal to consensus as the zenith of moral authority and then say you will not submit to the authority of consensus other than on minor points if you disagree with it. Consensus either is, or is not, that which has ultimate authority over what is moral. You've blatantly said what has ultimate authority: you. So, you are either holding your own subjective, personal preferences above any consensus (moral subjectivism), or you are holding objective moral standards, which you subjectively access via conscience and interpret as best you can (hopefully using reason) as superior to consensus. Which would you say would actually be superior to consensus and give you not only the right to disagree with, challenge and disobey consensus if necessary, but the obligation to do so if consensus is wrong: personal preference, or an understanding that consensus in some instances was in contradiction with an objectively true moral good? Only the latter offers such right and obligation; personal preference offers nothing but "because I feel like it" when you buck consensus decree.
It’s interesting: I have ‘faith’ that most people on the planet are roughly aligned with my basic moral structure whereas you are continually claiming that majority rules is bad implying that most people are horrid and immoral and can only be held in control under a rigorous and absolute moral structure. I think I have more trust in my fellow human beings than you do.
Whether or not a majority comes up with a good or horrid set of morals is entirely irrelevant to the point; you will ditch majority rules as soon as you disagree strongly enough, thus majority or consensus cannot be your moral authority. Thus, logically, personal preference must be your actualmoral authority despite your dragging consensus and majority into the debate. This is the part where introspetive analysis would reveal that yes, you will ditch majority, consensus, and anything else if you disagree with it strongly enough, logically meaning that subjectivist morality ultimately boils down to "because I feel like it". Which can justify anything. It's absurd as a moral principle.
No, I’d say that was not a fair representation of my view.
Of course not; I said it's the only alternative to, essentially, "because I feel like it", which is logically what moral subjectivism boils down to.William J Murray_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

WJM 297
IMO, what’s wrong with going along with the consensus and the majority is that often the consensus and the majority give you moral edicts that translate into laws and social mores like heresy, slavery, ownership of women and children, persecution of minorities, genocide of minorities, caste systems, suspension of personal freedoms and rights, victimless crimes, beheading women for being raped, etc.
But this can happen with objective moral standards as well. Look at the Old Testament and what Jehovah requested of his chosen people. I agree that public consensus is not ideal but unless you can present an objective, enforceable moral standard then what else have we got? Do you have an objective, enforceable moral standard to bring to the table?
There must be something superior to consensus and majority that one an appeal to in order to rationally justify acting in defiance of, and working to change, consensus and majority views.
I don't see why there must be something superior. What do you propose?
Then your moral principle of “involuntary reactions” is incorrect, because those too are involuntary reactions yet you don’t consider them moral. More thought is required.
You might have a point if you can point to relativistic revulsion reactions, i.e. involuntary reactions that do not exist in all human cultures. In general, not trying to speak for all individuals 'cause, clearly, there are always outliers. (added later: I'm not really happy with my response there, it made sense at first but I'm not sure now .. . ) Whatever, why not try and form a general human moral standard based on cross-culcutural common moral beliefs?
As long as, I imagine, the “consensus” doesn’t diverge too far from your own views, such as allowing rape. You see, neither “involuntary reaction” nor “consensus” can serve as a sound basis for morality, because you’re wiling to deny or ditch both if they do not sufficiently conform to …something else.
You do seem to like to make assumptions about me and my motivations. You seem to have a preconceived notions about how I'm going to think or react. I may be wrong that a vast majority of human beings think child abuse and rape and murder are wrong. But I'd give it a try. If I'm wrong then I'll adapt my views, based on evidence. I have my own standards but I'm interested in finding a workable, enforceable consensus. I'm not going to change my standards based on the consensus but I may have to compromise on, hopefully minor, points.
But, what is that “something else” that involuntary reaction, consensus and majority must adhere to before you are on board? Under subjectivism, it must be your personal preference, which logically validates anyone’s personal preferences as moral.
No, it has to do with finding a workable consensus and being open and honest about what I consider negotiable. It's interesting: I have 'faith' that most people on the planet are roughly aligned with my basic moral structure whereas you are continually claiming that majority rules is bad implying that most people are horrid and immoral and can only be held in control under a rigorous and absolute moral structure. I think I have more trust in my fellow human beings than you do.
The only rational option is: your own involuntary reactions, consensus or majority must conform in all significant areas to the objective standard you sense with your conscience or else you will dimiss it or defy it.
No, I'd say that was not a fair representation of my view.
Most people are fine living with irrational, largely unexamined viewpoints, and live productive, happy, sufficiently moral lives. This is an argument about the logic, not an indictment of anyone’s lifestyle.
Well, perhaps my participation is misplaced.Jerad_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Jerad said:
What’s wrong with just letting the consensus make and refine laws that the majority can agree on?
IMO, what's wrong with going along with the consensus and the majority is that often the consensus and the majority give you moral edicts that translate into laws and social mores like heresy, slavery, ownership of women and children, persecution of minorities, genocide of minorities, caste systems, suspension of personal freedoms and rights, victimless crimes, beheading women for being raped, etc. There must be something superior to consensus and majority that one an appeal to in order to rationally justify acting in defiance of, and working to change, consensus and majority views.
I don’t find any of these moral issues though.
Then your moral principle of "involuntary reactions" is incorrect, because those too are involuntary reactions yet you don't consider them moral. More thought is required.
Yes but if I want a universal moral system that is workable then I’m NOT just interested in my own reactions and feelings. I’m interested in some kind of consensus.
As long as, I imagine, the "consensus" doesn't diverge too far from your own views, such as allowing rape. You see, neither "involuntary reaction" nor "consensus" can serve as a sound basis for morality, because you're wiling to deny or ditch both if they do not sufficiently conform to ...something else. But, what is that "something else" that involuntary reaction, consensus and majority must adhere to before you are on board? Under subjectivism, it must be your personal preference, which logically validates anyone's personal preferences as moral. The only rational option is: your own involuntary reactions, consensus or majority must conform in all significant areas to the objective standard you sense with your conscience or else you will dimiss it or defy it.
But you argued that Thomism required a period of education and reflection
That was someone else.
I’m fine without having to take that stance actually.
Most people are fine living with irrational, largely unexamined viewpoints, and live productive, happy, sufficiently moral lives. This is an argument about the logic, not an indictment of anyone's lifestyle.William J Murray_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

