Subjectivists Need to Check Their Moral Privilege

WJM: "CF claims it is a fact that the history of human interaction has unfolded as if morality is subjective even though he agrees that humans interact as if morality is objective. I’d like to see him make that case." It's simple. We all think that our morals are the right ones and that everyone should comply with them. They are deeply entrenched in our minds. As such, we act as if they were objective. But since everyone acts in this fashion, and everyone's morals are different, they can't be objective. In short, our feeling that they are objective is a delusion.clown fish

May 27, 2016

May

05

May

27

27

2016

05:42 AM

5

05

42

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: I have added WJM at 338 and 3 in the new thread, to the FTR: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/fyi-ftr-cf-vs-moral-self-evident-truth-no-1/ KFkairosfocus

May 27, 2016

May

05

May

27

27

2016

05:24 AM

5

05

24

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CF admits:

I have stated that even subjectivists act as if our morals are objectively provided. But acting as if something is A does not make that something A.

.. then claims that it is a:

... fact that all of human history has rolled out as if morals are subjective, not objective.

That's an interesting juxtaposition of ideas. First, that all people act as if morality is objective in nature, and second, in apparent contradiction, that human history has played out as if morality is subjective in nature. Hmm. If human interaction is governed by behavior necessarily corresponding to the premise that morality is objective in nature (we all act as if morality is objective), how could the history of human interaction factually correspond to the premise that morality is subjective in nature? CF seems to think that there is some historical support for the idea that morality is subjective in nature. We've already established that just because different cultures or individuals disagree on a thing doesn't mean that thing is subjective in nature because individuals and cultures disagree and have disagreed on things we all agree are objective in nature. CF claims it is a fact that the history of human interaction has unfolded as if morality is subjective even though he agrees that humans interact as if morality is objective. I'd like to see him make that case.William J Murray

May 27, 2016

May

05

May

27

27

2016

03:39 AM

3

03

39

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CF: While there are some fairly serious developments on my plate here, I will take time to answer to a series of your points, step by step of thought. And yes, this will be inevitably long (so long that I will do it in at least two parts), that is necessary to be responsible. First, let us address MSET 1: KF, Moral SET 1: >>1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even your implication in your question, challenge and argument, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, you imply we OUGHT to do and say the right. Not even you can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.)>> CF, 251: >>KairosFocus: “Here is what you have yet to cogently engage — and this is not personal disagreement it is a matter of warrant: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.)” [CF:] Yup, that last sentence gives me confidence that any response I provide will be addressed seriously. And that was only the first “self evident truth”. By the way. I addressed your first self evident truth that would be patently absurd to deny. And you have never addressed my response except to say that I refuse to address your self evident truths. Given this, why should I take anything you say seriously? Why should anybody?>> KF, 265 [in part]: >> . . . did you not see that in both your last objections your essential objections were based on a perceived unfairness in the first principle. That is, on the evidence you accept the principle and are in fact unable to object to it as stated without appealing to it, i.e. the implicit but telling fact of moral obligation? (Did you ever wonder why it is that when we quarrel, we so persistently try to show others in the wrong, by way of error or unfairness or the like, and why it is that as a rule there is not a reaction: shut up you little frog, you is my lunch and you must just slide down de throat nicely. [There used to be a popular drawing of a heron of some type swallowing a frog, but it was trying to throttle the bird.]) Your objection to and distaste for the term absurdity is of course irrelevant: the point of the term is that when something is self evident, it has an inescapable quality to it such that in trying to deny it, one ends up in depending on it, confirming it, contradicting oneself logically [as in reductio ad absurdum], or by playing both sides of the field or the like. That is just what happened to you, and it will predictably happen to others also. Not because we are unfair [!] or are tilting the field [!] or are playing rhetorical tricks [!] or are showing disrespect [!] etc, but because of the inherent nature of the claim. Notice, again, the structure of the first manifestly evident core principle of the natural moral law: TRUTH CLAIM: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. PROBLEM WITH OBJECTION: This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. MEANING OF THIS PROBLEM: That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. UNIVERSALITY: Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. THE ABSURDITY: Patent absurdity on attempted denial. That is, self evidence . . . >> CF, 323 (as typical): >>Kairosfocus: “So, answered.” [CF:] How does any of that respond to my argument that morals are subjective and established as the result of instinct, indoctrination, learning, experience, thinking, predicting consequences of actions, etc.? And that these, because they are established early in life and supported through repetition and feedback, become very deeply entrenched in our minds? I have stated that even subjectivists act as if our morals are objectively provided. But acting as if something is A does not make that something A.>> 1 --> It must be noted, again, that this pattern of argument by CF is based on the premise that I am in error and in the wrong, and OUGHT not to be such. That is, again we see the obvious confirmation of the first MSET, that we are inescapably under moral government. 2 --> This obtains, even in cases where the objector professes otherwise. (That is, we expect others to acknowledge and sense that they are under moral obligation, and we too experience the same perception and cannot escape it.) 3 --> Indeed this points onwards to other MSETs, i.e. conscience is real and presents itself as a morality compass governing our behaviour [we must do the right, fair, etc] and thought world [we must shun error and move to the truth insofar as able]. If we reject such as fundamentally delusional -- a necessary import of radical relativism, subjectivism and nominalism as touching the moral world -- the implication is that grand delusion is let loose in our whole world of responsible, rational behaviour as there are no firewalls. 4 --> That is, we see a main faculty . . . conscience . . . which purports to perceive moral obligation in regards to thought, feelings, attitudes [you BIGOT, you HATER, you moral equivalent of a KKK RACIST, etc], behaviour and speech. But if we are not actually under such real obligation, it is delusional, and if so, a major aspect of our inner life is utterly untrustworthy, in a context where this touches and would taint our whole inner life, reducing us to an infinite regress of Plato's cave shadow show worlds. 5 --> That is, if level 1 perceptions are grandly delusional, then the perception that level 1 is delusional will also be suspect of being materially delusional, and then level 2, 3, 4, etc. The whole life of the mind and of serious discussion collapses in a cascade of successive delusions. 6 --> Patent absurdity. 7 --> But what about the fact that people, communities and civilisations across time and space differ on moral matters, doesn't that somehow prove that morality is only subjective? 8 --> The instant problem, of course, is as I pointed out in 331 above:

CF, you full well know that the response has long been on the table and that your very tone of taking umbrage underscores the force of Moral SET 1, that we are inescapably under the binding force of ought, of moral government. This alone suffices to decisively overturn any rhetoric to the effect that as views of different people and times have varied, morality is only subjective. Where also, it is separately self evidently and undeniably true that error exists, so it should be no surprise in a world of finite, fallible, morally struggling and sometimes ill-willed people, there will be morally freighted opinions and behaviours that conflict. But the point of something like this is that it shows that we are not locked up to radical relativism, subjectivism, nominalism and their implication that might and manipulation make ‘right,’ truth,’ ‘value,’ ‘meaning’ etc, — nihilism — but instead we can find a reasonable and responsible basis for moral views and values. Which opens the door to responsible reform rather than a bloody winner takes all fight — cf here the career of Wilberforce as a capital example; contrast the so often repeated pattern of radical revolutions and the likely outcome of resorts to lawfare. And, FYI, that is where nihilism ends up.

9 --> What was your answer, CF? Let's roll the tape from 332, just four minutes later on the timestamps:

KairosFocus, so, I assume that I can take it that you have nothing substantial to say about the fact that all of human history has rolled out as if morals are subjective, not objective.

10 --> But obviously, I had just said something VERY substantial about this [as cited and bolded just above], so the evidence is that you have not read with understanding and responded cogently . . . which is exactly what I have had to point out over and over. 11 --> But, don't people . . . subjects by definition . . . learn morality from their surroundings, and end up with wildly different views on any number of subject, proving that their morality is only subjective? 12 --> In fact, were that so, it would not bring down just morality, it would bring down the whole house of rational, responsible behaviour in a cascade of grand delusion -- a reductio ad absurdum. 13 --> But, it is patently not so. 14 --> For instance, C S Lewis, in his justly famous Mere Christianity, points out a pivotal fact about several of the core MSETs, the principle of moral governance in light of reciprocal duties and rights attested to by the moral compass, conscience:

Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?"—"That's my seat, I was there first"—"Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm"— "Why should you shove in first?"—"Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine"—"Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups. Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse . . .

15 --> This is much the same as this from the Apostle Paul's analysis in Rom 2 (which is likely in Lewis' background, though he is a considerable classicist and philosopher in his own right):

Rom 2:1 . . . you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? . . . . 14 . . . when Gentiles . . . by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. [ESV]