WJM 294
Perhaps you should if you are going to involve yourself in a debate about the premises and reasoning involved in establishing, adhering to and justifying one’s moral system.
Yeah, maybe. I'm not trying to just wind anyone up but I did want to 'test the waters' a bit. I certainly have a better idea of what the deep conversations are about.
This is where “thinking about it much” comes in handy. Look at how you have justified the basis of your principle above; “I just react” and “If it’s an involuntary response by most people ..”. You have established two moral principles, but what are they? “However I just react to something…” and “However most people react to something ..”
I'm not thinking that 'high'. I'm just assuming, perhaps fallaciously, that most human beings would share some of my reactions. And, if that's true, then that would be a fairly objective place to start.
The next steps are to (1) examine the real world to see if such principles hold up, and (2) develop hypothetical scenarios to see if your principles hold up.
What's wrong with just letting the consensus make and refine laws that the majority can agree on?
First, have you ever “just reacted” in anger? Do most people, in various situations? How about reacting in disgust? If most people react in disgust at a thing, say, two men kissing, would that be a sound basis for a moral system? How about reacting in fear? Would that make a sound basis for morality?
I have reacted in anger but I have almost always refrained from making any major decisions whilst in that state. My 'disgust' reactions have been very visceral and I find adequate evolutionary explanations for those. Since two men kissing is not universally reviled then I think it's a non-issue. Reacting in fear . . . I don't find any of these moral issues though. I may react in disgust to the idea of eating feces but I wouldn't consider that a moral issue that needed to be societally dictated. Same with men kissing. Or being afraid. Fear may be an indicator of something more sinister though.
You see, if you want a logically coherent worldview that corresponds to how you actually live, you might spend some time “thinking much” about your moral system and how you justify it to figure out if, at the root of it, you’re not just being self-serving, hypocritical, or in error.
Yes but if I want a universal moral system that is workable then I'm NOT just interested in my own reactions and feelings. I'm interested in some kind of consensus.
“Just how I happen to react” can justify virtually any behavior. “How most people react” gives the power of moral principle over to the sensibilitie4s of the majority. Do either of those really seem to you to be sound moral principles?
Granted that in some cases, like Nazi Germany, mob rule can go spectacularly wrong I still find majority consensus to be the most workable option. Given protections of some individual rights which were abrogated in Nazi-era Germany.
So . . . there could be a factually moral truth that would require attempts to understand it? That would not be naturally and obviously correct? Like banning gay marriage? As an example.
Or not eating pork? Or shellfish? Let's up the ante: Though shall not kill. But we do, and we sanction it at times. In times of war we consider it reasonable. Sexually abusing children . . . that I consider evil and forever verboten. I can see a list of some atrocities that most people throughout history would endorse. But, you know, the Catholic Church authorised the crusade against the Cathars and a lot of babies and children were killed. I don't think having a list ever works. Someone is going to violate it.
I think that there are self-evident moral truths, such as my favorite, it is immoral to gratuitously torture children. Anyone who disagrees with that is insane. It is (IMO, of course), the standard-bearer example of a self-evident, objective moral truth.
But people do it all the time. I support systems of law which codify and support commonly held standards but that requires consensus.
Other moral truths can be described as necessary (rational extrapolations of self-evidently true moral statements), conditionally true (valid conditional upon the circumstances), and generally true maxims. IMO, being able to ascertain the moral good requires (1) conscience (the ability to sense the moral landscape) and (2) reason, the ability to logically interpret and examine what the conscience tells you.
I'm more pragmatic: work with society to codify and define acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour and, with consensus, you can get enforcement support.
Conscience and logic can both be refined; they can both produce error; they can both be degraded. Comprehending the moral good is not a perfect capacity, nor is it at times easy. In some cases it may not even be possible.
Another reason for going with consensus. The errors of some will be over-ridden. It means you have to compromise and let some things go. But at least you'll get enforcement.
Something you may wish to consider is that in the case of some objective moralities, the consequences of immoral behavior is not held as something left in the hands of humans to deliver; rather, it is god or natural law that will deliver he consequences. Humans usually only have the task of erecting legal systems meant to aid in the functioning of society, not police immoral behavior, per se.
I prefer to deal with the here and now. If it is determined that someone is hurting another person then they should be punished in some way. And that comes down to us humans.
Under subjective morality, humans are left with the task of not only establishing a moral code, but also punishing immoral behavior however they see fit. Personally, I’d rather have a moral system that leaves that job up to god or natural law – which you cannot get under moral subjectivism.
Yeah well nature doesn't care and I haven't seen any god make an appearance recently.
I’m not sure how you think the current state or the history of the world remotely supports this idea. Were all the wars fought, and the atrocities committed, genocide, murders, mass murders, etc. “rare” occurrences committed only by a “rare” few people? Do you think that they were initiated by a rare few and carried out by …. whom? People with enough empathy to deter them from carrying out their horrendous tasks? Doesn’t seem like it.
Nope, it doesn't. It's very depressing. But that fact does not support the existence of an absolute moral code or the ability of one to make a difference.
One of things I require of my moral system is that it is fully reconcilable with the world I actually experience; in the world I actually experience, empathy rarely stops anyone from doing anything they want to do, and empathy is easily ignored – and in many cases, should be ignored. There are many, many people, organizations, businesses, politicians who attempt to manipulate you via your empathy.
I want something that works and is enforceable. I'm tired of ideals. I just want to protect people.
I dont think a projective emotion like “empathy” is suitable as a sound moral basis, although it is useful if utilized appropriately and under the restriction of conscience and reason.
I was just hoping it could be a start. But I may be wrong.
The point is not that you should first create a sound moral system and then arrange your actions accordingly; the point is that the actions you already take, and how you take them, are not reconcilable with subjective morality. They are only logically reconcilable with an objective morality. As I have said repeatedly, only sociopaths actually act in a way logically reconcilable with moral subjectivism.
But you argued that Thomism required a period of education and reflection. That sounds like 'arranging your actions' to match your objective moral standard.
There is no accessible list of “truths” about time, entropy, gravity, etc. – humans figure it out to the best of their ability. Science is about studying those aspects of the physical landscape and coming up with reasonable models that account for these natural laws to help us in our endeavors. Morality is about sensing, interpreting, and understanding another presumed real commodity, albeit a mental/spiritual one, to keep us in correspondence with the good.
Gravity is a read commodity that we learned to measure, interpret and codify. I don't see why we can't 'figure out' a moral standard that is acceptable to the majority and enforceable.
Now, here’s a question for you: what difference does it make to you, and to this debate, if a god exists? Why are you asking me about god? How is it relevant to a logical debate about the logical consequences of objective and subjective forms of morality and whether or not subjective morality is reconcilable with how we actually live?
I'm asking because your argument appears to mirror the argument from design in its initial stages. IF a god exists and makes an appearance, passing on some great and, heretofore, unnoticed (by us) principles then I can see that possibly that could make a huge difference. But I'm not holding my breath. Or considering altering my basic approach at this juncture in the narrative.
The only reason to bring it up is that it is of concern to you that objective morality means there is a god of some sort.
I have no need of that hypothesis.
So what if there is a god? Does it have to be the witch-burning baby-bashing suicide-bombing LBGT-hating reporter-beheading sacrifice-demanding thunderbolt-throwing elephant-riding god of your perceived potential theistic, tyrannical oppressors?
I have no need of that hypothesis. Ask someone who is invested in that.
If your only options are (1) irrationally clinging to the idea that morality is subjective regardless of how absurd and self-contradictory it is demonstrated to be, and (2) belief in the kind of god listed above, then I’d probably pick (1) as well.
I haven't seen a verifiable objective moral code. I haven't heard from god either.
But there are many, many, many more concepts of god than that, Jerad. Accepting that morality must be objective in nature for it to make any sense doesn’t even require (if one cannot bear the thought of going any further) the belief that there is a god. One can simply say “I don’t know what the source of objective good would be, but I do accept that I live, and must live, as if “the good” is an objective commodity. For morality to make any sense, it must refer to some objective source.
I'm fine without having to take that stance actually.Jerad_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