16 --> This is of course a key and foundational example of the Christian endorsement of the principle that the natural moral law is generally evident and comes out in how we behave with one another, especially our hypocritical expectations that others live up to standards we perceive but do not ourselves consistently keep. Where by our inner nature as morally governed beings, we find conscience as the compass pointing to a law of our nature, the moral law. 17 --> Notice, Paul's theological point about how this law condemns us: we point the moral finger at others (when we or those we care about are harmed or seem to be harmed or are threatened) but we then act to our own advantage in violation of the law we attest to in our own declared expectations. 18 --> Francis Schaeffer sometimes would speak in the metaphor of a tape recorder around our necks: every time we make a moral, principled judgement of others, God pushes the button and records it . . . or at any rate the recording angel. Then, come That Day of eternal reckoning, he rolls the tape of our lives and at the appropriate point plays the tape of our own moral code for others spoken out of our own mouth. Not a one of us would stand that test, we will damn ourselves in the true and proper sense from our own mouths. 19 --> Thus, we see that we know we are under a moral law of our nature as equally morally governed, equally valuable creatures [ --> the NT witness is that we each are of quasi-infinite worth, the value of one human soul exceeds the worth of the resources of a planet]. But, we too often not only falter, stumble and fail, but find ourselves the hypocrite. 20 --> In short, we know ourselves to be guilty sinners. 21 --> Yes, I dare speak that ever so unpopular word: SIN. 22 --> Out of or own mouths and consciences we stand self-condemned as knowingly under a moral law of our nature that we condemn others for violation, but we ourselves are ever so prone to violate it too. 23 --> So, not only per Christian scriptural teachings but the world of our own experience the real primary moral issue is forgiveness and moral transformation, not oh we are in the right and we are making such good progress never mind those bigots over there. 24 --> In part, I have to say this, as it seems so evident that by and large we do not understand the Judaeo-Christian tradition on such matters, and are ever so prone to erect and knock over strawman caricatures. 25 --> But Lewis does not stop there, he goes on to speak to the astonishing core agreement on core morality:

It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football. Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the "laws of nature" we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong "the Law of Nature," they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law—with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it . . . . This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. [--> by implication, in the absolute core parts] They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense [--> this was originally a series of BBC broadcasts during the early years of WW II]. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? [--> Despite what hey were being taught by their government, and despite what was being demanded of them, cf here the White Rose Movement] If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair . . .

26 --> In other words, we find a strong core consensus on first principles of morality, whatever differences and disagreements may happen later on or whatever specifics we have to hammer out across time. So, there is good reason to hold this as objective, however we may acquire the knowledge. Arithmetic is objective, never mind that we have to be taught it in major part, and that there are quite different approaches to solving types of problems, especially division. 27 --> Where, just as there are errors of Arithmetic, there are errors of morality, but they are much harder to recognise, acknowledge and fix so moral progress in the genuine sense takes time, sometimes centuries. 28 --> Indeed, I have argued that though it is inherently unstable and has to be stabilised in the context of a public that is properly literate, well informed and educated, historically democratic constitutions offer the best approach to a long term project of reform. 29 --> But for such to work, one of the chief props is commitment to manifestly evident first principles of the natural moral law [which are undergirded by the Judaeo-Christian tradition . . . hence that famous little remark by Geo Washington on the subject], or else nihilistic might and manipulation take over leading to a march of folly and ruin. 30 --> Which is exactly what is going on now across our civilisation. 31 --> Lewis has more:

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. [--> Think of Don Richardson's The Peace Child here, on a case of a culture in New Guinea that for many things admired conning, betraying, murdering and EATING another man. When the Sawi needed to make real peace, they used this mechanism, and the betrayal of a peace child was the most awful of crimes.] You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked. But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong— in other words, if there is no Law of Nature—what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

32 --> In other words, we do find ourselves generally and inescapably under moral government of OUGHT. 33 --> Where if this be delusional, it would set loose grand delusion across our whole inner life, wrecking it in a cascade of delusions. So, we acknowledge the objectivity of moral government attested to by a sense we have every right and need to trust in general -- conscience, on a self evident basis; on pain of collapse into absurdity. 34 --> Not even the objector is able to escape the force of this. As was repeatedly seen. More, following . . . KFkairosfocus

May 27, 2016

May

05

May

27

27

2016

03:37 AM

3

03

37

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

clown fish @332

"[...] all of human history has rolled out as if morals are subjective, not objective."