SA said:
I think all moral systems reference an authority.
Depends on what you mean by "an authority", then. If you mean person or book, I disagree that those can be a sound basis for morality. They may or may not provide a sound interpretation of morality (comparable to theoretical models a scientist might make of gravity or entropy) that is highly useful in navigating the moral landscape, but ultimately relying on such sources above one's own conscientious and logical pursuit of moral comprehension puts one at risk (for example, radical Islam and various violent cults that expressly rely on authority, overriding their own conscience and reason). Islam, for example, entirely eschews reason as tool for evaluating morality. Once you abandon reason, anything is fair game.William J Murray_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Jerad said:
Well, you know, I don’t think about it much.
Perhaps you should if you are going to involve yourself in a debate about the premises and reasoning involved in establishing, adhering to and justifying one's moral system.
when I see another human being in pain, being abuse or tortured or taken advantage of I just react. I assume most people do. If it’s an involuntary response by most people then it can be part of a moral foundation.
This is where "thinking about it much" comes in handy. Look at how you have justified the basis of your principle above; "I just react" and "If it's an involuntary response by most people ..". You have established two moral principles, but what are they? "However I just react to something..." and "However most people react to something .." The next steps are to (1) examine the real world to see if such principles hold up, and (2) develop hypothetical scenarios to see if your principles hold up. First, have you ever "just reacted" in anger? Do most people, in various situations? How about reacting in disgust? If most people react in disgust at a thing, say, two men kissing, would that be a sound basis for a moral system? How about reacting in fear? Would that make a sound basis for morality? You see, if you want a logically coherent worldview that corresponds to how you actually live, you might spend some time "thinking much" about your moral system and how you justify it to figure out if, at the root of it, you're not just being self-serving, hypocritical, or in error. "Just how I happen to react" can justify virtually any behavior. "How most people react" gives the power of moral principle over to the sensibilitie4s of the majority. Do either of those really seem to you to be sound moral principles?
So . . . there could be a factually moral truth that would require attempts to understand it? That would not be naturally and obviously correct? Like banning gay marriage? As an example.
I think that there are self-evident moral truths, such as my favorite, it is immoral to gratuitously torture children. Anyone who disagrees with that is insane. It is (IMO, of course), the standard-bearer example of a self-evident, objective moral truth. Other moral truths can be described as necessary (rational extrapolations of self-evidently true moral statements), conditionally true (valid conditional upon the circumstances), and generally true maxims. IMO, being able to ascertain the moral good requires (1) conscience (the ability to sense the moral landscape) and (2) reason, the ability to logically interpret and examine what the conscience tells you. Conscience and logic can both be refined; they can both produce error; they can both be degraded. Comprehending the moral good is not a perfect capacity, nor is it at times easy. In some cases it may not even be possible. Gay marriage is certainly one of the cases where two well-meaning, conscientious people may disagree. There are many such cases, like legalization/use of mind-altering drugs, prostitution, spanking, etc. Something you may wish to consider is that in the case of some objective moralities, the consequences of immoral behavior is not held as something left in the hands of humans to deliver; rather, it is god or natural law that will deliver he consequences. Humans usually only have the task of erecting legal systems meant to aid in the functioning of society, not police immoral behavior, per se. Under subjective morality, humans are left with the task of not only establishing a moral code, but also punishing immoral behavior however they see fit. Personally, I'd rather have a moral system that leaves that job up to god or natural law - which you cannot get under moral subjectivism.
I would hope that basic empathy would ensure that it would be rare indeed that I would have to convince anyone else that it’s good to aid and protect other people.
I'm not sure how you think the current state or the history of the world remotely supports this idea. Were all the wars fought, and the atrocities committed, genocide, murders, mass murders, etc. "rare" occurrences committed only by a "rare" few people? Do you think that they were initiated by a rare few and carried out by .... whom? People with enough empathy to deter them from carrying out their horrendous tasks? Doesn't seem like it. One of things I require of my moral system is that it is fully reconcilable with the world I actually experience; in the world I actually experience, empathy rarely stops anyone from doing anything they want to do, and empathy is easily ignored - and in many cases, should be ignored. There are many, many people, organizations, businesses, politicians who attempt to manipulate you via your empathy. I dont think a projective emotion like "empathy" is suitable as a sound moral basis, although it is useful if utilized appropriately and under the restriction of conscience and reason. You may wonder what the difference is between empathy and conscience; empathy is sort of an emotional projection into how the other person feels at the moment; conscience, rather, is like an assessment of the larger picture of right and wrong. Empathy may guide you to give comfort and aid to a person in the here and now; conscience, on the other hand, wonders if comfort and aid in the here and now is really in the best interests of the person involved and whether or not providing them comfort and aid in the here and now will do more harm than good for all involved. Reason is used to weigh the alternatives as best as one can, and in the end empathy - an irrational emotion - can often be overruled in favor of, for example, "tough love" or other hard deciions that tear at one's heart.
And I’m quite sure that if someone attacked a small child in your presence you would not hesitate to react. Not because you found an entry on your list of objective moral truths which said: that’s bad.
The point is not that you should first create a sound moral system and then arrange your actions accordingly; the point is that the actions you already take, and how you take them, are not reconcilable with subjective morality. They are only logically reconcilable with an objective morality. As I have said repeatedly, only sociopaths actually act in a way logically reconcilable with moral subjectivism.
And I can’t see where there is an accessible list of moral truths that we can all sign on to.
There is no accessible list of "truths" about time, entropy, gravity, etc. - humans figure it out to the best of their ability. Science is about studying those aspects of the physical landscape and coming up with reasonable models that account for these natural laws to help us in our endeavors. Morality is about sensing, interpreting, and understanding another presumed real commodity, albeit a mental/spiritual one, to keep us in correspondence with the good.
Are you just trying to logic God into existence?
I don't care if god exists or not. Now, here's a question for you: what difference does it make to you, and to this debate, if a god exists? Why are you asking me about god? How is it relevant to a logical debate about the logical consequences of objective and subjective forms of morality and whether or not subjective morality is reconcilable with how we actually live? The only reason to bring it up is that it is of concern to you that objective morality means there is a god of some sort. So what if there is a god? Does it have to be the witch-burning baby-bashing suicide-bombing LBGT-hating reporter-beheading sacrifice-demanding thunderbolt-throwing elephant-riding god of your perceived potential theistic, tyrannical oppressors? If your only options are (1) irrationally clinging to the idea that morality is subjective regardless of how absurd and self-contradictory it is demonstrated to be, and (2) belief in the kind of god listed above, then I'd probably pick (1) as well. But there are many, many, many more concepts of god than that, Jerad. Accepting that morality must be objective in nature for it to make any sense doesn't even require (if one cannot bear the thought of going any further) the belief that there is a god. One can simply say "I don't know what the source of objective good would be, but I do accept that I live, and must live, as if "the good" is an objective commodity. For morality to make any sense, it must refer to some objective source. Full stop, if one so wishes. No one can be compelled to take it any further.William J Murray_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