What do you mean by that? Can you relate it to the examples @328?Dionisio

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

10:57 PM

10

10

57

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Clown Your major objection about the objectivity of morality revolves around the observation that societal moral values differ from one culture to another,etc. WJM responded to this objection here "Pointing out that morality is not perfectly understood at all times by all people, or that at different times and in different cultures there are wildly different moral views is not a valid objection to the view that morality refers to an objective commodity, because the same objection can be raised about commodities which subjectivist rightly consider to be objective in nature. That objection is not valid. What other rational objection is there to the view that conscience is a sensory faculty that is receiving moral information from a moral landscape?" Did I miss your response? Also, putting aside morals, is there anything that exists objectively in nature? Vividvividbleau

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

09:14 PM

9

09

14

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KairosFocus: "CF, empty repetition of the already corrected." Finally, you are admitting that your repeated accusations are empty repetition of the already corrected. I would never have thought that you would admit this. I have underestimated you. I commend you.clown fish

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

05:04 PM

5

05

04

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CF, empty repetition of the already corrected. I will take up the attempted counters to the onward points later. Enough was done today as a time when a rack full of shoes are dropping locally. KFkairosfocus

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

04:15 PM

4

04

15

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KairosFocus, so, I assume that I can take it that you have nothing substantial to say about the fact that all of human history has rolled out as if morals are subjective, not objective.clown fish

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

03:39 PM

3

03

39

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CF, you full well know that the response has long been on the table and that your very tone of taking umbrage underscores the force of Moral SET 1, that we are inescapably under the binding force of ought, of moral government. This alone suffices to decisively overturn any rhetoric to the effect that as views of different people and times have varied, morality is only subjective. Where also, it is separately self evidently and undeniably true that error exists, so it should be no surprise in a world of finite, fallible, morally struggling and sometimes ill-willed people, there will be morally freighted opinions and behaviours that conflict. But the point of something like this is that it shows that we are not locked up to radical relativism, subjectivism, nominalism and their implication that might and manipulation make 'right,' truth,' 'value,' 'meaning' etc, -- nihilism -- but instead we can find a reasonable and responsible basis for moral views and values. Which opens the door to responsible reform rather than a bloody winner takes all fight -- cf here the career of Wilberforce as a capital example; contrast the so often repeated pattern of radical revolutions and the likely outcome of resorts to lawfare. And, FYI, that is where nihilism ends up. KFkairosfocus

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

03:35 PM

3

03

35

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KairosFocus: "F/N: remember, we can roll the tape as to the actual exchange." All of which took place long after I had originally responded, and you ignored it. If you have anything substantial to say about the fact that all of human history has rolled out as if morals are subjective, not objective, be my guest.clown fish

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

03:05 PM

3

03

05

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: remember, we can roll the tape as to the actual exchange: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/fyi-ftr-cf-vs-moral-self-evident-truth-no-1/ KFkairosfocus

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

02:55 PM

2

02

55

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

WJM, Andre, KF My mother-in-law told me that when she was 11, in the occupied Poland, on the first day of classes, as she walked to the school, she asked another Polish girl -in Polish language- something about the class schedules. A German girl who was walking nearby, reacted angrily asking: Has Du Nicht German gelernt? (haven't you learned German?) and slapped my mother-in-law's face. A few years later many German women were raped by soviet troops. What moral codes were observed by those different groups of people and by individuals in those separate cases? In every case, the offender(s) acted according to what was understood as "correct" and their victims were wrong. Welcome to this world!Dionisio

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

02:28 PM

2

02

28

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CG, even your attempt to deny the point just now shows just how inescapable the government of OUGHT is. KFkairosfocus

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

02:10 PM

2

02

10

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

WJM @299: Fair enough. I don't disagree with most of what you say. I agree we behave as if morals are objective. But I don't agree that this is because they are objective. In the common law (I am a lawyer) there is a theory you learn at law school that "the law" in its perfect form already exists, and in creating the common law, the judges are just excavating it. Over time we get closer and closer to this true and real vein of perfect law, that, as I said, is regarded as pre-existing. That's all very well as a theory, and its nice to think of the law in this way, but of course its crap. Judges are obviously just human beings trying to interpret legislation and previous judicial decisions in the context of their own values, biases etc. I see the argument of objective morals in the same way. Its a nice way to look at a human process for making decisions about the world. But of course its a pure fiction.zeroseven

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

02:09 PM

2

02

09

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Kairosfocus: "We find ourselves inevitably AND INESCAPABLY under the government of ought, precisely as the presented truth 1 states. Indeed, your objections again just now imply an appeal to just this governance of ought. KF" I hate to have to repeat myself, but where have I said that we are not under the government of ought? "2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. " I agree that it is evident that most of us have a conscience. But that does not mean that the morality that our conscience acts on is objective. Guilt is not a sign of objectivity. It is a sign that we feel that we are doing something that runs counter to one of our moral values. Moral values that can easily be explained by subjectivity. Before the 60s and 70s, many white people in the south would feel guilt at dating a black person. "3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. " Could you repeat this in English. Are you suggesting that if anything that is subjective is the result of delusion? If that is the case, then you are simply wrong. If I have misinterpreted what you are trying to say, please clarify. "4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise." Yes, we act according to our established moral values. We both agree on this. We disagree on whether these moral values are objective. You have still not provided any rationale as to why these moral values must be objective. "5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do . . . [ETC]" Natural moral law is a philosophical and religious construct. This does not make it an actual law. But rather than using old dead philosophers to try to defend your case, why don't you use your own words and do something as simple as explain why objective morality is fact when societal moral values vary dramatically from one culture to another, and within the same culture over time. If we are so objectively under obligation of OUGHT, and if objective morality is necessary for this, why is/was it possible for civilizations to have such vastly different moral values? Are they all deluding themselves and the only one with the absolute certainty of what these objective values are is you?Or is it more likely that the moral assemblage in any society is the result of indoctrination, instinct, learning, experience, rational thought, the ability to predict the outcome of actions, etc.?clown fish

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

01:31 PM

1

01

31

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CF, you will see that the answer is that your objection to the moral SET 1 (the substantial matter on the table) fails as it necessarily appeals to what it rejects. All the relevant factors on how we experience or interact with morals do not then make such only subjective. We find ourselves inevitably AND INESCAPABLY under the government of ought, precisely as the presented truth 1 states. Indeed, your objections again just now imply an appeal to just this governance of ought. KF PS: Of course Moral SET 1 as presented does a very limited job, it just shows that we find ourselves under moral governance and cannot escape it. There are 11 more to go, which bring to bear much more. For instance, in sequence following:

2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity. 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do . . . [ETC]

kairosfocus

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

12:37 PM

12

12

37

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Kairosfocus: "So, answered." How does any of that respond to my argument that morals are subjective and established as the result of instinct, indoctrination, learning, experience, thinking, predicting consequences of actions, etc.? And that these, because they are established early in life and supported through repetition and feedback, become very deeply entrenched in our minds? I have stated that even subjectivists act as if our morals are objectively provided. But acting as if something is A does not make that something A.clown fish

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

12:16 PM

12

12

16

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

WJM "I don’t know where you live, but in the USA we live in a representational republic under constitutional authority. That’s not the same thing as a government that operates from the “will of the people” via a democratic majority. " This is another big problem for those of us who live in the US, for the most part Americans don't know what form of government we have. Ask a high school student to articulate what form of government we have and they stare into space as they take a selfie.Heck ask anyone whatever the age ( which I do often) and most of the time the answer will be "We have a democracy" No No No democracies lead to tyranny. We have a constitutional republic, big difference. Vividvividbleau

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

10:03 AM

10

10

03

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CF, Apparently it has not registered that if you do not read the response you cannot responsibly say there has been no answer (and that holds for the further cases you have tried to snip and snipe over in a turnabout gambit). Let's roll the tape from 265:

265 kairosfocus May 25, 2016 at 3:50 am CF, did you not see that in both your last objections your essential objections were based on a perceived unfairness in the first principle. That is, on the evidence you accept the principle and are in fact unable to object to it as stated without appealing to it, i.e. the implicit but telling fact of moral obligation? (Did you ever wonder why it is that when we quarrel, we so persistently try to show others in the wrong, by way of error or unfairness or the like, and why it is that as a rule there is not a reaction: shut up you little frog, you is my lunch and you must just slide down de throat nicely. [There used to be a popular drawing of a heron of some type swallowing a frog, but it was trying to throttle the bird.]) Your objection to and distaste for the term absurdity is of course irrelevant: the point of the term is that when something is self evident, it has an inescapable quality to it such that in trying to deny it, one ends up in depending on it, confirming it, contradicting oneself logically [as in reductio ad absurdum], or by playing both sides of the field or the like. That is just what happened to you, and it will predictably happen to others also. Not because we are unfair [!] or are tilting the field [!] or are playing rhetorical tricks [!] or are showing disrespect [!] etc, but because of the inherent nature of the claim. Notice, again, the structure of the first manifestly evident core principle of the natural moral law: TRUTH CLAIM: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. PROBLEM WITH OBJECTION: This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. MEANING OF THIS PROBLEM: That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. UNIVERSALITY: Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. THE ABSURDITY: Patent absurdity on attempted denial. That is, self evidence. Which I know, I know, is not usually discussed in College classes much less high school ones these days. Not to mention, concepts such as moral certainty. And objective truth is typically mentioned only to be sneered at — indeed it is likely that we will instead hear about “absolute truth” (or even more likely those testosterone addled fundy, right wing would be theocratic inquisitors and absolutist throwbacks to the dark ages: ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked to a man . . . ), typically to set it up as a strawman and knock it over. Too often, by way of caricatures of “absolutists” and long litanies of the sins of the absolutists — as a rule, of the sins of Christendom. (And don’t expect to hear lists of the blessings of Christendom — victory always has a hundred claimed fathers but defeat is an orphan. In this case, the appropriation and well poisoning are leading to undermining the stabilising supports of our civilisation by way of march of folly.) A few pointers: Basic concept 1: truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. (That is, accurate reference to reality, the state of affairs in the world.) Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1011b. BC 2: Objective truth is that truth which is independent of the perceptions of a given individual or group etc, i.e. it is capable of some degree of warrant or grounding that establishes the claims as credible and reliable and open to [highly likely, successful] onward test. It does not actually imply certainty beyond possibility of correction, but entails that the claims are well founded and sufficiently reliable to be worked with with high confidence. BC 3: Absolute truth is the ideal — the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is, the full material truth on a matter, undiluted, untainted, without extras. The description matches the reality in all relevant aspects for decision and action. In practical matters we deal with objective truth and seek to approach absolute truth but face the challenge of bounded rationality, trade-off of alternatives and their risks, and especially the cost of undue delay tantamount to bad decisions that may be ruinous or at least painful. (Cf here Boyd’s OODA loop, in the full, multiple feedback form.) BC 4: Knowledge is warranted, credibly true (and so also, reliable) belief. Again, not an absolute claim, this corresponds to objective truth and in effect is a certificate of successful testing and objective foundation for truth claims. (No wonder so many ideologues are tempted to usurp the label knowledge.) BC 5: Moral certainty is a degree of confidence in a truth claim or the like, that holds that the degree of warrant is such that one would be irresponsible to dismiss or fail to act on a truth claim or knowledge claim or the like, given the state of the art and circumstances. BC 6: Evidence is what tends to (or at outset of investigation is admissible as potentially able to) credibly support a claim. For instance, the ancient documents rule of jurisprudence holds that record that is fair on the face [bears no clear marks of fraud] and comes from good chain of custody or repository is good evidence . . . which holds even if there are difficulties. BC 7: Proof is in the strict sense a successful test for fact and logic sufficient to establish objective truth to a degree of certainty that its being overthrown is deemed abstractly possible but utterly unlikely. (E.g. post Godel, Mathematics of sufficient complexity to enfold “arithmetic” is such that it is necessarily incomplete on pain of incoherence and there is no constructive procedure that guarantees coherence.) BC 8: A fact is something that is known to be true or to have occurred, especially as being observed and reported or recorded by reliable means or witnesses. This is the basis of statistics and of sound information systems. Notice, this is not a matter of “inter-subjective agreement” among the guild of scholars or conventional wisdom of an institution or society etc after whatever political dust-up has occurred, it is a question of credible truth worthy of trust even if unpopular with the powers that be. BC 9: an empirical fact is a fact of observation of the world of experience. BC 10: a self evident truth is something that is true, and on actually understanding what is being claimed is seen as necessarily so on pain of patent absurdity. That is, the rejection or dismissal of a SET comes at a price of surrendering rational discussion on a matter. SETs are not proved, they are examined, explained and understood . . . made sense of . . . as the start-points of proof or investigation. Sometimes, they are termed first principles. BC 11: Distinct identity is the start point of reasoning, i.e. we mark some A (say a bright red ball on a table) as distinct from the rest of the world that is not A, ~A; W = { A | ~ A }. Instantly, A is A (as opposed to not A), any x in W cannot be A AND ~A in the same sense and circumstances, and any y in W is A or ~A but not both or neither . . . and yes I am using the full exclusive or. These are the three classic laws of thought: identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle. (These three are self evident, indeed we cannot prove them as to try to prove them we implicitly must already rely on them — even, to just talk about them we must use distinct thoughts, symbols, glyphs, sounds etc. Instead we come to recognise and understand them, and to see their significance and utter trustworthiness beyond any reasonable, responsible doubt. Similar things obtain for how a conscious being is undeniably and incorrigibly aware of its consciousness, and for something like error exists.) BC 12: In this context, moral SETs hold as first core principles of moral governance of responsibly and rationally free individuals that are so, are seen to be so on insightful reflection i/l/o our existing base of experience of our world, and are seen to be necessarily or undeniably so on pain of absurdity. The attempted denial undermines itself in some significant way that shows that this is an utterly reliable start point for moral reflection on the world of OUGHT. In the case above, attempted denial will invariably reflect reliance on the premise that we OUGHT to seek the truth, the right, the fair etc. A point of beginnings . . . KF

So, answered. Just it does not seem rhetorically convenient to you to acknowledge that such was given. KF PS: If I were not satisfied that there is reason, I would not headline FTR.kairosfocus

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

09:53 AM

9

09

53

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

WJM,

Let’s take a longer view here; let’s say that how people have actually behaved throughout history, how they have actually come to whatever moral beliefs and forms of government they have come to has been via the mechanism of subjective self-interest even when it masquerades or self-deludes as if it were objective morality.

Let me make a correction/clarification to my post #306. I'm actually not sure that these moral beliefs arising out of self interest would not objective. In other words, the categories "arising out of self interest" and "objective" are not obviously (to me) mutually exclusive. However, I think most on the objective side don't accept that pursuit of narrow self-interest would lead to much, if any of their own moral behavior.

It seems to be your argument or idea that the same thing, or something even better, could be generated if we instead disabuse everyone from their delusion by promulgating the "fact" that there is no objective morality, no necessary consequences or obligations, and that it's all a matter of subjective self-interest and personal justification.

No, I'm not making that argument at all.

But, here you think you know better than physical reality how to get to a good, just society and maintain that society; you think you can take out the main ingredients that are unique to that very society and replace those ingredients with their conceptual opposite and get the same, or a better, product, when there is simply no good reason for you to think this other than finding those ingredients ideologically unacceptable.

Um, no. Kindly don't tell me what I think.

Whether true or not, DaveS, theistic, objective, natural moral law is indeed what got us here, and it is what has given you an ivory tower to live in largely removed from what "moral anarchism" actually plays out like in the real world so that you can fantasize that moral anarchism will result in an even better world.

Take it easy. I'm just suggesting that some of our apparently moral behaviors might arise from our pursuit of our own self-interest, in a somewhat non-obvious fashion. It's certainly not an idea original to me. Furthermore, I would be interested to see a moral realist (I guess that's what the objective morality position is called) try using game theory to support his/her position, as it seems more common for the "subjectivists" to take that approach.daveS

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

09:52 AM

9

09

52

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KairosFocus: "CF, did you read the responses made long since above? It is actually headlined: https://uncommondescent.com.....ruth-no-1/" No. Does anybody read those things? " — the oh you have not responded gambit you seem to like to use fails and exposes its lack of factual foundation. KF" Are you referring to the gambit suggested by your comments below:

I cannot but note that Cf et al have yet again failed to cogently address the following, CF, again you are asserting when something you have consistently refused to address is on the table. You have in fact failed to substantially address the first matter . . . objectivity of moral SET’s. Again, after 50 and more comments you have failed to address the core substance — vindicating my comment this morning: CF, you are now at the threshold of outright vulgarity in a context of persistent failure — nay, refusal backed up by now hurling of insults — to cogently address substance. Let me again put on the table what the relativists evidently will do and say anything but address: CF, you are the one using borderline vulgar language and insults rather than address substance. Meanwhile, you are still not addressing the substantial issues on the table in any cogent fashion.

I have responded to this matter many times, here and on other threads. You argue that we are governed by ought. Other than the way you use the term "self-evident", I agree with you. We all feel that we ought to behave in a certain way, governed by our moral values and conscience. We all think that others ought to behave in a similar fashion. Where we disagree is on where these moral values come from. You argue for objective morals, I argue for subjective morals. Subjective morals are derived from instinct, learning, experience, the ability to think, the ability to predict the outcome of actions, etc. Many of these are almost universal (e.g., killing, stealing, etc.). But these can easily be the result of the fact that we live in societies. Nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise. And these subjective morals, because they are established early in life, can become very deeply held. That does not make them objective.clown fish

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

09:41 AM

9

09

41

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

When you make falsity your yardstick the pivotal truth is the one thing you guarantee to lock out.kairosfocus

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

09:32 AM

9

09

32

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Andre, we see the dominant worldviews and agendas of our civilisation at work. And you see why I have been taking the stances I have been taking, on the whole we simply do not realise the matches we are playing with, or the geostrategic situation we face -- I put that little bit up here, separately: http://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/2016/05/matt-24-watch-291-my-quick-dirty.html and note ALL the big players are nuke or threshold nuke. Think a little about what EMP may do. March of folly. Do go mild on language, they will use any opportunity as a wedge. KFkairosfocus

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

09:28 AM

9

09

28

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Andre: It's that evolutionary perspective; they think anything can be built by chance interactions of haphazardly arranged individual parts. Thus, you can build a spaceship without a plan or a blueprint or any objectively verifiable knowledge; you can get a living organism from haphazardly interacting inert matter; you can get a stable, just, moral society by the haphazard interactions of self-interested individuals justifying whatever they do however they feel like.William J Murray

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

09:19 AM

9

09

19

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I can't help but ask where did these people come to their bad logic and woeful reasoning? Television? School? parents? Teachers? I am not ashamed to say their lack of understanding scares the crap out of me.Andre

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

09:10 AM

9

09

10

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

DaveS said;

On the other hand, perhaps it could be shown that even when everyone acts in his/her own selfish interests, certain “moral” behaviors emerge naturally, so to speak.

Let's take a longer view here; let's say that how people have actually behaved throughout history, how they have actually come to whatever moral beliefs and forms of government they have come to has been via the mechanism of subjective self-interest even when it masquerades or self-deludes as if it were objective morality. What we have, then, is that out of every actual form of government and moral code that has generated tribes and societies on Earth, the consensus best moral code and form of government and social structure (in I assume our personal opinion) is one where actual subjective self-interest has generated a sort of society-wide delusion that such things as objective morals exist granting imagined inviolable rights and freedoms beyond the authority of the majority and government, and imagined metaphysical equality, free will and responsible liberty to the citizens. It seems to be your argument or idea that the same thing, or something even better, could be generated if we instead disabuse everyone from their delusion by promulgating the "fact" that there is no objective morality, no necessary consequences or obligations, and that it's all a matter of subjective self-interest and personal justification. Well, the question would be, then, if moral anarchism was capable of generating such a society as we have now, or even a better one, why did social evolution adopt the memes that it did in order to get here? If social anarchism is the better route, how is it that a delusion seeing the moral world as the exact opposite of moral anarchy got us here? If you believe that the material world, evolutionary progress and social evolution are in fact the physical, brute equivalents of "game theory" being played out in the real world, then we know what kind of worldview perspective can create and maintain the kind of society we have been living in and enjoying. That worldview is theistic natural law objective morality where humans are presumed to have metaphysical, inviolable rights, have metaphysical equality, and where we have free will and moral obligations beyond the power of government or majority to decree otherwise. But, here you think you know better than physical reality how to get to a good, just society and maintain that society; you think you can take out the main ingredients that are unique to that very society and replace those ingredients with their conceptual opposite and get the same, or a better, product, when there is simply no good reason for you to think this other than finding those ingredients ideologically unacceptable. Whether true or not, DaveS, theistic, objective, natural moral law is indeed what got us here, and it is what has given you an ivory tower to live in largely removed from what "moral anarchism" actually plays out like in the real world so that you can fantasize that moral anarchism will result in an even better world. This reminds me of people that think they would like going back in time and living a simpler or "more authentic" or more "natural" life. No, you would not. Trust me. It's a fantasy devoid of all actual, real-life consequences and implications and devoid of any real thought about what living in such conditions would actually be like. Moral anarchism is, and always ends up, with some form of might makes right. Always. It is only the ivory tower of objective morality comfort that allows anyone to fantasize otherwise.William J Murray

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

09:04 AM

9

09

04

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

WJM:

It’s like Seversky has no idea at all what goes on in the rest of the world, and has no idea what history has shown humans capable of without a sound moral grounding rooted in the idea of inviolable human rights, self-determination, liberty and metaphysical equality.

I think many have this vague notion that we are in the process of somehow progressing beyond tyranny. But they seem to have no concept of where any actual progress originated or had its roots. It appears that they attribute it to some humanistic principle, perhaps even tied to the notion that we are evolving upward as a human race. On this view, history isn't really that important, because it is the story of what humans used to be like, and not what we are like now. From my perspective, this is a view steeped in blind faith and ignorance, which could help explain why it comes naturally enough to Darwinists.Phinehas

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

08:48 AM

8

08

48

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CF, did you read the responses made long since above? It is actually headlined: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/fyi-ftr-cf-vs-moral-self-evident-truth-no-1/ -- the oh you have not responded gambit you seem to like to use fails and exposes its lack of factual foundation. KFkairosfocus

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

08:13 AM

8

08

13

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KF,

DS, game theory can be used in morally informed decision making, especially multiturn games with opportunities for counter-moves. But those in turn depend on values frameworks and are thus dependent and contingent on foundational grounding.

Yes, I just thought that approach might be useful in clarifying foundations and/or perhaps simplifying your argument (perhaps by reducing the number of premises needed).daveS

May 26, 2016

May

05

May

26

26

2016

07:59 AM

7

07

59

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link