SA 291
But if a person constructs a moral code, without reference to authority (as something external to the person), that is subjectivism. “Objective” doesn’t mean merely to write down the code – but it has to be accessible in a general sense. It become accessible through teaching and through a group of adherents. A subjective moral code is created by the individual. Even if it was shared and agreed-upon by a few people, it wouldn’t be considered an objective morality. Thomism, for example, gives a detailed moral code that was built through religion and philosophy, taught, lived and shared for centuries. To that extent, it has the status of an objective morality that can be accessed and understood.
I just want to clarify something here. It sounds like Thomism began as subjective morality. But then I think of religion and philosophy as being subjective (especially initially) and then after being taught, lived and shared . . . I just may have to give up on this discussion. Unless you have an actual experience of your chosen authority figure clearly laying down their morality it all sounds pretty personal/subjective/experiential to me. And to argue that without that verified authoritarian appearance it's only possible for objective morality to have arisen from a lawgiver smacks of the argument from design to me. I don't think you can 'logic' God into existence. It sounds like special pleading.Jerad_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

SA 290
Picking an authority figure is a major improvement over subjectivism, even if you discover later that there are greater and lesser authorities who provide better and worse results morally.
A matter of opinion I'd say. If you pick someone like Hitler it might become tragic before you can right the ship.Jerad_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

WJM
I agree with most of that, but I think that any form of morality from authority is problematic and ripe for abuse.
I think all moral systems reference an authority. Subjectivism puts all the moral authority with the individual. But even non-theistic moral codes reference an authority - not necessarily a living person - which can include universal moral teachings or a school of philosophy. Aristotealianism or Platonism offer objective moral systems, more or less. But if a person constructs a moral code, without reference to authority (as something external to the person), that is subjectivism. "Objective" doesn't mean merely to write down the code - but it has to be accessible in a general sense. It become accessible through teaching and through a group of adherents. A subjective moral code is created by the individual. Even if it was shared and agreed-upon by a few people, it wouldn't be considered an objective morality. Thomism, for example, gives a detailed moral code that was built through religion and philosophy, taught, lived and shared for centuries. To that extent, it has the status of an objective morality that can be accessed and understood. Subjectivism does not even require a rational basis for the construction of a code. Objective morality does require a reason for the moral norms it espouses.Silver Asiatic_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Jerad 286
How can you discover an objective morality? By picking an authority figure? And if there are disagreements about who the authority figure is then . . .
Subjectivism chooses yourself (the individual person) as the authority. But then the individual becomes the lawgiver, judge and defendent in the struggle to live a morally better life. Picking an authority figure is a major improvement over subjectivism, even if you discover later that there are greater and lesser authorities who provide better and worse results morally.Silver Asiatic_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

KF 288
Jerad, do you mean ascetic? And if so, the NT actually warns against that, the issue is sober and moderate balance in life linked to generosity. KF
Yes, that is the word I meant!! Thanks!!Jerad_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT}

Jerad, do you mean ascetic? And if so, the NT actually warns against that, the issue is sober and moderate balance in life linked to generosity. KFkairosfocus_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

Are you a subjectivist Jerad? Do you have objective reasons for being a subjectvist? Just asking.Mung_{January 17, 2015
January
01
Jan
17
17
2015
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

WJB 384
Being able to measure pain and abuse begs the question of why one would use pain and abuse as moral guideposts in the first place.
Well, you know, I don't think about it much. when I see another human being in pain, being abuse or tortured or taken advantage of I just react. I assume most people do. If it's an involuntary response by most people then it can be part of a moral foundation. I suppose that still doesn't address your issue but I can't think of a good reason for debating whether or not other people's pain and suffering form an objective moral basis. I think it's better to just try and do something about it.
Morality is either refers to an objectively existent commodity (meaning, it applies to everyone, like gravity, even if they deny it), or it is subjective in nature. You can’t have it both ways. Something is either factually moral and we do our best to understand this fact and act in accordance with it, or the morality of it is a matter of personal perspective/sensibility alone.
So . . . there could be a factually moral truth that would require attempts to understand it? That would not be naturally and obviously correct? Like banning gay marriage? As an example.
So what if they are in pain and are obviously suffering? You say that as if another moral relativist should consider “the suffering of others” a moral guidepost when, under actual moral subjectivism, logically, you can have no such expectation, nor would “but they are suffering” be a logical argument to get me to change my behavior. Under moral subjectivism, my morality may or may not care if others are suffering and my morality would be as valid as your own. My subjective morality may go by the principle that causing the suffering of others is a good thing, and your subjectively moral framework has no principle by which to argue otherwise, because under your framework, morality is whatever any individual holds it to be.
I would hope that basic empathy would ensure that it would be rare indeed that I would have to convince anyone else that it's good to aid and protect other people. I don't think most people live in the rarified intellectual space you profess. And I'm quite sure that if someone attacked a small child in your presence you would not hesitate to react. Not because you found an entry on your list of objective moral truths which said: that's bad. I think you'd react out of instinct, the same instinct that would make most of us react. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think some basic human instinctive reactions are down to a list of dos and don'ts.
The statement “I feel it’s wrong when others abuse people” can be truthfully said by someone who believes themselves to be a moral subjectivist, but the such feelings are inconsistent with the subjectivist model, because rights and wrongs are entirely set by each individual under that model. A statement that is consistent with the subjectivist model would be: “I feel it is wrong for others to abuse people, but logically that must be based on projecting myself into their position and evaluating the behavior from my own subjective point of view. Since I am not them, I do not know what is moral for them, and so my projections are not valid evaluators of their moral experience. Therefore, although I feel that their behavior is wrong, those feelings must be erroneous projections of my own moral preferences as if they also applied to someone else.”
Well, maybe I'm not a subjectivist then. I think some behaviours are clearly and utterly repugnant and hideous without having to analyse them. But I know that there are always individuals who won't agree with me. History if full of people being awful to each other. And I can't see where there is an accessible list of moral truths that we can all sign on to. If morality is objective it's not working. If it can't be enforced or be naturally abided by then does it really exist? Or is it just some people's subjective ideas about the way they think things should be? In the end, any list you make is just your opinion is it not? How can you discover an objective morality? By picking an authority figure? And if there are disagreements about who the authority figure is then . . . Is not the argument for objective morality just another form of the argument from design? Morality must be objective, it must have a source, that source must be . . . . Are you just trying to logic God into existence?Jerad_{January 17, 2015
January
01
Jan
17
17
2015
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

What are the objective reasons for being a subjectivist?Mung_{January 17, 2015
January
01
Jan
17
17
2015
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

Jerad said:
I think you have too few categories. And you are way too sure of your own opinion. I might even say that you are imposing your view on others.
My views are based on the logical arguments I've presented here. Feel free to show the logical errors I've committed or produce an alternate line of logical inference from your premises.
So I’m somehow below you on the intellectual/insight scale?
No, you're making errors of logic that are IMO best explained by cognitive biases. Regardless of our intelligence or insight, we are all capable of making errors of logic. Feel free to make your own case.
I’m deluded because I espouse a view you disagree with.
Again, you seem to be predisposed to interpret my posts in a very strange way. I never said anyone was "deluded", and certainly not because they disagree with me. The case I've made is that your logic (and the logic of other self-styled moral subjectivists here) is fatally flawed and from that argument I've also added some opinions about why - cognitive biases are the most common reason why people diverge from fairly straightforward logical inferences. It doesn't mean you are inferior or deluded.
There are some objective measures for abuse and pain and suffering surely.
Being able to measure pain and abuse begs the question of why one would use pain and abuse as moral guideposts in the first place.
So, even if I espouse an objective measure I’m still deluded and subjective?
An objective measurement is not the same thing as an objective basis. You might be able to objectively measure such things as pain, but that doesn't answer why anyone should use pain as a moral guidepost in the first place. Unless you are asserting "pain and abuse" as objective moral guideposts that are valid for everyone, they are still part of your subjective, personal system. I've never implied you or anyone else is deluded.
Once I disagree with you about there being an absolute morality then anything else I do is deluded?
Morality is either refers to an objectively existent commodity (meaning, it applies to everyone, like gravity, even if they deny it), or it is subjective in nature. You can't have it both ways. Something is either factually moral and we do our best to understand this fact and act in accordance with it, or the morality of it is a matter of personal perspective/sensibility alone.
Well you know all, see all, understand all. And I’m clearly just wrong and dumb.
It seems to me that this kind of statement only serves to derail and distract from an argument. I've made and continue to make my case; you are free to rebut, question, argue, and make your own case.
Sorry, I think there are times when it is obvious that someone is in pain, is being abused, is suffering. I’m sorry you disagree. Who’s the relativist now?
So what if they are in pain and are obviously suffering? You say that as if another moral relativist should consider "the suffering of others" a moral guidepost when, under actual moral subjectivism, logically, you can have no such expectation, nor would "but they are suffering" be a logical argument to get me to change my behavior. Under moral subjectivism, my morality may or may not care if others are suffering and my morality would be as valid as your own. My subjective morality may go by the principle that causing the suffering of others is a good thing, and your subjectively moral framework has no principle by which to argue otherwise, because under your framework, morality is whatever any individual holds it to be.
So, it’s not true? My feeling that it’s bad when other people are in pain or being abused?
True in what sense? The statement "I feel it is wrong for me to abuse others" can be a true and logically consistent statement under moral subjectivism. The statement "I feel it's wrong when others abuse people" can be truthfully said by someone who believes themselves to be a moral subjectivist, but the such feelings are inconsistent with the subjectivist model, because rights and wrongs are entirely set by each individual under that model. A statement that is consistent with the subjectivist model would be: "I feel it is wrong for others to abuse people, but logically that must be based on projecting myself into their position and evaluating the behavior from my own subjective point of view. Since I am not them, I do not know what is moral for them, and so my projections are not valid evaluators of their moral experience. Therefore, although I feel that their behavior is wrong, those feelings must be erroneous projections of my own moral preferences as if they also applied to someone else."William J Murray_{January 17, 2015
January
01
Jan
17
17
2015
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Sorry for mucking up many of the block quotes above. i hope the careful and interested readers can still discern the discussion points.Jerad_{January 17, 2015
January
01
Jan
17
17
2015
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

WJM @274
I don’t think that way or feel that way or justify my views in those ways.
Of course you don’t. Nobody outside of sociopaths think that way. That’s the point. You do not think in accordance with the logic necessary under moral subjectivism. You espouse moral subjectivism, but you live and think in accordance with moral objectivism.
I think you have too few categories. And you are way too sure of your own opinion. I might even say that you are imposing your view on others.
You have this view of people which is very narrow and based on your assumptions.
No, your internal narrative prevents you from understanding the actual nature of my argument. You cannot differentiate between an argument describing what moral subjectivism would logically necessitate and an argument claiming that self-described moral subjectivists actually think that way. Uh huh. So I'm somehow below you on the intellectual/insight scale? I'm deluded because I espouse a view you disagree with. Got it.
No, it has to do with whether or not other people are being hurt or abused and the degree of it.
Which is how you personally feel morality should be grounded. Under moral subjectivism, if someone personally feels that whether or not others are harmed or abused has nothing whatsoever to do with morality, under moral subjectivism that view is as valid and as moral as your own.
There are some objective measures for abuse and pain and suffering surely. Even under an objectivist standard there are some boxes you can tick which make the case. This is where your cognitive biases are hiding something important from you: if morality is subjective in nature, then ultimately no matter what principle you offer that supposedly guides your moral behavior, your choice or use or acknowledgement of that principle is still rooted in your own personal preferences/proclivities and it cannot be an external arbiter by which your personal preferences/proclivities could be ascertained to be erroneous. So, even if I espouse an objective measure I'm still deluded and subjective? Once I disagree with you about there being an absolute morality then anything else I do is deluded?
Your cognitive bias/narrative is fooling you into thinking that a morality logically consistent with subjectivism can ultimately be anything other than “because I feel like it”. Because you feel bad about others being harmed or abused, you have a moral principle/ethic about not harming others. If you did not feel negatively about it, you would have no such moral “grounds” to your system of behavior. (That is, if you were thinking/acting in accordance with moral subjectivism, which you are not.)
Well you know all, see all, understand all. And I'm clearly just wrong and dumb.
I am not appealing to rhetoric but as there can be emotional pain and suffering then that may enter in.
As far as justifying your own moral proclivities or attempting to convince others thereof, rhetoric is all you have to appeal to, logically speaking.
So my view that hurting other people is bad and should be punished is ill-founded?
Unless pain and suffering are posited as objectively valid moral considerations, they are nothing personal preferences based on feelings. Invoking personal preferences and feelings in an attempt to sway the views of other is the very definition of rhetoric.
Sorry, I think there are times when it is obvious that someone is in pain, is being abused, is suffering. I'm sorry you disagree. Who's the relativist now?
Invoking personal preferences and feelings in order to justify (in a debate) a position is irrational.
Don’t hurt or abuse other people, that’s one of my central themes. If you do then you should expect to punished or restricted in society in some way. I don’t see how my own feelings come into that.
It’s quite obvious that you don’t see it, but that doesn’t change the fact that, under moral subjectivism (logically), because you feel negatively about the harm or abuse of other people, you construct a moral principle that reflects that feeling.
So, it's not true? My feeling that it's bad when other people are in pain or being abused?
(That’s not what really goes on – you sense through conscience the actual moral landscape and, using logic (such as you are able) to reason out moral principles from that actual sensory interaction. However, as a subjectivist, you must intellectually reject that this is what is going on, and instead all you can logically be doing (even though it’s not what you are actually doing) is extrapolating a subjective moral code from personal, subjective feelings and proclivities. You see, I’m not accusing you of making up moral codes based on feelings; I’m showing you what is logically necessary if moral subjectivism is actually true. You can’t see it because that’s not what you are actually doing, but cognitive bias (probably due to ideological commitments) is hiding what you are actually doing from you, layering over it a superficial, poorly-thought-out, irrational subjective-morality cover story to avoid theism.) Unfortunately, what you seem incapable of doing (or are prevented from doing by your ideological commitments) is following that logic back to fundamental premise (in your case, an undeclared and probably unrecognized but necessary axiom) that your moral codes must logically be extrapolated from your personal, subjective feelings and proclivities (since you accept no exterior, objective moral code that can overrule your feelings) under moral subjectivism.
Well, since you've got it all figured out I'm just going to shut up and let you tell me what I think and what is true.
Your heart’s in the right place, even if your head is being led astray by ideological commitments. You probably behave more morally than I.
Yeah but who cares if I'm deluded and wrong and liable to decide that murder or rape is okay.Jerad_{January 17, 2015
January
01
Jan
17
17
2015
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

So that fixes it then. Let's have every subjectivist write down their own moral code, say that it follows directly from natural law, and BAM, everyone turns into an objectivist.hrun0815_{January 17, 2015
January
01
Jan
17
17
2015
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic, I agree with most of that, but I think that any form of morality from authority is problematic and ripe for abuse.William J Murray_{January 17, 2015
January
01
Jan
17
17
2015
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

WJM
Anyone can write down a list of subjective moral rules and viola! that moral code is objectively existent; that doesn’t mean those rules reflect the actual commodity that morality refers to.
I think an objective moral code has to reference something beyond a list of subjective moral rules. Otherwise, that's just subjectivism. Objective morality references an authority beyond the subjective. As you put it, it can reference the universal moral values of the natural law, or the authority of religious precepts and/or a combination of both. Objective morality requires some justification. Subjective morality does not need to be justified, even to the person who establishes it.Silver Asiatic_{January 17, 2015
January
01
Jan
17
17
2015
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Either, but not all objective moral systems are equal in terms of logical consequences. I suggest developing an objectivist-based morality which (1)reflects actual experience, (2) utilizes conscience to identify moral issues and reason to interpret and examine them and potential choices/responses, and (3) avoids logical self-contradiction and absurdities.William J Murray_{January 17, 2015
January
01
Jan
17
17
2015
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

hrun
Now your reply to me is that I am wrong.
I didn't say that. The subjectivist is always right for himself. One says rape is good the other rape is evil. Both are right.
Subjectivists are delusional liars if they agree and sociopaths if they don’t.
I never said this and I don't know what you're talking about. Agree with what?Silver Asiatic_{January 17, 2015
January
01
Jan
17
17
2015
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

So to be an objectivist which kind of objective moral code do you have to believe in? Either?hrun0815_{January 17, 2015
January
01
Jan
17
17
2015
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply