The Question of Objective Morality

August 21, 2017

6 hours ago, ficino said:

I'm enjoying this discussion as a lurker but can't comment at this point except on the God's omnipotence issue. Can God violate the principle of non-contradiction? I would think the issue there is that the person coming up with examples violates the principle of non-contradiction. So the examples are either meaningless or just deserve the answer 'no'. E.g. can God will His own non-existence? Can God create a second God metaphysically equal to himself, i.e. whose existence does not depend on anything else? These are defective questions, as I understand it.

I just this morning read Aquinas on this very topic (in Latin! har har). Here's a link to the relevant passage, Summa Contra Gentiles II.25, if anyone wants to look at a standard treatment of the problem

I definitely agree with your assessment but don't quite understand how disillusioned can with how he has been defining omnipotent. I think it is a dodge to avoid the rock question just because it's one of the older and outdated criticisms instead of addressing the problem in principle you bring up like why can't god create another god; he's god so why not? So I would say that it is an issue for his view and not mine. This is why Craig beings up such a distinction. I also think this view of omnipotence is defined so broadly that there is no need for terms such as Omni-benevolent and Omniscient.

23 hours ago, disillusioned said:

Personally I find Craig's view regarding God not being able to violate logic to be, frankly, stupid. I agree that the idea of an all-powerful God may not be coherent, and it may not be, strictly speaking, biblical, but I think that it is the only attribute that the common notion of God is supposed to have. What is God if not the supreme being? If he is subject to logic, then He is not supreme. Logic is. Should we not then start calling logic "God"? Again, though, this is a problem that arises from the fact that "God" is not well-defined. There I think that you and I are mainly in agreement.

.......

I do not agree that God cannot be all-good and all-powerful. I've always held, even as a Christian, that the claim "God is good" is not a claim about what God is like, it is a claim about what good is like. The only way that the claim "God is good" can be coherent, in my view, is if we are starting with a notion of what God is and saying "good is like that", not starting with a notion of what good is and saying "God is like that". What this means, though, is that whatever God does is good by definition, because that is how "good" is defined. Now, does this mean that God is not all-powerful, because He can't do evil? I think that this is a short-sighted line of argument. Suppose we say that X is an evil thing. It can only be an evil thing because it is anti-thetical to some action Y that God has done. This doesn't mean that God can't do X. The fact that God is all-powerful means that he undo Y and do X when ever he damn well pleases. Now, if God does this then X is no longer evil and Y is. But that is beside the point. God still did X, and he could do Y again if he wanted. So there is literally nothing that God cannot do. The claim that an action is evil is claim about what God has not done, not a claim about what He cannot do.

I really am not a fan of the way that you define all-good because it essentially makes the term redundant and meaningless. Essentially you are saying goodness is by definition what god is. So basically you are saying god is god. Therefore goodness only serves as a deceptive term that confuses things by leading some to think that goodness is an independent set of criteria that establishes what is right and wrong. Your X Y example isn't very good either. You say god can simply undo Y and do X whenever he pleases. That is absolutely true. You however argued earlier that god can do what he wants and that by definition it would be good. So on that view god can keep Y in place and then do X and it would be good. That is what I disagree with. If you want to change your view and say he can't do that then there is a sequence of events that god cannot do and therefore he is not omnipotent. You cannot re-categorize all-good under all-powerful.

23 hours ago, disillusioned said:

As to your question, in the absence of a supreme eternal being, I can't see how objective morality can exist. If it objective moral principles exist, then by definition they exist irrespective of whether anyone believes in them. In particular, they exist if nobody exists to believe in them. But it seems to me that moral principles require the existence of conscious beings. This is because I think that moral principles concern the behaviour of conscious beings. For example, suppose that the statement "it is wrong to cause suffering" is held to be an objective moral principle. In this case it must be true even if nobody exists who can cause suffering, or who is capable of suffering. In this scenario the statement is meaningless, because suffering does not exist, and cannot exist. If it is meaningless, it can't be true. So it cannot be objectively true.

.....

Again, I agree that statements can be objectively true. I don't agree that principles can be objectively true. Recall that I'm defining principles as fundamental truths, the starting points for reasoning about a topic. My contention is, essentially, that principles are just axioms by another name, and axioms are not objectively true. You seem to be taking the opposite view, namely that principles can be objectively true, and in particular, that there are moral principles which are objectively true. Would you mind explaining to me why you think that this is the case?

I think that is a good segue into hopefully better explaining why I think objective morality exists. I am a moral realist and I am the kind that believes that morality is derived from the physical universe. Let's use the example above to illustrate this except in this case we will also add Z which is NOT anti-thetical to some action Y. What will make this interesting is that in this case Y is the universe. In Y: X is always anti-thetical and Z is always not anti-thetical. Z and X will always be as such because they are properties of universe Y. The only way to change X or Z is to fundamentally change the nature of the universe that is Y. This is applicable with or without a god. That is why I spend so much time saying that god is a complete non-sequitur to objective morality. If you still want to maintain that morality is subjective because of other hypothetical universes that are unrealistic or incoherent fine but that's like arguing that maybe in some universe we can see without light. It would just be an argument from ignorance.

I would disagree that if something is meaningless (not relevant in this case) that it can't be true. The universe doesn't just have laws that govern what exists but that laws that govern what could exist that would apply if those things suddenly came into existence. I mean think about it. The Christian from this viewpoint couldn't say morality is objective because god existed before humans did and in fact other physical objects existed before humans did. That means that prior to god creating humans morality was meaningless and on your view therefore can't be objective. Morality might only be applicable to certain complex beings that would still be true if those beings didn't exist. Morality doesn't need to apply to number theory or quantum gravity to be objective either. It's applicable only to a specific phenomenon but it is objectively applicable to specific phenomenon. This is not axiomatic; it is based upon laws of the universe that allow the context of human life to exist in the first place. Morality is dependent upon the universe not individual axiomatic systems.

23 hours ago, disillusioned said:

I don't think that this critique is unique to morality. It is particularly pertinent to the question of morals because that's what we are talking about at the moment. That's all.

.....

The reason why I brought this up is because I've found that a lot of people (religious or otherwise) want to treat morality as a "special" subject. They want absolute, objective moral truth. But everything that I have learned in my life indicates to me that such truths do not exist in any area. I don't understand why morality, which I consider to be a uniquely human subject, should be different in this regard.

What underlies my contention that moral facts are just as objective as physical facts is that it's not a special case it's the same case. They are properties of the universe in the same way that facts are. Our systems that try to find these truths might be axiomatic but the truths themselves are not. I think morality is an important subject to use because we are human so it is very relevant. If we were rocks instead the principles would still be true just not relevant to us. I don't think we should approach morality differently when it comes to logic. I think we need to be just as calculated.

I want to hedge my bets and clarify however that I am not declaring certainty on this issue. I am absolutely open to changing my thinking on this. I am however much more sure that god doesn't make morality objective than I am about the existence of objective morality

August 22, 2017

20 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

I definitely agree with your assessment but don't quite understand how disillusioned can with how he has been defining omnipotent. I think it is a dodge to avoid the rock question just because it's one of the older and outdated criticisms instead of addressing the problem in principle you bring up like why can't god create another god; he's god so why not? So I would say that it is an issue for his view and not mine. This is why Craig beings up such a distinction. I also think this view of omnipotence is defined so broadly that there is no need for terms such as Omni-benevolent and Omniscient.

I addressed the rock question in my previous post. I think that the problem is that the questions you are asking don't actually make sense. I don't think this is dodging the issue. More on this in a moment.

20 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

I really am not a fan of the way that you define all-good because it essentially makes the term redundant and meaningless. Essentially you are saying goodness is by definition what god is. So basically you are saying god is god. Therefore goodness only serves as a deceptive term that confuses things by leading some to think that goodness is an independent set of criteria that establishes what is right and wrong. Your X Y example isn't very good either. You say god can simply undo Y and do X whenever he pleases. That is absolutely true. You however argued earlier that god can do what he wants and that by definition it would be good. So on that view god can keep Y in place and then do X and it would be good. That is what I disagree with. If you want to change your view and say he can't do that then there is a sequence of events that god cannot do and therefore he is not omnipotent. You cannot re-categorize all-good under all-powerful.

Yes, God could keep X in place and do Y and then they would both be good and would no longer be anti-thetical. I don't see why this is problematic. He's God.

I think that one problem we're having here is that we seem to place a different value on logic. In my view, logic is just a thing that humans do when they are trying to make sense. It doesn't necessarily have any special power, it's just practically useful. We like it when things make sense to us. It lets us do stuff. But there is no reason why they must. To paraphrase Haldane, I think it is quite probable that the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger even than we can imagine. Surely the same may be said of God, if He exists. This entails, though, that there is no reason why God, if He exists, should in any way conform to our notion of what he can and cannot do. Again, if logic is just a human construct, as I think it is, then there is no reason that God needs to be logical. His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts, etcetera, etcetera. He can do as he pleases. But this means that when we try to negate God by applying paradoxes such as the rock question, we are trying to make God play by our rules. Our rules need not apply. Thus the retort "He's God" meets every possible objection.

Now, if you think that this seems entirely too convenient, then I absolutely agree with you. It is too convenient. The theist can always get out from under logical objections by taking this line of reasoning. The problem, in my view, is not that this line of reasoning can be rejected, it is that the theist who takes this line of reasoning must simultaneously hold that we cannot understand God and that we can, in some respect, know what He wants us to do. This seems absurd to me. Further, the theist who argues this must concede that the proposition "God exists" is not only one that cannot be proven, it is one that cannot be understood. To then ask that we make this proposition the basis of our entire lives seems to me to be to ask entirely too much.

Again, my only concession to the theist is that if God exists, then in principle He could provide us with objective morality. I don't concede that the notion of "God" is well-defined. I don't concede that there is any reason to think that He exists. I don't concede that if He exists there is any reason to think that He has in fact provided us with objective morality. And I don't concede that if He exists and has provided us with objective morality that we actually understand it. I hope this clears a few things up.

20 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

I think that is a good segue into hopefully better explaining why I think objective morality exists. I am a moral realist and I am the kind that believes that morality is derived from the physical universe. Let's use the example above to illustrate this except in this case we will also add Z which is NOT anti-thetical to some action Y. What will make this interesting is that in this case Y is the universe. In Y: X is always anti-thetical and Z is always not anti-thetical. Z and X will always be as such because they are properties of universe Y. The only way to change X or Z is to fundamentally change the nature of the universe that is Y. This is applicable with or without a god. That is why I spend so much time saying that god is a complete non-sequitur to objective morality. If you still want to maintain that morality is subjective because of other hypothetical universes that are unrealistic or incoherent fine but that's like arguing that maybe in some universe we can see without light. It would just be an argument from ignorance.

I want to explore this, but right now I'm not sure that I understand your argument. It seems you are asking me to consider a universe Y containing X and Z, such that X is "wrong" and Z is "right". I'm not sure what else you might mean by "X is always anti-thetical". Anti-thetical to what? The universe? Z? I don't follow. If you could clarify, I'd appreciate it.

20 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

I would disagree that if something is meaningless (not relevant in this case) that it can't be true. The universe doesn't just have laws that govern what exists but that laws that govern what could exist that would apply if those things suddenly came into existence. I mean think about it. The Christian from this viewpoint couldn't say morality is objective because god existed before humans did and in fact other physical objects existed before humans did. That means that prior to god creating humans morality was meaningless and on your view therefore can't be objective. Morality might only be applicable to certain complex beings that would still be true if those beings didn't exist. Morality doesn't need to apply to number theory or quantum gravity to be objective either. It's applicable only to a specific phenomenon but it is objectively applicable to specific phenomenon. This is not axiomatic; it is based upon laws of the universe that allow the context of human life to exist in the first place. Morality is dependent upon the universe not individual axiomatic systems.

I'm not sure that I agree with your assertion regarding the laws of the universe. I don't know that we can say with certainty that the universe has laws. I'm aware that this seems like an absurd assertion. What about, for example, Newton's laws of motion? I would contend that these are not laws of the universe per se, but are rather laws of one of our models of the universe. The model is not perfect, and so the laws cannot truly be said to be objective laws "of the universe". They are just laws of our imperfect model. They are very useful, to be sure, but we shouldn't get carried away and claim that they are something that they aren't.

This matters because you seem to be trying to establish here that morality can be based on the actual laws of the universe, and not on axioms. But we don't know that the universe has actual laws, and if they do exist, we don't know what they are. All that we have are models, which are built on axioms. I don't see how you can around this.

Also, I don't know what you mean by your assertion that if something is meaningless it can be true. Can you give me an example of a true, meaningless statement?

20 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

What underlies my contention that moral facts are just as objective as physical facts is that it's not a special case it's the same case. They are properties of the universe in the same way that facts are. Our systems that try to find these truths might be axiomatic but the truths themselves are not. I think morality is an important subject to use because we are human so it is very relevant. If we were rocks instead the principles would still be true just not relevant to us. I don't think we should approach morality differently when it comes to logic. I think we need to be just as calculated.

I'm not sure that I agree with the bolded. To my mind, things can be said to be true in two ways: 1) via assumption (ie, as axioms) and 2) via proof (which relies necessarily on some set of axioms and rules of inference). In what other way can something be true? I think this is a very important question, which has a great deal of bearing on this discussion (and others!), so please consider your answer carefully. What does the statement "X is true" mean, if not "X is an axiom" or "X is provable"?

I agree that we should not treat morality as a special subject. I hope that it is clear by now that I am specifically trying to treat it as if it is not a special subject.

20 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

I want to hedge my bets and clarify however that I am not declaring certainty on this issue. I am absolutely open to changing my thinking on this. I am however much more sure that god doesn't make morality objective than I am about the existence of objective morality

I also am not certain about this, or anything really for that matter. That's one of the reasons why I like having these sorts of discussions: I always seem to learn something. If that means that I need to change my current way of thinking about this, then so be it.

August 22, 2017

Just dropping back in to say that I will be leaving on vacation tomorrow morning, and I will be away for about a week. I will check in at least a couple of times while I'm gone, and I may post, but certainly not daily. I do hope that the conversation continues. I'm enjoying it very much. I will certainly endeavour to respond to what others write on my return.

August 29, 2017

On ‎8‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 2:03 PM, disillusioned said:

Personally I find Craig's view regarding God not being able to violate logic to be, frankly, stupid. I agree that the idea of an all-powerful God may not be coherent, and it may not be, strictly speaking, biblical, but I think that it is the only attribute that the common notion of God is supposed to have. What is God if not the supreme being? .

On ‎8‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 10:33 AM, disillusioned said:

I addressed the rock question in my previous post. I think that the problem is that the questions you are asking don't actually make sense. I don't think this is dodging the issue. More on this in a moment.

Yes, God could keep X in place and do Y and then they would both be good and would no longer be anti-thetical. I don't see why this is problematic. He's God.

I think that one problem we're having here is that we seem to place a different value on logic. In my view, logic is just a thing that humans do when they are trying to make sense. It doesn't necessarily have any special power, it's just practically useful. We like it when things make sense to us. It lets us do stuff. But there is no reason why they must. To paraphrase Haldane, I think it is quite probable that the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger even than we can imagine. Surely the same may be said of God, if He exists. This entails, though, that there is no reason why God, if He exists, should in any way conform to our notion of what he can and cannot do. Again, if logic is just a human construct, as I think it is, then there is no reason that God needs to be logical. His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts, etcetera, etcetera. He can do as he pleases. But this means that when we try to negate God by applying paradoxes such as the rock question, we are trying to make God play by our rules. Our rules need not apply. Thus the retort "He's God" meets every possible objection.

First I want to apologize about how lazy I have been in waiting to respond to your last post. I am going to break my response into two parts with the first part addressing the theist's claim to objective morality.

I will start of by sharing my puzzlement for how casually you throw away a legitimate criticism not of my definition of omnipotence but YOUR definition of omnipotence. You stated that you think that omnipotence not including the ability to do that which is logically impossible to be stupid therefore it should include it (the first quote.) This definition of omnipotence is your ONLY justification for why God could be the basis of objective morality and it is not a good one. If we accept your definition of omnipotence then there is no reason why God should not be able to create another God. Especially if logic is a soft science because it is a human invention.

My point isn't that god couldn't do strange things that we would perceive as illogical it is that he can't just declare that which is actually illogical as logical and make it so. He cannot do this unless he fundamentally changes the nature of the thing he declares as something else. Saying “He's God” is not in any way a valid answer for justifying something that isn't true.

It's like saying God can make a Ham and cheese sandwich or a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and they would both be a peanut better and jelly sandwich. It is not a legitimate defense to go to say that you don't see the problem with it because after all he's god. This argument shouldn't be taken seriously.

You cannot argue that my previous objections and this statement are incoherent while SIMULTANEOUSLY arguing that god making anything moral is coherent; they are all equally illogical. Also If anything can be morality than nothing can be morality.

My biggest disagreement with you on this is that you seem to believe that the statement “god is the basis for objective morality” is wrong but consistent while I believe it is wrong and inconsistent. Defining god as omnipotent in the way that you do, which allows him to do the logically impossible, is making god by necessity incoherent. Thus I am completely fine in rejecting the conclusion of such a premise because the conclusion does not logically follow. It does not follow that incoherence can create objective morality. This point seems to be fairly obvious.

I find the argument that you are proposing troubling because it is very similar to the argument I get from theists when they are losing the debate on facts that prove god's existence. They will often do what I colloquially refer to as the Theist Hail Mary Pass Argument. They argue that we need god because we can't really know anything at all. They try to bypass argument itself by saying that you must presuppose god in order to have a rational debate about facts in the first place. This is ludicrous. The only evidence of facts is through their applicability. We know this applicability exists independent of knowing whether or not god exists. To argue that reason itself isn't enough is to undermine your own position and the value of argument itself because you are using reason to say that reason is invalid and therefore your argument would also be invalid. This is what you are doing about the topic of morality. The argument is the same and so is the refutation. This line of thinking is hardly convincing.

August 29, 2017

This second part of my response is going to continue to address my ideas of why I think objective morality exists without god first and then to address your objections so far on this point.

Objective morality might best be described under the concepts underlying game theory. Basically I would argue that there is an optimal form of human behavior that is optimal regardless of whether or not we know it. We could provide evidence for this by rating ethical behavior on a graph from least moral to most moral actions with an arrow getting closer and closer to the theoretically optimal morality. I think I saw in your bio that you are chess fan. You are probably familiar then with concepts used for artificial computer programs that are getting better and better at chess. This is in spite of the fact that because of the sheer number of possible games a decision tree could never exhaustively go through each game to determine what the absolute optimal chess strategy is. That doesn't mean that a range of optimal chess strategies don't exist. It may in fact even be argued that because the optimal chess strategy might be impossible to know that it is meaningless (I would not) but nonetheless is true even if it is meaningless. This is the same for any complex problem. Morality is a complex problem. We may never know optimal moral behavior but we certainly can make objective moral improvements.

On ‎8‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 10:33 AM, disillusioned said:

This matters because you seem to be trying to establish here that morality can be based on the actual laws of the universe, and not on axioms. But we don't know that the universe has actual laws, and if they do exist, we don't know what they are. All that we have are models, which are built on axioms. I don't see how you can around this.

Also, I don't know what you mean by your assertion that if something is meaningless it can be true. Can you give me an example of a true, meaningless statement?

I'm not sure that I agree with the bolded. To my mind, things can be said to be true in two ways: 1) via assumption (ie, as axioms) and 2) via proof (which relies necessarily on some set of axioms and rules of inference). In what other way can something be true? I think this is a very important question, which has a great deal of bearing on this discussion (and others!), so please consider your answer carefully. What does the statement "X is true" mean, if not "X is an axiom" or "X is provable"?

I already gave several examples of where a meaningless statement can be true including responding to the example you gave. Meaninglessness is only an existential question; whether something is meaningless or meaningful has no bearing on truth. Either something is factual or it isn't and it isn't dependent upon any one or group of people's definition of meaning.

What is required for objective morality is not the existence of conscious beings but only a universe where it is POSSIBLE for conscious beings to exist. Ultimately the causes of human behavior come from the universe itself. Those same causes would exist in the universe that we live in regardless of whether or not humans exist at any given point in time in that universe. This is because those laws of the universe are still in place even if humans don't exist. The only way objective morality CANNOT exist is in a different universe where human beings CANNOT exist.

You don't seem to understand that the statement “X is true” only makes sense if truth is INDEPENDANT of X being an axiom or X being provable. Unless X is true regardless of whether or not X is an axiom or X is provable it would only be made up and not real. You are doing what you have done several times in this argument. You are saying that truth is the same as knowledge. This cannot be the case because that would mean that every fact that we didn't know about the world wasn't true until we knew it. Nonsense. You seem to be making the argument: Knowledge is based on axioms therefore nothing we know is true. This is obviously absurd.

On ‎8‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 10:33 AM, disillusioned said:

I want to explore this, but right now I'm not sure that I understand your argument. It seems you are asking me to consider a universe Y containing X and Z, such that X is "wrong" and Z is "right". I'm not sure what else you might mean by "X is always anti-thetical". Anti-thetical to what? The universe? Z? I don't follow. If you could clarify, I'd appreciate it.

Your understanding of my modification of your example where Y is a universe is correct. This universe Y has action X which is wrong and Z which is right. Therefore the ACTION X is always Anti-thetical to ACTION Y (Anithetical to the action not a different universe.) Therefore the only way action X can be said to be good and not bad is to change universe Y into a different universe that is no longer Y. God can not simply declare X is now Z within universe Y because X is antithetical to Z.

On ‎8‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 10:33 AM, disillusioned said:

I'm not sure that I agree with your assertion regarding the laws of the universe. I don't know that we can say with certainty that the universe has laws. I'm aware that this seems like an absurd assertion. What about, for example, Newton's laws of motion? I would contend that these are not laws of the universe per se, but are rather laws of one of our models of the universe. The model is not perfect, and so the laws cannot truly be said to be objective laws "of the universe". They are just laws of our imperfect model. They are very useful, to be sure, but we shouldn't get carried away and claim that they are something that they aren't.

This matters because you seem to be trying to establish here that morality can be based on the actual laws of the universe, and not on axioms. But we don't know that the universe has actual laws, and if they do exist, we don't know what they are. All that we have are models, which are built on axioms. I don't see how you can around this.

I already addressed your objection about universal laws governing the universe; I don't understand how you've overlooked it. Just because certain patterns aren't the same at all points and scales of the known universe doesn't mean that they are subjective in the domain in which they apply. Relativity demonstrates this. If I am in a train or a plane I can walk around normally within the contraption that I am in as if it wasn't moving at high speeds. That phenomenon is not invalidated by the knowledge that I am actually moving at the same speed as what I am contained in. Again objective truth can be limited to a context but just because it's contextual doesn't mean it isn't objective.

And even if somehow we found out that so many facts that we thought were true were false like gravity for example that wouldn't invalidate the structures that are in place in the universe that we aren't aware of that we owe our very existence to because those things exist independently of our knowledge of them. I hope I am coming across a bit more clearly.

I would say that your argument seems to be getting way to close to sophistry for my taste. Reality exists independently of axioms. Therefore the existence of axioms cannot be used to disprove objective morality because objective morality by definition does not come from axioms. In the same way that facts do not come from axioms. We may use axioms for knowledge to give us our best estimations of physical reality and morality but physical facts and moral facts are a product of the nature of reality not our estimations of it. Our interpretation can get parts of it right but their reality is not in any way dependent upon our interpretations that are indeed based upon axiomatic assumptions. Things exist independent of our knowledge of them.

August 30, 2017

First, I once again want to be careful to make it very clear that the position that God is the source of objective morality is not my position. Part of what I have done thus far in this thread has been to defend this position strictly for the sake of argument. In so doing, I have been making use of the lines of reasoning that I used to take when I was a Christian. I no longer actually think that this is the case. I still say that God could be the source of objective morality, but that is all that I actually contend.

On 29/08/2017 at 0:31 PM, Blamtasticful said:

My biggest disagreement with you on this is that you seem to believe that the statement “god is the basis for objective morality” is wrong but consistent while I believe it is wrong and inconsistent. Defining god as omnipotent in the way that you do, which allows him to do the logically impossible, is making god by necessity incoherent. Thus I am completely fine in rejecting the conclusion of such a premise because the conclusion does not logically follow. It does not follow that incoherence can create objective morality. This point seems to be fairly obvious.

Here’s the thing. I definitely don’t think that the statement “god is the basis for objective morality” is wrong but consistent. What I think is that it is wrong and incoherent. And, if we grant for the moment that it may be coherent, then I agree with you that it is probably inconsistent. But here’s the real problem: the fact that it is inconsistent does not matter one iota if it is not wrong. Hence, arguments to the effect that it is inconsistent don't get you anything. The only point I’ve been working towards here is the same one that I used to try to make as a desperate Christian trying to hold onto faith: if God is truly God, then He is not subject to logic. So it doesn’t matter if a statement about him is logically inconsistent. He’s God. Logic, being a purely human construct, can, in principle and in practice, never demonstrate anything at all about Him. In particular, it cannot be used to demonstrate that any statement about Him is false. So, you see, it is not a coincidence that this is a similar argument to ones that you usually get from theists who are losing the debate. This is because I used to be that theist. The difference between me and them is that I now recognize that the flip side of this is that logic also cannot be used to demonstrate that any statement about God is true, and therein lies the real problem as I see it. This realization was one of my final straws. So I understand completely your frustration with my argument regarding this point, but I still hold that God could be the source of objective morality, so long as He exists.

Put another way: of course it is true that we can’t logically show that God does not exist, or is not the source of morality. He’s God. He doesn’t have to play by the rules of logic. But this entails that we also cannot have any logical reason to think that He does exist, or that he is the source of morality. If you want to take it completely on blind faith, then have at ‘er, but I’m out.

I'm afraid I'm pressed for time at the moment, so I will have to get to your second post later.

August 31, 2017

Now I'm going to try to get into the meat of the issue. Let's move on from the idea of God, since neither of us thinks he exists, and look again at the question of whether or not objective morality exists in His absence.

On 29/08/2017 at 1:34 PM, Blamtasticful said:

Objective morality might best be described under the concepts underlying game theory. Basically I would argue that there is an optimal form of human behavior that is optimal regardless of whether or not we know it. We could provide evidence for this by rating ethical behavior on a graph from least moral to most moral actions with an arrow getting closer and closer to the theoretically optimal morality. I think I saw in your bio that you are chess fan. You are probably familiar then with concepts used for artificial computer programs that are getting better and better at chess. This is in spite of the fact that because of the sheer number of possible games a decision tree could never exhaustively go through each game to determine what the absolute optimal chess strategy is. That doesn't mean that a range of optimal chess strategies don't exist. It may in fact even be argued that because the optimal chess strategy might be impossible to know that it is meaningless (I would not) but nonetheless is true even if it is meaningless. This is the same for any complex problem. Morality is a complex problem. We may never know optimal moral behavior but we certainly can make objective moral improvements.

Alright, I think I understand what you are saying here. Let’s look at the chess example a little more closely. Yes, it is true that there may be an optimal chess strategy even though we don’t know what it is. Yes, it is true that increasingly complex programs will continue to make progress towards determining a range of optimal chess strategies. And no, we don’t need to know what the hypothetical “best” chess strategy is for this to be the case. But, and this is the really important point, in order for any of this to be the case we need to have a well-defined notion of what “chess” is. In order for there to be objective improvements in chess strategy, there needs to be a clear set of rules by which the game of chess is played. Fortunately there is, and so all of the above follows with very little trouble. But the only reason that there is such a clear set of rules regarding the game of chess is that humanity has written them. So within the rules of the game, there can be objective improvements. But the question of whether or not the rules are objectively the right ones is a different question entirely. That is the question that is more relevant to my contention.

I recognize that, as humans, we have a moral system (or a range thereof). I recognize that because we have such systems, within the context of a particular system, there will be some actions which are objectively “right” and some actions which are objectively “wrong”. What I’m questioning is whether or not it can be said that the moral system itself is objectively correct. I don’t think that such a statement can be made. Similarly, I don’t know that the rules of chess can be objectively be said to be correct. All that can be said is that they are the rules that we, as humans, have agreed upon. I really don’t think that this is so very different from morality. To put it another way, in chess, there are some moves that are objectively allowed and some that are not. This is also the case in checkers. And the moves that are allowed in chess are not the same as the moves that are allowed in checkers. Moreover, neither chess nor checkers is in any sense objectively the correct game. Hence it only makes sense to speak about moves which are allowed or not in the context of a particular game. I contend that a very similar thing may be said of morality. It only makes sense to speak about objectively right and objectively wrong actions in the context of a particular moral system which, in itself, is not objectively correct. So I think that it is very important to distinguish between the contention that objective improvements can be made within a particular moral system and the contention that a particular moral system is, in itself, objectively correct. It is the latter that I object to, not the former. And, thus far, it is only the former that you have defended.

On 29/08/2017 at 1:34 PM, Blamtasticful said:

I already gave several examples of where a meaningless statement can be true including responding to the example you gave. Meaninglessness is only an existential question; whether something is meaningless or meaningful has no bearing on truth. Either something is factual or it isn't and it isn't dependent upon any one or group of people's definition of meaning.

This doesn't seem right to me. It seems entirely obvious to me that a meaningless statement can have no truth value. If I say "I have brown hair", then I have made a statement which has meaning. Moreover, clearly this statement is either true or false. My hair may be brown, or not. By contrast, though, the statement "beings contingent green verity seduction whereupon no single action alcohol" is a meaningless string of words. To contend that it is true would be to contend that the statement not only has meaning, but that the meaning that it has is correct. To contend that it is false would be similarly to contend that its meaning is incorrect. I can see no other way that it could be either true or false. It just doesn't mean anything. In fact, I can't even begin to imagine how one would argue that it is true. What would be true? Surely you can see that before such an argument could be made, the meaning of the statement would have to be established. But in that case, it would no longer be a meaningless statement.

I'm sorry, but I don't recall you giving an example of a meaningless statement that is true. Could you refresh my memory? What you have done is give several examples of undecidable statements. But undecidable statement is not the same thing as a meaningless statement. An undecidable statement means something, it just can't be shown to be either true or false.

On 29/08/2017 at 1:34 PM, Blamtasticful said:

What is required for objective morality is not the existence of conscious beings but only a universe where it is POSSIBLE for conscious beings to exist. Ultimately the causes of human behavior come from the universe itself. Those same causes would exist in the universe that we live in regardless of whether or not humans exist at any given point in time in that universe. This is because those laws of the universe are still in place even if humans don't exist. The only way objective morality CANNOT exist is in a different universe where human beings CANNOT exist.

This seems to me to be full of baseless assertions. Recall that the contention "objective morality exists" here equates to "there exists a set of moral principles which are real and binding irrespective of what any one thinks about them". In other words, there needs to be an absolute "moral law" (or a set thereof), and it needs to be an actual law of the universe. But here is the problem: as I've said before, we don't know that the universe has any actual laws. You have reacted with vehement disagreement to this, but you haven't actually offered any argument to the effect that it does. You have just asserted that it is the case. Here is the issue that I'm having: law is a human idea. What reason do we have to think that our ideas have any bearing on what the universe is actually like? Surely you can see that it is possible for us to have ideas which do not match at all what the universe is like. This remains true, despite the fact that our ideas about the universe have been shaped by the universe (since we are the products of the universe). Consider, for example, that a conscious deep ocean fish would only ever be able to draw incorrect conclusions about the true nature of the universe. So it is entirely possible that our ideas about the universe are only the products of our position in the universe, and that they do not actually apply to the universe proper. This includes, unfortunately, the idea that the universe has actual laws. This puts us in an uncomfortable position, but so what? Here is where we are. More on this in a moment.

On 29/08/2017 at 1:34 PM, Blamtasticful said:

You don't seem to understand that the statement “X is true” only makes sense if truth is INDEPENDANT of X being an axiom or X being provable. Unless X is true regardless of whether or not X is an axiom or X is provable it would only be made up and not real. You are doing what you have done several times in this argument. You are saying that truth is the same as knowledge. This cannot be the case because that would mean that every fact that we didn't know about the world wasn't true until we knew it. Nonsense. You seem to be making the argument: Knowledge is based on axioms therefore nothing we know is true. This is obviously absurd.

Again, I seem to have given you the wrong impression regarding what I am arguing. I apologize. As this conversation progresses I seem to be becoming more and more clumsy in my attempts at communication, which is rather the opposite of what I am attempting to do. Please bear with me while I back up for a moment.

I said before that I think that the statement “X is true” reduces to either “X is provable (under a certain set of axioms)” or “X is an axiom”. You seem to disagree with this statement, rather forcefully. Fine. Let’s look at an example. You cited gravity in your most recent post, so let’s work with that. Let’s say that you contend that a rock which is dropped will fall to the Earth. For the purpose of simplicity, let’s leave aside any mathematical modelling of the way in which it will fall, and let’s also assume that we are only considering the case in which the rock is dropped in relatively close proximity to the Earth (say, from a height of five feet above the ground). It seems to me from what you have written thus far that you would say that the statement “this rock, when dropped, will fall to the Earth” is true. Fine. But of course I’m perfectly entitled to ask you how you know that. And, in order to demonstrate it to me, presumably you would drop the rock, whereupon I would accept that you were correct, having seen the proof. This is how science works.

In other words, my acceptance of your statement is contingent on your ability to prove it to me. This is not really a problem, in this case, because proving the statement in question is trivially easy. But suppose that there was only one rock in the world, and there was no possible way for you to lift it. In this case, I would be under no obligation to accept your statement that the rock, when dropped, would fall to the Earth. It would be an undecidable statement (but not a meaningless one!). Perhaps true, or perhaps not. And, in the absence of any way to get any sort of proof, the contention that the statement in question is true would need to be assumed, or not. In other words, the statement would need to be taken as an axiom if its truth were to be maintained. I’m not sure that there is any other way in which the statement could be said to be true.

Now, you seem to want to say that the truth of the statement exists independent of what we think about it, that the statement is actually either true or false irrespective of our ability to obtain truth and also irrespective of our assumptions. Fine. But then I am perfectly entitled to ask why you feel justified in making such a statement. And, in attempting to answer me, you will undoubtedly either offer some sort of proof (say, a convincing argument) or ultimately plead that I take it as axiomatic. But surely you can see that this leaves us right back where we started: with precisely the two kinds of truths that I previously identified.

In addition to this, there is the issue that I identified above regarding the applicability of our modes of thought to the universe. Again, I can't really see any reason to think that our ideas should actually be able to describe how the universe is in fact. I can't even say with certainty that the universe is anything in fact. The best I can do is to say that it might be a certain way. What we can do is build models of the universe based on our experiences and our modes of thought. So long as the models seem to work, we keep using them. But it is folly, in my view, to conclude that the models describe how the universe actually is. We know for a fact that none of our models is perfect. In my view, this is probably because they are our models, and we are not equipped to actually describe the universe.

So where does this leave us? Should we just do away with the notion of truth that is independent of our knowledge of it? Maybe, but I’m not sure that it would be useful to do so. And here is where pragmatism comes into play. We can get science back again because it seems to work. We can continue to reason logically because doing so gets us positive results. We can behave morally because doing so seems to improve our quality of life. But in all of this we should not lose sight of the fact that we actually don’t know what is going on, or if anything at all is going on. All we know is what seems to work. But I would contend that there is a world of difference between “seems to work” and “is objectively correct”, particularly when we are speaking of moral principles. Again, I do not contend that there are no sets of moral principles under which some actions may be said to be objectively right and objectively wrong. I also do not contend that it is not the case the some sets of moral principles seem to work more effectively than others. What I contend is that we have no reason to think that there is, or even that there should be, a set of moral principles which is in itself objectively correct.

I hope that this clarifies my position somewhat.

On 29/08/2017 at 1:34 PM, Blamtasticful said:

Your understanding of my modification of your example where Y is a universe is correct. This universe Y has action X which is wrong and Z which is right. Therefore the ACTION X is always Anti-thetical to ACTION Y (Anithetical to the action not a different universe.) Therefore the only way action X can be said to be good and not bad is to change universe Y into a different universe that is no longer Y. God can not simply declare X is now Z within universe Y because X is antithetical to Z.

I think at this point I've either dealt with this sufficiently, or not. I don't really have anything else to say here.

On 29/08/2017 at 1:34 PM, Blamtasticful said:

I already addressed your objection about universal laws governing the universe; I don't understand how you've overlooked it. Just because certain patterns aren't the same at all points and scales of the known universe doesn't mean that they are subjective in the domain in which they apply. Relativity demonstrates this. If I am in a train or a plane I can walk around normally within the contraption that I am in as if it wasn't moving at high speeds. That phenomenon is not invalidated by the knowledge that I am actually moving at the same speed as what I am contained in. Again objective truth can be limited to a context but just because it's contextual doesn't mean it isn't objective.

And even if somehow we found out that so many facts that we thought were true were false like gravity for example that wouldn't invalidate the structures that are in place in the universe that we aren't aware of that we owe our very existence to because those things exist independently of our knowledge of them. I hope I am coming across a bit more clearly.

I hope that my response above has clarified my position with respect to this somewhat.

On 29/08/2017 at 1:34 PM, Blamtasticful said:

I would say that your argument seems to be getting way to close to sophistry for my taste. Reality exists independently of axioms. Therefore the existence of axioms cannot be used to disprove objective morality because objective morality by definition does not come from axioms. In the same way that facts do not come from axioms. We may use axioms for knowledge to give us our best estimations of physical reality and morality but physical facts and moral facts are a product of the nature of reality not our estimations of it. Our interpretation can get parts of it right but their reality is not in any way dependent upon our interpretations that are indeed based upon axiomatic assumptions. Things exist independent of our knowledge of them.

This is full of assertions for which there is precious little justification. For example, you assert here that reality exists independently of axioms. I'm tempted to ask how you know this to be true. Perhaps you might justify it for me.

I want to assure you that I am not trying to engage in sophistry. It is not my intention to fool anyone. If my arguments are fallacious, then this is due to my limited understanding not my intent. I agree that we have come quite far in this thread, and have ventured here into some territory that is not comfortable at all. But so what? These are things that I actually think about. And if we find ourselves in a position where we actually have no reason to think that, for example, logic can tell us something about how the universe is, surely the fact that this is not a comfortable position to be in doesn't really matter. It's just where we are.

August 31, 2017

Oh boy. This is why I mentioned concern with your argument sounding a lot like the unreasonable arguments theists often use. I can easily demonstrate that reality exists independently of axioms because if it doesn't then you would have to say that reality didn't exist until humanity came up with axioms. This is an incredibly important point. Are you prepared to make that assertion? Saying reality is not independent of axioms is like what the law of attraction or new thought forms of Christianity believe. They use confirmation bias to support their assertions and use contradictory results to say see that just proves that the system is subjective and that it was simply me who didn't visualize correctly or didn't have the right amount of faith.

I am going to keep bringing up points I have made earlier that you have not been taking time to address. Earlier in criticizing how god can make anything moral I gave an example of something that was absurd in the same way. It is like saying god created a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and a ham sandwich but that they are both a peanut butter and jelly sandwich because god said so. It is like saying H20 exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Why am I bringing this up again? Because that to me is what saying morality is subjective means. It is like saying feeding a baby and punching a baby repeatedly in the face are both equivalent actions. Are these both equivalent actions? It is basically saying that morality is a and not a at the same time.

Here is the problem I see you are having. You are getting caught up in semantics or issues with the labels used about certain things. My point on why I believe morality is objective is 1. that the principles that we call morality exist independently of the labels we have for them. Ludwig Wiggenstein's work focuses on this quite a bit. 2. That to even have a discussion about morality that morality has certain features it needs within its definition in order for people to have a coherent discussion about it such as a form of well-being, happiness, or fulfillment. You cannot justifiably say that their isn't a range of actions that are most likely to bring these things about in people and a range of actions that are next to impossible to bring these things about. That is objective and would exist even if language hadn't come up with the word morality.

So I guess this leads me to ask what you mean by objective morality? It seems you are playing a subtle game of hide the ball with how you define this term. I would argue that you are defining objective morality as "only that which comes from god." I would reject such a notion of objective morality because what reason do we have for maintaining that assertion?

You actually haven't adequately explained this example earlier which you initially started I might add. Universe Y has action X which is wrong and Z which is right. Therefore the ACTION X is always Anti-thetical to ACTION Z (Anithetical to the action not a different universe.) Therefore the only way action X can be said to be good and not bad is to change universe Y into a different universe that is no longer Y. God can not simply declare X is now Z within universe Y because X is antithetical to Z. Explain to me how is this not true?

You say that the laws of the universe are subjective but when I give an example of how that even subjective experiences can still be objective phenomenon demonstrated through the experiences of a person on a train or plane you brush right past it lol. What more do you want? Please tell me how you justify this phenomenon is just an imperfect model of the universe and isn't a fact? I will repeat a THIRD time that you don't need to have a theory of everything that explains all parts of the universe at all scales to say that this phenomenon is true in this context. It is the only context that it needs to apply in.

Here are the examples that I gave of statements that could be meaningless and yet true. If we in our universe with the same laws didn't have stars or humans it would still be true to say "a human body will burn up upon entry when approaching a star." The statement would be true because if matter where to suddenly be arranged to form humans and stars it would happen just in the fashion from the same matter in this universe that currently had neither of those objects. Completely meaningless within that context and yet true. Photosynthesis is only limited to the context of plants. Since photosynthesis isn't a general phenomenon of all of the universe does that mean that the phenomenon on your argument so far it wouldn't be truly objective and therefore meaningless. And again we may never know what the optimal game or set of optimal chess game strategies will ever be because of the sheer number of possibilities. One could therefore argue that those games are meaningless but they would nonetheless be true. I think I have demonstrated my case.

Also your example of a meaningless statement that isn't true "beings contingent green verity seduction whereupon no single action alcohol" is not truly meaningless and as I showed earlier on this thread is actually a problem for your viewpoint not mine. On the point of meaning: First it is meaningful because it is demonstrating the point that you are trying to bring across. Second all the words in that order don't make sense as a standard sentence precisely because we know the contexts where those words DO convey concepts. Third it is a sentence created using the skills that we use to navigate the world that we are limited to and can't work outside of. Why it is your problem is because if morality is truly subjective then that sentence is no more morally true than any standard coherent moral statement.

You stated "my acceptance of your statement is contingent on your ability to prove it to me." This is true. It does not follow that a statement is true contingent upon a person's ability to demonstrate it. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it the crash still produces sound waves. In the same way that gravity (assuming it's true which seems rather reasonable don't you think?) doesn't fluctuate in and out of existence when we have measured it and not measured it. This isn't hard.

10 hours ago, disillusioned said:

But in all of this we should not lose sight of the fact that we actually don’t know what is going on, or if anything at all is going on. All we know is what seems to work. But I would contend that there is a world of difference between “seems to work” and “is objectively correct”, particularly when we are speaking of moral principles. Again, I do not contend that there are no sets of moral principles under which some actions may be said to be objectively right and objectively wrong. I also do not contend that it is not the case the some sets of moral principles seem to work more effectively than others. What I contend is that we have no reason to think that there is, or even that there should be, a set of moral principles which is in itself objectively correct.

I am not quite sure what you mean here lol. I don't think there is a difference between what works and what is objectively true why would there be? Can you demonstrate how something can be objectively true and NOT work? Just because an objective phenomenon is misattributed to something else absolutely in no way means that that misattributed cause is what caused it.

It seems to me that all that you are arguing is that nothing is objective. You believe that nothing is objective because we can't justify axioms. My argument is that the term objective is not a term whose definition is dependent upon the justification of axioms. There is just simply no reason why this has to be the case. Yes the only reason that we have for axioms is how it makes things function. Aaaaaand? Yes reality is based on what works. Name me how it can function any other way? The term objective doesn't assume that that isn't the case it works within that understanding and framework.

I mention that because I think it is very important to keep in mind because remember that you yourself have said that this argument isn't unique to morality and that it therefore isn't a special case. In this sense you are making metaphysical and epistemological arguments about reality not an ontological one about morality.

Your understanding of objective honestly approaches argument in bad faith and is a subtle form of question begging. Because the very structure of your argument does not allow evidence or argument to make a valid point. I can say this is objective and you can just say either "but how do you know that" or "but that is not objective" on to infinite and beyond even if I exhausted every single possibility. It is in bad faith because it assumes many of the principles that it criticizes in order to make a meaningful argument.

So far I think my best arguments have been:

1. That objective morality is a contextual and emergent phenomenon (much like consciousness btw) that is derived from the same laws of the universe that caused the physical universe to come into being the way it is today because we are also a physical phenomenon; that is why it is objective. Morality should be approached within that framework.

2. That the law of non-contradiction combined with the nature of reality apart from semantics makes it impossible to say that morality is a and not a at the same time.

3. That a definition of morality inherently has within it some notion of happiness, well-being, or fulfillment.

4. That an optimal form of human behavior DOES exist EVEN IF WE CAN'T KNOW IT.

5. That the objectivity of morality does not require that the term objective must justify the knowledge of axioms outside of what works.

These statements together for me make the case for objective morality.

P.S. I have often been told that my form of argument can come across to sharply or arrogantly. I do want to sincerely apologize if I could have been more eloquent in avoiding that impression in my most recent posts. My intention is only to communicate clearly my points so that they are better understood. I see argument as a respect of the humanity of the one you are arguing with because you believe that they are worth spending time to argue with.

September 1, 2017

9 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

Oh boy. This is why I mentioned concern with your argument sounding a lot like the unreasonable arguments theists often use. I can easily demonstrate that reality exists independently of axioms because if it doesn't then you would have to say that reality didn't exist until humanity came up with axioms. This is an incredibly important point. Are you prepared to make that assertion? Saying reality is not independent of axioms is like what the law of attraction or new thought forms of Christianity believe. They use confirmation bias to support their assertions and use contradictory results to say see that just proves that the system is subjective and that it was simply me who didn't visualize correctly or didn't have the right amount of faith.

I am going to keep bringing up points I have made earlier that you have not been taking time to address. Earlier in criticizing how god can make anything moral I gave an example of something that was absurd in the same way. It is like saying god created a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and a ham sandwich but that they are both a peanut butter and jelly sandwich because god said so. It is like saying H20 exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Why am I bringing this up again? Because that to me is what saying morality is subjective means. It is like saying feeding a baby and punching a baby repeatedly in the face are both equivalent actions. Are these both equivalent actions? It is basically saying that morality is a and not a at the same time.

Here is the problem I see you are having. You are getting caught up in semantics or issues with the labels used about certain things. My point on why I believe morality is objective is 1. that the principles that we call morality exist independently of the labels we have for them. Ludwig Wiggenstein's work focuses on this quite a bit. 2. That to even have a discussion about morality that morality has certain features it needs within its definition in order for people to have a coherent discussion about it such as a form of well-being, happiness, or fulfillment. You cannot justifiably say that their isn't a range of actions that are most likely to bring these things about in people and a range of actions that are next to impossible to bring these things about. That is objective and would exist even if language hadn't come up with the word morality.

So I guess this leads me to ask what you mean by objective morality? It seems you are playing a subtle game of hide the ball with how you define this term. I would argue that you are defining objective morality as "only that which comes from god." I would reject such a notion of objective morality because what reason do we have for maintaining that assertion?

You actually haven't adequately explained this example earlier which you initially started I might add. Universe Y has action X which is wrong and Z which is right. Therefore the ACTION X is always Anti-thetical to ACTION Z (Anithetical to the action not a different universe.) Therefore the only way action X can be said to be good and not bad is to change universe Y into a different universe that is no longer Y. God can not simply declare X is now Z within universe Y because X is antithetical to Z. Explain to me how is this not true?

You say that the laws of the universe are subjective but when I give an example of how that even subjective experiences can still be objective phenomenon demonstrated through the experiences of a person on a train or plane you brush right past it lol. What more do you want? Please tell me how you justify this phenomenon is just an imperfect model of the universe and isn't a fact? I will repeat a THIRD time that you don't need to have a theory of everything that explains all parts of the universe at all scales to say that this phenomenon is true in this context. It is the only context that it needs to apply in.

Here are the examples that I gave of statements that could be meaningless and yet true. If we in our universe with the same laws didn't have stars or humans it would still be true to say "a human body will burn up upon entry when approaching a star." The statement would be true because if matter where to suddenly be arranged to form humans and stars it would happen just in the fashion from the same matter in this universe that currently had neither of those objects. Completely meaningless within that context and yet true. Photosynthesis is only limited to the context of plants. Since photosynthesis isn't a general phenomenon of all of the universe does that mean that the phenomenon on your argument so far it wouldn't be truly objective and therefore meaningless. And again we may never know what the optimal game or set of optimal chess game strategies will ever be because of the sheer number of possibilities. One could therefore argue that those games are meaningless but they would nonetheless be true. I think I have demonstrated my case.

Also your example of a meaningless statement that isn't true "beings contingent green verity seduction whereupon no single action alcohol" is not truly meaningless and as I showed earlier on this thread is actually a problem for your viewpoint not mine. On the point of meaning: First it is meaningful because it is demonstrating the point that you are trying to bring across. Second all the words in that order don't make sense as a standard sentence precisely because we know the contexts where those words DO convey concepts. Third it is a sentence created using the skills that we use to navigate the world that we are limited to and can't work outside of. Why it is your problem is because if morality is truly subjective then that sentence is no more morally true than any standard coherent moral statement.

You stated "my acceptance of your statement is contingent on your ability to prove it to me." This is true. It does not follow that a statement is true contingent upon a person's ability to demonstrate it. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it the crash still produces sound waves. In the same way that gravity (assuming it's true which seems rather reasonable don't you think?) doesn't fluctuate in and out of existence when we have measured it and not measured it. This isn't hard.

I am not quite sure what you mean here lol. I don't think there is a difference between what works and what is objectively true why would there be? Can you demonstrate how something can be objectively true and NOT work? Just because an objective phenomenon is misattributed to something else absolutely in no way means that that misattributed cause is what caused it.

It seems to me that all that you are arguing is that nothing is objective. You believe that nothing is objective because we can't justify axioms. My argument is that the term objective is not a term whose definition is dependent upon the justification of axioms. There is just simply no reason why this has to be the case. Yes the only reason that we have for axioms is how it makes things function. Aaaaaand? Yes reality is based on what works. Name me how it can function any other way? The term objective doesn't assume that that isn't the case it works within that understanding and framework.

I mention that because I think it is very important to keep in mind because remember that you yourself have said that this argument isn't unique to morality and that it therefore isn't a special case. In this sense you are making metaphysical and epistemological arguments about reality not an ontological one about morality.

Your understanding of objective honestly approaches argument in bad faith and is a subtle form of question begging. Because the very structure of your argument does not allow evidence or argument to make a valid point. I can say this is objective and you can just say either "but how do you know that" or "but that is not objective" on to infinite and beyond even if I exhausted every single possibility. It is in bad faith because it assumes many of the principles that it criticizes in order to make a meaningful argument.

So far I think my best arguments have been:

1. That objective morality is a contextual and emergent phenomenon (much like consciousness btw) that is derived from the same laws of the universe that caused the physical universe to come into being the way it is today because we are also a physical phenomenon; that is why it is objective. Morality should be approached within that framework.

2. That the law of non-contradiction combined with the nature of reality apart from semantics makes it impossible to say that morality is a and not a at the same time.

3. That a definition of morality inherently has within it some notion of happiness, well-being, or fulfillment.

4. That an optimal form of human behavior DOES exist EVEN IF WE CAN'T KNOW IT.

5. That the objectivity of morality does not require that the term objective must justify the knowledge of axioms outside of what works.

These statements together for me make the case for objective morality.

P.S. I have often been told that my form of argument can come across to sharply or arrogantly. I do want to sincerely apologize if I could have been more eloquent in avoiding that impression in my most recent posts. My intention is only to communicate clearly my points so that they are better understood. I see argument as a respect of the humanity of the one you are arguing with because you believe that they are worth spending time to argue with.

You can call it objective if you want. Your version seems to be instantaneous objective morality does little to predict an outcome.....no repeatability.

September 1, 2017

3 hours ago, end3 said:

You can call it objective if you want. Your version seems to be instantaneous objective morality does little to predict an outcome.....no repeatability.

That's definitely a challenge and criticism no doubt about it. But I think it is one worth taking on don't you? It's not like we are completely and totally morally inept. I agree with Steven Pinker's assessment that we appear to be becoming more moral.

September 1, 2017

10 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

That's definitely a challenge and criticism no doubt about it. But I think it is one worth taking on don't you? It's not like we are completely and totally morally inept. I agree with Steven Pinker's assessment that we appear to be becoming more moral.

Was considering this during some windshield time.....if we were to plot "moral acts" in the space time continuum, would we see a direction, a trend, a line? If we did, that might suggest to me that yes, we were moving towards something, maybe a greater morality.....but who's to say, given our culture more than less defines morality. I guess we might take a few parameters that we could agree on, theologically and otherwise, and examine the plot. Actually, I wish I had the data and software to do that....intriguing to me.

Edit: Our standard is what is in question....

September 1, 2017

First of all, End3, I’m glad to see you here. I’m hopeful that others will still join this conversation as well. There is plenty of room here for many different perspectives.

Blamtasticful,

I’m going to respond to the content of what you wrote in your most recent post in a moment, but first I want to address your post-script regarding the tone of your arguments. I have a fairly thick skin, and am not easily offended. It is not the way in which your argument is presented that I find troubling. You should, of course, feel free to disagree with anything that I say. You should feel free to do so strongly. You should feel free to criticize, disassemble, negate and challenge all of my arguments. And likewise, I feel free to do the same to you. This is how the discussion moves forward. This is how we learn.

In most recent two posts, however, you have now twice accused me of not being intellectually honest. This is concerning to me because I pride myself on being intellectually honest. And here’s the thing: I think I can see why you might say that I’m arguing in bad faith, or that it seems as if I’m engaging in sophistry. I’m not doing either, but apparently I’ve given you the impression that I am. This reflects poorly on me. So, in part because of this and in part for the benefit of others reading this thread who may be getting confused, I’m going to try to summarize what I have argued thus far, and in so doing I will also attempt to meet the objections to my position that you raised in your most recent post by clarifying my position where necessary. I will also attempt to holistically respond to the some of the arguments that you make for your position. I will respond more analytically to the specific points that you have most recently raised in another post.

I began this thread by clearly defining what I mean by objective morality. This was done in the very first post. On August 17, in my reply to LogicalFallacy, I offered some further definitions as follows:

Principles are fundamental truths. They are similar to axioms, except that we know for sure that axioms are not objective. Principles are a starting point for reasoning about a topic.

Morality is the set of principles which concern "right" and "wrong" and the distinctions between them.

Objective Morality is a set of principles concerning "right" and "wrong" which are real and binding irrespective of human opinion or even knowledge of them. Objective moral principles, if they exist, would still exist even if no one agreed with them.

These definitions were clearly laid out before you joined the discussion. I have taken pains to be consistent in my use of these terms. Hence I don’t understand how you can feel justified in claiming that I am not being forthright with my use of these definitions. Moreover, I think it is very clear that “God” does not appear anywhere in my definitions, so I cannot be defining objective morality as “only that which comes from God”. I did spend some time in this thread defending, strictly for the sake of argument, the theist’s contention that if God exists then He could provide us with objective morality as defined above. You reacted quite negatively to this, seeming to think that I was somehow ceding ground to theists. I hope that at this point I have laid these particular fears to rest. This was, ultimately, a tangent, but it is one that we seem to keep coming back to. And actually, I want to make use of this to address something else that is quite important, but first I want to be clear: I don’t think that God exists. I don’t think that the notion of God is coherent. I don’t think that the statement “God is the source of objective morality” really makes sense. But here is where we differ: you have contended, quite clearly, that you think reality exists independently of our knowledge of it. You have also contended that real truth exists independent of proof, or axioms. Let’s assume for a moment that this is correct. On this view, it is entirely possible that our understanding of the world is not reflective of how it actually is. It is entirely possible that things which we don’t understand, or even can’t understand, might nevertheless exist. When we say that the notion of God is not coherent, we must mean that it is not coherent to us. Well, so what? If there is an objective reality, we might not be equipped to understand it at all. Hence, on your view, it is entirely possible for the notion of God to be incoherent or inconsistent and yet for Him to exist. And if He exists, then He is God, and can do anything, whether or not it makes any sort of sense to us. This includes making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich which is also a ham sandwich etc etc. All of the other objections that you raise can be met by retorting “He’s God”.

Now. This does not in any way constitute a positive case that God exists, or that He is the source of objective morality. It also does not in any way entail that objective morality exists. But, what it does entail is that if God does exist then he could provide us with objective morality (in addition to doing whatever the hell else he wanted). Any objection that you make to this is an objection made from your understanding, which has no authority over the ultimate reality that you insist exists. That’s all that I have to say about that.

Let’s move on to the other things that I have argued in this thread. I spent some time explaining how mathematics and science work. In particular, I highlighted that both (either formally or informally) make use of axioms and proof. In the case of math, we get real proof. In the case of science, proof is just sufficient evidence. I have contended that I know of two ways for a statement to be true: either axiomatically, or via proof of some sort. Moreover, a satisfactory proof will, of necessity, eventually reduce to a restatement of the axioms of whatever system we happen to be using. And I have contended that, since axioms are ultimately arbitrary, and since no logical system can, even in principle, be complete, this leaves us in the position of being forced to recognize that objective truth can only exist within a particular system. Moreover, the objective truths of one system do not need to match those of another. And (and this is the really important point) there is no criterion for establishing which system is objectively correct. Some are more useful than others. Some match our observations of the world better than others. But none do so perfectly.

From this point, I contend that it follows that we can build moral systems as we would any other system. It is not fundamentally different from how we do science, or how we conduct reason. In a particular moral system it may be shown that a statement is objectively right or objectively wrong. But the moral system itself is not objective, because the moral principles on which it is based are just axioms, which are, ultimately, arbitrary. If you’re using system A and I’m using system B, we can each establish objective truth within our own system. But if my system ends up saying “X is right” while yours says “X is wrong”, then there is no way to determine whether X is actually right or wrong, because there is no way to determine which system is objectively correct.

In other words, my contention that objective morality does not exist boils down to the contention that no moral system can be said to be objectively correct. You have provided, to this point, no argument to the contrary.

Now I want to circle back to the question of the existence of reality independent of axioms. Again, this is an issue that you have responded to vehemently, but without much substance. I have argued that logic is just what we, as humans, do when we are trying to make sense. I’ve argued that we build models (formal systems) of the world which allow us to do science. But it is clearly the case that none of our models fits the world properly. This may be because we don’t have the right model, or it may be because we can’t have the right model. It seems to me to be glaringly obvious that if our brains are simply products of the universe, then they do not need to have the ability to actually understand it. So it seems to me to be quite likely that we are not capable of understanding how the universe actually is. All that we can do is build imperfect models.

I also mentioned that we can’t say with certainty that the universe actually is anything. This really seemed to bother you. You asserted that reality exists independently of axioms. I asked you if you could justify this assertion, and you replied “I can easily demonstrate that reality exists independently of axioms because if it doesn't then you would have to say that reality didn't exist until humanity came up with axioms.” The problem is that this does not actually demonstrate anything. It does not preclude, for example, the positions of epistemological solipsism. It is possible that the only thing which exists is my mind, and that everything else is the product of my mind. This cannot be shown to be false. Hence it cannot be shown that the world external to my mind actually exists.

Now, I want to be careful not to give you the wrong impression. I don’t hold that reality does not exist. I hold that it does exist. But my position that it does exist is itself an axiom. It cannot be proven. And even if it could, then the proof itself would necessarily ultimately reduce to a particular set of axioms! So, no, the statement “reality exists” cannot be made independently of axioms. Either it itself must be taken as an axiom, or it must be proven from a different set of axioms. Note that this does not mean that reality does not exist. I do not make that statement. All that it means is that if we want to say that it does, we can’t do this without making use of axioms.

The other important thing that I’ve argued thus far is that in dealing with all of this, I find it helpful to fall back on pragmatism. I can’t demonstrate that it is true that reality exists. So what? I assume it, because it is useful to do so. This is the principle that I rely on when choosing what to take axiomatically. I try to choose axioms that are consistent and useful. This lets me carry on doing science and math, behaving morally, and generally living my life without losing too much sleep over the fact that I actually don’t know what the hell is really going on. But, at the end of the day, all of my reasoning is based on axioms, and they are still arbitrary. They are not objectively correct. This includes whatever axioms my moral system happens to be based upon. However, this entails that the moral system itself is not objectively correct, and, in principle, cannot be objectively correct, which has been my basic contention throughout this thread.

As mentioned above, my next post will reply in detail and much more specifically to what you wrote in your most recent response. I would ask that if you reply to this post, you take the time to consider your response very carefully. I feel that I have now explained my position sufficiently, but if there is something that you don’t understand, then please ask for clarification before you attempt to negate it. These are not issues that I have only just begun to think about, and they are not issues that I treat lightly. If I can be shown to be incorrect, then that’s fine with me. I have no problem changing my position. But I will need a substantive objection to something that I have actually argued if I am to do so. I sincerely hope that you do reply, because, like you, I value the discussion both for its own sake and because I value you as a fellow thinker. If nothing else, then I hope that this post demonstrates that I am making every attempt to remain intellectually honest.

September 1, 2017

23 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

Oh boy. This is why I mentioned concern with your argument sounding a lot like the unreasonable arguments theists often use. I can easily demonstrate that reality exists independently of axioms because if it doesn't then you would have to say that reality didn't exist until humanity came up with axioms. This is an incredibly important point. Are you prepared to make that assertion? Saying reality is not independent of axioms is like what the law of attraction or new thought forms of Christianity believe. They use confirmation bias to support their assertions and use contradictory results to say see that just proves that the system is subjective and that it was simply me who didn't visualize correctly or didn't have the right amount of faith.

I addressed part of this in my previous post. What remains to be said is that the fact that an argument resembles an argument that a theist might make is not a critique of the argument in question. Theists are more than capable of making valid arguments. If something that I have argued is to be criticized, it must actually be criticized. If, for example, I’m relying on confirmation bias, then show me where and how I’m doing so. I don’t think I’m doing this. I’m also not asking you to “have faith”. Again, if you want to criticize my arguments, then please do so, but you’ll have to start with what I’ve actually said.

23 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

I am going to keep bringing up points I have made earlier that you have not been taking time to address. Earlier in criticizing how god can make anything moral I gave an example of something that was absurd in the same way. It is like saying god created a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and a ham sandwich but that they are both a peanut butter and jelly sandwich because god said so. It is like saying H20 exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Why am I bringing this up again? Because that to me is what saying morality is subjective means. It is like saying feeding a baby and punching a baby repeatedly in the face are both equivalent actions. Are these both equivalent actions? It is basically saying that morality is a and not a at the same time.

I think that the question of God and the peanut butter and jelly sandwich has, at this point, been addressed ad nauseum. The punching a baby question is more relevant. It is correct that on my view it may be possible to establish a moral system under which punching a baby is not a wrong action. Moreover, it will not be possible to show that this particular moral system is any “better” or “worse” than any other. However, I would hold that such a moral system is probably not very useful, and would probably lead to a society that we wouldn’t want to live. So we don’t use such a system, not because it is objectively “wrong”, but because it doesn’t get us what we want. (It is also true that most of us feel an aversion to baby-punching for biological reasons, which also contribute to our not using such a system).

23 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

Here is the problem I see you are having. You are getting caught up in semantics or issues with the labels used about certain things. My point on why I believe morality is objective is 1. that the principles that we call morality exist independently of the labels we have for them. Ludwig Wiggenstein's work focuses on this quite a bit. 2. That to even have a discussion about morality that morality has certain features it needs within its definition in order for people to have a coherent discussion about it such as a form of well-being, happiness, or fulfillment. You cannot justifiably say that their isn't a range of actions that are most likely to bring these things about in people and a range of actions that are next to impossible to bring these things about. That is objective and would exist even if language hadn't come up with the word morality.

I am not getting caught up in semantics. I have been very clear about the terminology I am using, and what it means. If we are using terms differently, then this is because you have not clearly defined your terms. Your first point here aligns with my definition of objective morality, but I don’t think that you have demonstrated that this assertion is actually true. Your second point has also not been justified. Any time you want to present a positive case support either of these points, I’m here.

23 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

So I guess this leads me to ask what you mean by objective morality? It seems you are playing a subtle game of hide the ball with how you define this term. I would argue that you are defining objective morality as "only that which comes from god." I would reject such a notion of objective morality because what reason do we have for maintaining that assertion?

This has been addressed in my previous post.

23 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

You actually haven't adequately explained this example earlier which you initially started I might add. Universe Y has action X which is wrong and Z which is right. Therefore the ACTION X is always Anti-thetical to ACTION Z (Anithetical to the action not a different universe.) Therefore the only way action X can be said to be good and not bad is to change universe Y into a different universe that is no longer Y. God can not simply declare X is now Z within universe Y because X is antithetical to Z. Explain to me how is this not true?

Yes, I have adequately addressed this point. If God exists, He’s God, and He can do anything he wants, whether or not we can understand it. Fortunately, I don’t think He exists. I have nothing further to say here.

23 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

You say that the laws of the universe are subjective but when I give an example of how that even subjective experiences can still be objective phenomenon demonstrated through the experiences of a person on a train or plane you brush right past it lol. What more do you want? Please tell me how you justify this phenomenon is just an imperfect model of the universe and isn't a fact? I will repeat a THIRD time that you don't need to have a theory of everything that explains all parts of the universe at all scales to say that this phenomenon is true in this context. It is the only context that it needs to apply in.

I didn’t address this because it isn’t an objection to anything that I’ve said. I’m not arguing that something can’t be objectively true in a particular context or under a particular system. I’m arguing that no particular system is objectively the right one. This is similar to Einstein’s that no particular frame of reference is the right one. This example does nothing to dispute anything that I have contended, which is why I brushed past it.

23 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

Here are the examples that I gave of statements that could be meaningless and yet true. If we in our universe with the same laws didn't have stars or humans it would still be true to say "a human body will burn up upon entry when approaching a star." The statement would be true because if matter where to suddenly be arranged to form humans and stars it would happen just in the fashion from the same matter in this universe that currently had neither of those objects. Completely meaningless within that context and yet true. Photosynthesis is only limited to the context of plants. Since photosynthesis isn't a general phenomenon of all of the universe does that mean that the phenomenon on your argument so far it wouldn't be truly objective and therefore meaningless. And again we may never know what the optimal game or set of optimal chess game strategies will ever be because of the sheer number of possibilities. One could therefore argue that those games are meaningless but they would nonetheless be true. I think I have demonstrated my case.

This is not coherent. We, in our universe are humans. There is no way that we, in our universe, could not have humans. But leave that aside. The statement would not be true unless the terms “human” and “star” were clearly defined. And if they were clearly defined, then it would no longer be a meaningless statement. A claim about the truth of a statement is, inherently, a claim about that statement’s meaning. It is a claim that the meaning of the statement is correct. So you literally cannot have a meaningless true statement. There would be nothing that could be correct.

Also, nowhere have I contended that things which are not objective are meaningless. Again, you dispute points that I have not made. If you would accuse me of arguing in bad faith, then it would behoove you to refrain from attacking straw men.

23 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

Also your example of a meaningless statement that isn't true "beings contingent green verity seduction whereupon no single action alcohol" is not truly meaningless and as I showed earlier on this thread is actually a problem for your viewpoint not mine. On the point of meaning: First it is meaningful because it is demonstrating the point that you are trying to bring across. Second all the words in that order don't make sense as a standard sentence precisely because we know the contexts where those words DO convey concepts. Third it is a sentence created using the skills that we use to navigate the world that we are limited to and can't work outside of. Why it is your problem is because if morality is truly subjective then that sentence is no more morally true than any standard coherent moral statement.

The fact that I am using that particular nonsense statement to demonstrate a point does not mean that the statement itself has meaning. It just means that it is useful. The statement itself is arbitrary. Your second point obtains nothing, because I could have as easily written “oaiselrni”, or even drawn a series of inkblots. I only used English words and letters for the sake of convenience. Your third point is just nonsense. Under a particular moral system, any number of statements may be true, but none of these statements can be meaningless.

If you still maintain that meaningless statements can be true, then I would like to ask you to please tell me if the statement “aoeirnawo;b!” is true or false, and clearly explain your reasoning.

23 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

You stated "my acceptance of your statement is contingent on your ability to prove it to me." This is true. It does not follow that a statement is true contingent upon a person's ability to demonstrate it. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it the crash still produces sound waves. In the same way that gravity (assuming it's true which seems rather reasonable don't you think?) doesn't fluctuate in and out of existence when we have measured it and not measured it. This isn't hard.

This is, more or less, correct, in my view. I wouldn’t say that a statement’s truth is contingent on any particular person’s ability to demonstrate it. Rather, I would say that it is contingent on whether or not the statement can, in principle, be demonstrated.

23 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

I am not quite sure what you mean here lol. I don't think there is a difference between what works and what is objectively true why would there be? Can you demonstrate how something can be objectively true and NOT work? Just because an objective phenomenon is misattributed to something else absolutely in no way means that that misattributed cause is what caused it.

As it turns out, I can demonstrate that something can be objectively true and not work. Again, something can be objectively true in a particular system of logic. Here is an example:

Axiom 1: All trees are fish

Axiom 2: All fish taste like chocolate

If we allow for the use of standard rules of deduction, it follows that, within this system, the statement “all trees taste like chocolate” is objectively true. But this does not match what we observe in nature, so it is not useful. So long as axioms are arbitrary, it will necessarily be the case that we can obtain useless, objectively true statements. All we need to do is start with useless axioms.

23 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

It seems to me that all that you are arguing is that nothing is objective. You believe that nothing is objective because we can't justify axioms. My argument is that the term objective is not a term whose definition is dependent upon the justification of axioms. There is just simply no reason why this has to be the case. Yes the only reason that we have for axioms is how it makes things function. Aaaaaand? Yes reality is based on what works. Name me how it can function any other way? The term objective doesn't assume that that isn't the case it works within that understanding and framework.

I mention that because I think it is very important to keep in mind because remember that you yourself have said that this argument isn't unique to morality and that it therefore isn't a special case. In this sense you are making metaphysical and epistemological arguments about reality not an ontological one about morality.

On the contrary, I have contended explicitly that many things are objectively true. But they can only be objectively true within a particular system. It is the axioms of the system which cannot be shown to be objectively true. Again, I must ask that you dispute what I am actually saying.

23 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

Your understanding of objective honestly approaches argument in bad faith and is a subtle form of question begging. Because the very structure of your argument does not allow evidence or argument to make a valid point. I can say this is objective and you can just say either "but how do you know that" or "but that is not objective" on to infinite and beyond even if I exhausted every single possibility. It is in bad faith because it assumes many of the principles that it criticizes in order to make a meaningful argument.

I addressed this in my previous post.

23 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

So far I think my best arguments have been:

1. That objective morality is a contextual and emergent phenomenon (much like consciousness btw) that is derived from the same laws of the universe that caused the physical universe to come into being the way it is today because we are also a physical phenomenon; that is why it is objective. Morality should be approached within that framework.

You have yet to show that the laws of the universe actually exist, or that they are objective. Also, your statement that objective morality is contextual and emergent contradicts the definition of objective morality that I have been very clearly using. At best, here, what you are doing is saying that my definition of objective morality is bad. But you haven’t offered an alternative definition. This is a problem for you, not me.

23 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

2. That the law of non-contradiction combined with the nature of reality apart from semantics makes it impossible to say that morality is a and not a at the same time.

You haven’t shown that reality exists. You haven’t shown that we actually know anything about its nature. And it is still not clear what you mean by morality.

23 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

3. That a definition of morality inherently has within it some notion of happiness, well-being, or fulfillment.

I categorically reject this. By my definition, an objective moral system must be correct regardless of what we think about it. Since happiness, fulfillment and well-being are frames of mind (at least in part), they cannot be the basis of objective morality as I define it. That would be having human thought as the basis of something which, by definition, must be correct independent of human thought. Clearly this is contradictory.

23 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

4. That an optimal form of human behavior DOES exist EVEN IF WE CAN'T KNOW IT.

Optimal according to whom? Also, you have asserted this, but I can’t recall that you have actually argued for it.

23 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

5. That the objectivity of morality does not require that the term objective must justify the knowledge of axioms outside of what works.

This is another baseless assertion that you have made.

In summary, it seems to me that you haven’t really argued for much so far in this thread. You’ve attacked arguments that I haven’t made, and you’ve made quite a few bald assertions, but there has been precious little in the way of actual critique of the substance of what I have said, and there hasn’t been much in the way of a positive case to support your point of view. So, I’d like to offer you an opportunity now to clearly define your terminology, and to clearly and concisely present the positive case that objective morality exists. You may, of course, also continue to redress my arguments, but please be careful when you do so to actually dispute what I have said.

September 1, 2017

Disillusioned, I appreciate your candor and how you have expressed you points and the effort you have taken to share what you have. I am learning much. I am not a deep thinker in this arena, so it is certainly a leap that i even join this conversation.

I do have one question that I hope won't sidetrack this conversation:

Would it be "correct" (quotes used intentionally to indicate general concepts of the quoted words (semantics aside)) to think that something that would possibly be "morally" "wrong" could, or would, be "morally" "right" in certain contexts? For example, it is often the case that tragedy begets a greater sequence of "good" than that which existed prior to the tragedy. For example, it would be "morally" "wrong" for someone to commit murder against someone else, but lets say that the murder was the catalyst for a great act of benevolence and ultimately changed the course of humanity, or the lives of the family of the one murdered, for the better. Essentially I am wondering if a "thing" can be both "morally" "right" and "morally" wrong" at the same time? If this is the case, can it still be objectively moral? Is morality fixed permanently, or is it linear and subject to change as time progresses? Or, is this a situation where we have a two systems at play in the same scenario (if that makes sense)?

Just some fleeting questions I have been pondering.

September 1, 2017

3 minutes ago, Storm said:

Disillusioned, I appreciate your candor and how you have expressed you points and the effort you have taken to share what you have. I am learning much. I am not a deep thinker in this arena, so it is certainly a leap that i even join this conversation.

I do have one question that I hope won't sidetrack this conversation:

Would it be "correct" (quotes used intentionally to indicate general concepts of the quoted words (semantics aside)) to think that something that would possibly be "morally" "wrong" could, or would, be "morally" "right" in certain contexts? For example, it is often the case that tragedy begets a greater sequence of "good" than that which existed prior to the tragedy. For example, it would be "morally" "wrong" for someone to commit murder against someone else, but lets say that the murder was the catalyst for a great act of benevolence and ultimately changed the course of humanity, or the lives of the family of the one murdered, for the better. Essentially I am wondering if a "thing" can be both "morally" "right" and "morally" wrong" at the same time? If this is the case, can it still be objectively moral? Is morality fixed permanently, or is it linear and subject to change as time progresses? Or, is this a situation where we have a two systems at play in the same scenario (if that makes sense)?

Just some fleeting questions I have been pondering.

I agree. How may truly understand if an action is moral if we don't have a defined purpose. Did our actions ultimately achieve the purpose even though they were instantaneously moral or immoral. Sounds like a legitimate thought to me S. Thanks.

September 1, 2017

1 hour ago, Storm said:

Disillusioned, I appreciate your candor and how you have expressed you points and the effort you have taken to share what you have. I am learning much. I am not a deep thinker in this arena, so it is certainly a leap that i even join this conversation.

I do have one question that I hope won't sidetrack this conversation:

Would it be "correct" (quotes used intentionally to indicate general concepts of the quoted words (semantics aside)) to think that something that would possibly be "morally" "wrong" could, or would, be "morally" "right" in certain contexts? For example, it is often the case that tragedy begets a greater sequence of "good" than that which existed prior to the tragedy. For example, it would be "morally" "wrong" for someone to commit murder against someone else, but lets say that the murder was the catalyst for a great act of benevolence and ultimately changed the course of humanity, or the lives of the family of the one murdered, for the better. Essentially I am wondering if a "thing" can be both "morally" "right" and "morally" wrong" at the same time? If this is the case, can it still be objectively moral? Is morality fixed permanently, or is it linear and subject to change as time progresses? Or, is this a situation where we have a two systems at play in the same scenario (if that makes sense)?

Just some fleeting questions I have been pondering.

Storm, I'm very glad that you decided to contribute to the conversation. As I've said before, I'm trying to learn here as well, so the more perspectives the better!

I think that the question you asked is a very good one. As it happens, one of the benefits of my view is that it lends itself to dealing with such questions. Please note, though, that I don't claim to have any sort of actual authority to answer your question. I certainly don't claim to have any sort of special knowledge here.

I think that it is very possible that actions can be right or wrong only in certain contexts. One of the reasons why I hold that morality is not objective (and, by extension, not absolute) is that it allows me to wear different hats at different times. On one day I can be a utilitarian, and on another I can be a deontologist, and this isn't a problem at all. In addition to this, I think it is certainly possible for something to be morally right in one system and morally wrong in another at the same time. And so the answer that I have to give to the question of whether it can still be objectively moral is, ultimately, no. At a particular time, action X may be objectively moral in system A and objectively immoral in system B, but if there is no way to decide between the two systems, then X is neither ultimately objectively moral or immoral.

I also think that it is possible for morality to change with time. I said in a much earlier post that it is easy to say, for example, that much of what happened in World War II was objectively wrong. We all want to say this. But, from a utilitarian perspective, an argument could be made that much good came from WWII as well. And there is no real way to know that world on the whole would be "better" (whatever that means) if WWII had never occurred. Given that this is the case, can we still say that WWII was really bad? I'm not sure that we can. So another reason why I hold my current view is that it allows for shifts in morality over time. This seems reasonable to me. Everything else seems to change over time. Why shouldn't morality? But if morality changes over time, then it can't be fixed, which seems to me to entail that there can't be a set of fixed objective moral principles.

September 2, 2017

18 hours ago, disillusioned said:

I think that it is very possible that actions can be right or wrong only in certain contexts. One of the reasons why I hold that morality is not objective (and, by extension, not absolute) is that it allows me to wear different hats at different times. On one day I can be a utilitarian, and on another I can be a deontologist, and this isn't a problem at all. In addition to this, I think it is certainly possible for something to be morally right in one system and morally wrong in another at the same time. And so the answer that I have to give to the question of whether it can still be objectively moral is, ultimately, no. At a particular time, action X may be objectively moral in system A and objectively immoral in system B, but if there is no way to decide between the two systems, then X is neither ultimately objectively moral or immoral.

So would it be fair to say that you would agree with the notion that every individual person is a separate system in your example here? And as thus, would it logically follow that in every system, every singular action would potentially have a different meaning in every system? Just counting humans, there would roughly be around 8 billion systems that would have to align perfectly in order for a moral "event" to be seen as unequivocally moral in every system. Just looking at this, I would agree with your premise that its likely not possible.

I also believe that since we are not static throughout our lives, but that we are dynamic and ever learning and changing, morality would also be an ever changing concept as we grow and develop. I once read a quote that fits perfectly in this comment: "We never see things as they really are, we only see them as we are, in that moment."

Just thinking out loud here, but another thing that I am struggling with is that if Christian God did exist, it is often argued that he would be outside of the realm of time, logic, etc. If this was the case and we believed that our perception of a moral event could change over time (such as the WWII example or my murder example), how would an immortal, timeless entity be able to create a moral event that stays the same irregardless of time or logic or perception? We know that in the bible that God changes his mind, that he is surprised about how someone reacted, he gets angry and does things on a whim. I find it completely implausible that he could be the source of objective morality simply because, he also is a dynamic entity, not a static one. The bible says he is always the same, but we clearly know that isn't true, because the bible shows us that he isn't in its stories. Its really mind boggling to even think about...

September 2, 2017

Alright so for anyone tuning in who made it this far let me sum up where we are at now. My view of morality assumes that the universe does exist. I have to admit it crazy I know. While Disillusioned's view for subjective morality argues and yes requires that 1. That the physical universe might not exist, 2. That we can't really objectively know anything about anything. Yes quite a convincing argument we have here ladies and gentelemen. And you wonder why I am not too keen. Be honest now who here based on these ideas so far thinks which argument is more reasonable?

He has also asserted 3. That the Laws of the universe don't actually exist. And 4. That we don't really know when we are feeling pain and pleasure. Husband: “Honey when you made me cum it felt amazing!” Wife: “But baby pleasure is just a subjective feeling so sorry but you didn't really feel anything objective.” Friend 1: “Dude why did you hit me in the nuts man that freaking hurt!” Friend 2: “Bruh don't you know that pain is a subjective feeling? I mean get it together bro!” Yes forgive me if I am slightly frustrated. There are 3 other problematic assertions he has made that are worth getting into but these seem to be the most important. If we exhaust these or he brings them back up I will post the responses I have written about them.

Since I just addressed point 4 let's now go further and address the rest of these points one by one shall we? But Before we go further though let's examine Disillusioned's claim that I am unfairly criticizing his definition of morality becase he claims to have clearly and consistently laid it out and then we will segue into point two. Well let's examine this claim shall we? WARNING: I an going to quote Disillusioned extensively to avoid being accused of attacking a straw man as he did earlier. I was going to attempt to have each quote cited with the page number, comment number, and paragraph number. I unfortunately have other stuff to do today so I will do the rest on further comments if Disillusioned disputes the authenticity of any quotes in particular. I also apologize if any grammatical and spelling errors got through. I did my best.

Let's start with point 2. Disillusioned will probably take issue with my formulation of his position. Because as he has stated in refernce to the term objective: “These definitions were clearly laid out before you joined the discussion. I have taken pains to be consistent in my use of these terms. Hence I don’t understand how you can feel justified in claiming that I am not being forthright with my use of these definitions.”

Now I will switch to the 2^nd persom in order to address disillusioned directly.

So let's look at some of the definitions you have posted so far and as we will see they are not consistent.

Take note specifically how you use the term principles: “...objective moral principles are moral principles which are real and binding irrespective of whether or not anyone believes in them. In other words, an objective moral law must be a kind of found law as opposed to a made law (pg. 1, comment 1, paragraph 2.)”

And here: “Objective Morality is a set of principles concerning "right" and "wrong" which are real and binding irrespective of human opinion or even knowledge of them. Objective moral principles, if they exist, would still exist even if no one agreed with them (pg. 1, comment 10, paragraph 8.)”

So far so good but then you start to go off script: “On the contrary, I have contended explicitly that many things are objectively true. But they can only be objectively true within a particular system. It is the axioms of the system which cannot be shown to be objectively true. Again, I must ask that you dispute what I am actually saying (pg. 2, comment 13 , paragraph 15.)”

You continue in this vein when you say this about the term objective about the term principles“Again, I agree that statements can be objectively true. I don't agree that principles can be objectively true. Recall that I'm defining principles as fundamental truths, the starting points for reasoning about a topic. My contention is, essentially, that principles are just axioms by another name, and axioms are not objectively true (pg. 1, comment 22, paragraph 9.)”

So you initially set up an implication within your first 2 definitions of objective moral principles as something can be objectively true rgardless of whether or not anyone acknowledges it as such but then later state that priciples are just axioms and that by definition axioms are not objectively true.

So if we were to put these statements togther it would read: “Objective moral principles are moral principles which are just axioms by another name, and axioms are not objectively true concerning "right" and "wrong" but they are real and binding irrespective of of human opinion, knowledge of them, or whether or not anyone believes in them. In other words, an objective moral law must be a kind of found law but an objective moral law is not a found law because a found law also is based on axioms as opposed to a made law which is also based on axioms.”

Yes this is arguing in bad faith. You are contradicting what you will allow to be considered an objective moral priciple by subtly changing your definitions of objective morality. You contradict your own definitions.

But I am not unreasonable I will chalk this up to an honest mistake but please don't get anry at me for your mistakes.

Principles can be objectively true or not objectively true but they aren't by their very nature incapable of being objectively true. At most we are simply incapable of KNOWING that they are or are not objectively true. That doesn't mean we are completely in the dark. Knowing that some things work and some things don't is evidence of objectivity it just isn't complete knowledge of objectivity.

You also like to state that you aren't saying that things can't be objectively true within a logical system but only that isn't true outside of it with statements like: “Again, I do not contend that there are no sets of moral principles under which some actions may be said to be objectively right and objectively wrong. I also do not contend that it is not the case the some sets of moral principles seem to work more effectively than others. What I contend is that we have no reason to think that there is, or even that there should be, a set of moral principles which is in itself objectively correct.”

And

“Again, I agree that statements can be objectively true. I don't agree that principles can be objectively true. Recall that I'm defining principles as fundamental truths, the starting points for reasoning about a topic.”

This sounds fine but the problem is that you have bent that argument when neccesary to defend against criticism. You haven't just given that impression there is no objective truth at times you have actually made that argument. Look at the following statements.

You stated “I don’t hold that reality does not exist. I hold that it does exist. But my position that it does exist is itself an axiom. It cannot be proven. And even if it could, then the proof itself would necessarily ultimately reduce to a particular set of axioms!”

And

“This matters because you seem to be trying to establish here that morality can be based on the actual laws of the universe, and not on axioms. But we don't know that the universe has actual laws, and if they do exist, we don't know what they are. All that we have are models, which are built on axioms.”

And

“My contention is, essentially, that principles are just axioms by another name, and axioms are not objectively true. You seem to be taking the opposite view, namely that principles can beobjectively true, and in particular, that there are moral principles which are objectively true. Would you mind explaining to me why you think that this is the case?”

And

“Where does this leave us with respect to science? Well, statements can be objectively true under a particular scientific model. But the model itself is not objectively correct. What about morality? Perhaps we can build a moral system, and in that system there can be statements which are objectively true. But recall that my contention regards objective moral principles, the starting point for our moral system. I contend that these principles are not objectively correct. They are just axioms, like any other, and, as such, they are ultimately arbitrary.”

Therefore you are arguing point 2. That we cannot objectively know anything about anything. We can therfore see that you have made that argument whether you intended to or not. You can change that is you wish but I will address this argument by appealing to what works in the physical world a little later in this post.

“When you say that we're discussing whether something can be objectively good according to our concept of "good", I'm not sure that I agree with you. The question of objective morality is whether or not things can be good specifically apart from our concept of "good". That is what it means for something to be really right irrespective of what anybody thinks (ie, independent of our concept of "good").”

I agree. This is why I ground my view of objective morality within the reality of the physical universe. You have rejected this as axiomatic and therefore not objective and I disagree. My argument has been: “That objective morality is a contextual and emergent phenomenon (much like consciousness btw) that is derived from the same laws of the universe that caused the physical universe to come into being the way it is today because we are also a physical phenomenon; that is why it is objective. Morality should be approached within that framework.”

Side note: For clarification I am using the term laws of the universe interchangeably with the physical reality of the universe. Therefore to make you happy I will just say that instead of laws of the universe that way it stops being this thing with you. If “law “is too loaded of a term for your preferences I will just start referring to the “nature” of the universe ok? You know the parts of physics and evolution that got us here? This will be important when you get to point 3.

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM HERE IS THAT YOU HAVE DEFINED THE FEATURES OF THE REALITY OF THE UNIVERSE AS AXIOMATIC AND THERFORE SUBJECTIVE AND UNJUSTIFIED. THIS MEANS THAT YOU ACTUALLY ARE ARGUING IN POINT 2 THAT EVEN THINGS WITHIN A LOGICAL SYSTEM CANNOT BE OBJECTIVELY TRUE BECAUSE ALL OF REALITY ITSELF IS SUBJECTIVE WHEN REALITY IS THE ONLY PROPERLY BASIC BELIEF THAT WE CAN USE TO GROUND ANYTHING AND CALL IT OBJECTIVE.

I think you don't understand the definition of the word axiom. An axiom is just something that is assumed without absolute positive independant proof that it is true. An axiom isn't something that is ACTUALLY untrue by definition. As an example a chicken either exists or does not exist. If I see a chicken I can assume that it exists even if I could be dreaming for example. But now let's say I have no working physical senses and am in a house but a chicken is out in the backyard. I have no reason to believe that there is a chicken in my back yard but there is one nonetheless.

What's the point? The point is that my axiomatic assumptions about the chicken have no causal connection about whether or not the chicken ACTUALLY exists.

Therefore something could be an axiom and still objectively exist. We are justified in having this assumption because what we call reality works in certain ways that are consistent and not inconsistent with that assumption without any reason to believe that reality is more complicated then that. I can't believe I have to explain first principles in philosophy but as we will see in your next arguments that you decided to go there.

So let's segue with this into disputing point 1. That the physical universe might not exist. This is not a successful argument for disputing objective morality.

This leads me to contest your notion that grounding objective morality in the reality of the universe is not objective because we can't “know” that the universe exists.

If someone brings up solipsism as if that somehow bolsters their point it is safe to say that my argument is in pretty good shape! For those of you who don't know. Solipsism is a belief that I can only know that I exist but that I can't know that the physical world isn't an illusion. We could be in the matrix for example.

What is important to understand about the argument is that this is an objection that is a double-edged sword because it applies to the argument of the person who brings it up as well as to the person that it is used againST. I could just as easily state that objective morality can exist because it could exist in a different reality which is actually real and that the one that we are in is just an illusion where it looks like it can't exist. It's a bad argument. Good worldview's all make the assumption that the natural world exists even if it can't be proved. We are totally justified in doing so because it works. These features still are objective even if the world actually exists or if we are a brain in a vat. This is not in anyway the sign of a bad argument.

If you just want to argue solipsism then you should make that the title of your OP. I hope that isn't your main argument.

This is the kind of argument is dangerous in that allows all other sorts of woo-woo to say it is just as legitimate as science because we can't really know anything about the universe without some axiomatic assumptions that can't be justified such as new thought and whatever the heck Deepak Chopra believes. Because if everything is subjective then everything has an equal claim on truth. Your problem not mine.

You still haven't answerd that if reality doesn't exist independently of axioms then are you prepared to say that reality didn't exist until humanity came up with axioms? Again this is still an incredibly important point. Are you prepared to make that assertion? There is no getting around it my friend.

I can denounce this line of thinking because I say that what is objectively true cannot be removed from what works in physical reality. But you take issue with this as well so let's address that in the context of disputing point 3. That the laws of the universe don't actually exist. (Or the reality of the features of the physical universe don't actually exist.)

You state: “We can get science back again because it seems to work. We can continue to reason logically because doing so gets us positive results. We can behave morally because doing so seems to improve our quality of life. But in all of this we should not lose sight of the fact that we actually don’t know what is going on, or if anything at all is going on. All we know is what seems to work. But I would contend that there is a world of difference between “seems to work” and “is objectively correct”, particularly when we are speaking of moral principles.”

I then asked how can you say that something is objectively true idndependant of what works. You responded below. Before I quote the response I really hope people rightfully are skeptical of your argument below about how something can apparently be objectively true and not work in physical reality so here it is:

“As it turns out, I can demonstrate that something can be objectively true and not work. Again, something can be objectively true in a particular system of logic. Here is an example:

Axiom 1: All trees are fish

Axiom 2: All fish taste like chocolate

If we allow for the use of standard rules of deduction, it follows that, within this system, the statement “all trees taste like chocolate” is objectively true. But this does not match what we observe in nature, so it is not useful. So long as axioms are arbitrary, it will necessarily be the case that we can obtain useless, objectively true statements. All we need to do is start with useless axioms.”

This is so bad because axioms are not arbitrary they are based on what works in physical reality which is why their deductive conclusions work in physical reality. Demostrating a logical syllogism is not proving that something is objectively real and true because you have not justified the premises. Philosophy 101. You have failed to show how something that is objectively true can not work in reality just as your conclusion in the argument that you presented won't work in reality. Therefore you have failed to show that what works has no relation to objective reality and this is why I find your skepticism to be quite problematic to say the least.

The axioms of a system are not arbitrary there is a reason why we choose them and not an axiom at random. There is a reason why we don't subscribe to the axiom “the moon is made out of cheese.” On your logic we cannot truly say that this axiom is objectively false becasue you assume axioms for your definition of cheese when in fact the moon could really be cheese instead of what we call cheese or more importantly that these other axioms cannot not even justify that what we call cheese and the moon are either cheese or not. Yes I think this is sophistry.

I define morality as an objective feature of the physical reality of the universe. I argued that the same features of the universe would still be in place even if humans didn't, so that in theory objective morality would still be real because it still comes from those features. All that is required is that it is POSSIBLE for those features to allow humans to exist.

You respond by stating that you don't like the fact that I suppose hypothetically that our universe could exist without humans and still be out universe when you say “This is not coherent. We, in our universe are humans. There is no way that we, in our universe, could not have humans.”

However if you remember you are the one who did that first which is the very reason why I made this counter-argument. You stated: “But it seems to me that moral principles require the existence of conscious beings. This is because I think that moral principles concern the behaviour of conscious beings. For example, suppose that the statement "it is wrong to cause suffering" is held to be an objective moral principle. In this case it must be true even if nobody exists who can cause suffering, or who is capable of suffering. In this scenario the statement is meaningless, because suffering does not exist, and cannot exist. If it is meaningless, it can't be true. So it cannot be objectively true (pg. 1, comment 22, paragraph 2.)”

Well you just stated that our universe cannot exist without the existence of human beings. So logically if my hypothetical isn't fair then neither is yours so your argument fails because of this. In fact if human beings are in fact a neccesary part of this universe then guess what morality is? You guessed it Objective!

I of course have no problem saying that your argument might contain meaningful statements in some sort of way in that it conveys how logical deduction works but that's about it. It says nothing anout the nature of reality other than that trees, fish, and chocolate are concepts with exist and which have no strong relation to one another.

But remember you have also argued that something cannot be objectively true and meaningless while simultaneously maintaining something can be objectively true and not work LOL! Pardon me but what brain gymnastics did you have to go through for that? I will quote you again to prove this.

“If it is meaningless, it can't be true. So it cannot be objectively true.” and “As it turns out, I can demonstrate that something can be objectively true and not work.”

I repeat this quote because you stated: “Also, nowhere have I contended that things which are not objective are meaningless. Again, you dispute points that I have not made. If you would accuse me of arguing in bad faith, then it would behoove you to refrain from attacking straw men.” You have been either been caught in a lie or forgot you stated this. Either way next time take a look at yourself before claiming that I am attacking strawmen.

I took quite a bit of time to give a clear response because you asked me too. So I would ask that you very carefully reassess your points up to this point before responding back because you asked me to do the same. I hope I have shown that you definitely need to do so at this point. I am not some unthinking religious person who has not thought these things through and I don't appreciate being talked down to as such. I just am very familiar with bad argument and I am unfortunately seeing a great deal of it your comments sadly. I have actually positively contended quite a bit for objective morality on this thread so far. Wanna take a step back in good faith and maybe reconsider some things?

September 2, 2017

2 hours ago, Storm said:

So would it be fair to say that you would agree with the notion that every individual person is a separate system in your example here? And as thus, would it logically follow that in every system, every singular action would potentially have a different meaning in every system? Just counting humans, there would roughly be around 8 billion systems that would have to align perfectly in order for a moral "event" to be seen as unequivocally moral in every system. Just looking at this, I would agree with your premise that its likely not possible.

I agree that every person has their own moral system, and that these systems are not all the same. I also think, though, that, in addition to these individual systems, groups of people can form cultural systems of morality. This can occur through a kind of pseudo-democratic process, and these systems will morph and change as cultures evolve. And, just as the cultural morality is formed out of the individual moral systems of its constituents, so too are the individual moral systems of new members of the culture shaped by the cultural system. But, since there is more than one cultural system, and since the cultural systems are not fixed, they too are not objectively correct.

Now, this does lead to some problems. For example, I teach high school, and many of my students in the past couple of years have been new immigrants, mainly from the middle east. Most of these students are Muslims, and one of the cultural differences that we have to deal with has to do with the empowerment of women. Their behaviour, in some cases, can be quite misogynistic. Now, our cultural system here dictates that this is wrong. But their cultural system dictates that this is fine. On my view that there is no ultimate way to tell which system is objectively better, I'm forced to admit that I can't actually say that this behaviour is actually wrong. But what I can say is that it seems to me that cultures which have empowered women are generally more successful (with higher qualities of life, more wealth, less disease, etc) than those which don't. Consequently, it seems to me that a system which condemns misogyny is probably going to be more useful than one which doesn't. But I can't actually say that it will be objectively better. I'm just not qualified to make that adjudication.

2 hours ago, Storm said:

I also believe that since we are not static throughout our lives, but that we are dynamic and ever learning and changing, morality would also be an ever changing concept as we grow and develop. I once read a quote that fits perfectly in this comment: "We never see things as they really are, we only see them as we are, in that moment."

I agree with this.

2 hours ago, Storm said:

Just thinking out loud here, but another thing that I am struggling with is that if Christian God did exist, it is often argued that he would be outside of the realm of time, logic, etc. If this was the case and we believed that our perception of a moral event could change over time (such as the WWII example or my murder example), how would an immortal, timeless entity be able to create a moral event that stays the same irregardless of time or logic or perception? We know that in the bible that God changes his mind, that he is surprised about how someone reacted, he gets angry and does things on a whim. I find it completely implausible that he could be the source of objective morality simply because, he also is a dynamic entity, not a static one. The bible says he is always the same, but we clearly know that isn't true, because the bible shows us that he isn't in its stories. Its really mind boggling to even think about...

I think it's quite clear that the notion that we can be helped by trying to use the Biblical God as a source for our morality is rife with problems. As you say, the mind boggles. We must remember that the Bible was written by many different people over many years. It shouldn't be surprising that parts of it are not consistent. For this, and other reasons, I think that a religious approach to morality is among the least useful that one can take.

September 2, 2017

Blamtasticful,

I have to say that I’m somewhat disappointed by the way in which you have chosen to respond. I’m interested in having a civil, serious discussion, the purpose of which is to learn, not to win. Your most recent post makes me wonder whether you can say the same. I’m going to ask you to consider this carefully before you continue to be involved in this discussion. For the moment, however, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and will reply to some of what you said in your most recent post. I’m not going to reply exhaustively, because some of what you said is, frankly, not relevant.

I appreciate that you took the time to quote me directly in your post. However, when you attempt to combine the quotations that you provided, you make an egregious error. Specifically, you combined some of what I said in my definitions with some of what I said in my arguments to come up with a statement that is obviously nonsensical. When you do this, you are misrepresenting what I have said, either intentionally or unintentionally. Let me explain why this is the case.

When I gave my definitions, I was setting parameters for the discussion. We need definitions so that we know what we are talking about. So, for example, when I defined objective morality, I made use of the term principles, which I had previously defined. After I had laid out these definitions, I attempted to show that the set of objective moral principles was empty. In so doing, I tried to show that principles are just axioms by another name. But this was the conclusion of an argument that I gave, which grew out of your contention that we should treat morality as we do any other science. What I argued was, essentially, since science is based on axioms, if we are to treat morality as we would any other science, then it too must be based on axioms. Therefore, moral principles are just axioms by another name. This is not arguing in bad faith. I did not change my definition. What I did was show that your contention regarding science leads to the conclusion that the set of objective moral principles (as defined previously) is empty. And yes, my argument leads to an implicit contradiction. This is not abnormal. It is common practice in logic to show a statement to be false by showing that it leads to a contradiction. So in no way can what I did be said to equate to me making the statement that you obtained by incorrectly combining my quotations. I did not subtly change my definition. Via argument, I attempted to show that the definition leads to a contradiction, and that the set of objective moral principles is, therefore, empty. As I said before, this is a standard method of argument. Let me give you an example.

Let’s say I define X as “the set of natural numbers that are strictly less than 3 and strictly greater than 2”. I can easily show that X is empty. Suppose q is a member of X. Then q is less than 3. Therefore, q is less than or equal to 2. But q is also greater than 2, by the definition of X. This is a contradiction. Hence, X is empty.

Now, the above is a perfectly acceptable mathematical argument. No mathematician or logician alive would take issue with it. The conclusion that X is empty follows from the argument. It is not part of the definition. The definition is not changed. This is not an argument in bad faith. Neither is my contention that the set of objective moral principles is empty, because moral principles reduce to axioms which are not objective. Again, I began with a clear definition, and I argued to my conclusion. If you want to dispute the conclusion further, then I must once again ask you to please look at the substance of the argument that I made.

I’m going to look briefly now at the four things that you have said I have contended thus far. You said that I hold that 1. the physical universe might not exist 2. we can’t really objectively know anything about anything 3. the laws of the universe don’t actually exist and 4. we don’t really know when we are feeling pain or pleasure. Let’s take these in order.

"The physical universe might not exist." This is fair enough. I do hold that the physical universe might not exist, but please note that I do not hold that it does not exist.
"We can't really objectively know anything about anything." This is not really what I’ve argued. I think that we can have objective truth, but only in specific formal systems. I’ve also held that we can’t show that any particular formal system is objectively the right one. If you want to take these two things together to mean that we can’t objectively know anything about anything, then that’s fine I guess, but that’s neither how I would put it or how I have put it. But even if that is a valid restatement of the conclusion of my arguments, what exactly is your objection here? You seem to just be arguing from incredulity.
"The laws of the universe don't actually exist." I have not made this statement, and I would not make this statement. What I have said is that we can’t say that the laws of the universe actually exist. In other words, it is possible that there are no actual laws of the universe. I have also said that what we usually call the laws of the universe are really just laws of our models of the universe. And since the models are not perfect, they may not be the actual laws of the universe. I would never claim to know that there are in fact no laws of the universe. This is a very important distinction, and is another example of you misrepresenting what I have actually said. I’m beginning to grow tired of this.
"We don’t really know when we are feeling pain or pleasure." I also haven’t argued this. What I have said is that we don’t have an objective way to measure pain or pleasure, and that this is problematic if we are to base a moral system on increasing pleasure and decreasing pain. I’ve also mentioned that some people derive pleasure from pain (either their own, or someone else’s), and that this is problematic as well. I find the fact that you felt the need to ridicule this particular statement that I did not make to be somewhat...telling.

2 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

I think you don't understand the definition of the word axiom. An axiom is just something that is assumed without absolute positive independant proof that it is true. An axiom isn't something that is ACTUALLY untrue by definition. As an example a chicken either exists or does not exist. If I see a chicken I can assume that it exists even if I could be dreaming for example. But now let's say I have no working physical senses and am in a house but a chicken is out in the backyard. I have no reason to believe that there is a chicken in my back yard but there is one nonetheless.

What's the point? The point is that my axiomatic assumptions about the chicken have no causal connection about whether or not the chicken ACTUALLY exists.

Therefore something could be an axiom and still objectively exist. We are justified in having this assumption because what we call reality works in certain ways that are consistent and not inconsistent with that assumption without any reason to believe that reality is more complicated then that. I can't believe I have to explain first principles in philosophy but as we will see in your next arguments that you decided to go there.

I have to say that your assertion that I don’t understand the word “axiom” is bordering on comical. I know exactly what an axiom is. I have a degree in mathematics and physics. You are correct that the fact that we must assume the existence of something as an axiom does not entail that it does not actually exist. I haven’t contended that it does. Again, you dispute what I haven’t argued.

2 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

If someone brings up solipsism as if that somehow bolsters their point it is safe to say that my argument is in pretty good shape! For those of you who don't know. Solipsism is a belief that I can only know that I exist but that I can't know that the physical world isn't an illusion. We could be in the matrix for example.

What is important to understand about the argument is that this is an objection that is a double-edged sword because it applies to the argument of the person who brings it up as well as to the person that it is used againST. I could just as easily state that objective morality can exist because it could exist in a different reality which is actually real and that the one that we are in is just an illusion where it looks like it can't exist. It's a bad argument. Good worldview's all make the assumption that the natural world exists even if it can't be proved. We are totally justified in doing so because it works. These features still are objective even if the world actually exists or if we are a brain in a vat. This is not in anyway the sign of a bad argument.

If you just want to argue solipsism then you should make that the title of your OP. I hope that isn't your main argument.

This is the kind of argument is dangerous in that allows all other sorts of woo-woo to say it is just as legitimate as science because we can't really know anything about the universe without some axiomatic assumptions that can't be justified such as new thought and whatever the heck Deepak Chopra believes. Because if everything is subjective then everything has an equal claim on truth. Your problem not mine.

Your critique of solipsism is noticeably absent. Yes, it's a double edged sword, but so what? So it implies that I might not exist. Why is that a problem? Also, I did not claim to adhere to solipsism, only to be unable to show it to be incorrect. I take it from your lack of any statement to the contrary that you agree with me here. But I’m not actually interested in arguing about solipsism. I mentioned it in passing to make a point. And, of the two of us, you are the only one who has mentioned Deepak Chopra, new thought, and, previously, the law of attraction. I have made no mention of these things. I don’t actually know what Deepak Chopra believes, and I don’t particularly feel like discussing it at the moment. I’d much rather stay on topic.

2 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

You still haven't answerd that if reality doesn't exist independently of axioms then are you prepared to say that reality didn't exist until humanity came up with axioms? Again this is still an incredibly important point. Are you prepared to make that assertion? There is no getting around it my friend.

I did answer your question about reality not existing until humanity came up with axioms. I don’t make that statement. I hold that reality does exist, and that it did exist before humanity came up with axioms. But I take this axiomatically, so it remains true that I can’t say that reality exists independently of axioms. It’s existence may be independent of axioms, but my saying that it exists is not.

2 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

“As it turns out, I can demonstrate that something can be objectively true and not work. Again, something can be objectively true in a particular system of logic. Here is an example:

Axiom 1: All trees are fish

Axiom 2: All fish taste like chocolate

If we allow for the use of standard rules of deduction, it follows that, within this system, the statement “all trees taste like chocolate” is objectively true. But this does not match what we observe in nature, so it is not useful. So long as axioms are arbitrary, it will necessarily be the case that we can obtain useless, objectively true statements. All we need to do is start with useless axioms.”

This is so bad because axioms are not arbitrary they are based on what works in physical reality which is why their deductive conclusions work in physical reality. Demostrating a logical syllogism is not proving that something is objectively real and true because you have not justified the premises. Philosophy 101. You have failed to show how something that is objectively true can not work in reality just as your conclusion in the argument that you presented won't work in reality. Therefore you have failed to show that what works has no relation to objective reality and this is why I find your skepticism to be quite problematic to say the least.

As it happens, I took Philosophy 101. I also took a lot of courses in logic. So I know for a fact that we can choose useless axioms if we want to. We’ll just get a useless system. You are equating “true” with “what works”. I don’t think that these two things should necessarily be equated.

2 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

The axioms of a system are not arbitrary there is a reason why we choose them and not an axiom at random. There is a reason why we don't subscribe to the axiom “the moon is made out of cheese.” On your logic we cannot truly say that this axiom is objectively false becasue you assume axioms for your definition of cheese when in fact the moon could really be cheese instead of what we call cheese or more importantly that these other axioms cannot not even justify that what we call cheese and the moon are either cheese or not. Yes I think this is sophistry.

This is a description of how we build useful systems, not of how we must build any system. I can assure you that mathematicians build all kinds of formal systems, some of them useful, some of them not. No sophistry required.

2 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

I define morality as an objective feature of the physical reality of the universe. I argued that the same features of the universe would still be in place even if humans didn't, so that in theory objective morality would still be real because it still comes from those features. All that is required is that it is POSSIBLE for those features to allow humans to exist.

You respond by stating that you don't like the fact that I suppose hypothetically that our universe could exist without humans and still be out universe when you say “This is not coherent. We, in our universe are humans. There is no way that we, in our universe, could not have humans.”

However if you remember you are the one who did that first which is the very reason why I made this counter-argument. You stated: “But it seems to me that moral principles require the existence of conscious beings. This is because I think that moral principles concern the behaviour of conscious beings. For example, suppose that the statement "it is wrong to cause suffering" is held to be an objective moral principle. In this case it must be true even if nobody exists who can cause suffering, or who is capable of suffering. In this scenario the statement is meaningless, because suffering does not exist, and cannot exist. If it is meaningless, it can't be true. So it cannot be objectively true (pg. 1, comment 22, paragraph 2.)”

Well you just stated that our universe cannot exist without the existence of human beings. So logically if my hypothetical isn't fair then neither is yours so your argument fails because of this. In fact if human beings are in fact a neccesary part of this universe then guess what morality is? You guessed it Objective!

No, I certainly did not. Please read that quote again.

Please understand, Blamtasticful, that I'm very happy to continue this discussion. But I am growing very tired of having my words twisted. I take great care to choose my words carefully. If I make an error, then I don't mind being shown this. But there is no need to be unnecessarily argumentative. There is no need to engage in mockery. If you don't understand what I mean, then please ask me to clarify rather than inferring a meaning and attacking your inference. There is no need to try to win this discussion. I'm here to learn, same as you.

Peace.

disillusioned

September 3, 2017

16 hours ago, disillusioned said:

Blamtasticful,

I have to say that I’m somewhat disappointed by the way in which you have chosen to respond. I’m interested in having a civil, serious discussion, the purpose of which is to learn, not to win. Your most recent post makes me wonder whether you can say the same. I’m going to ask you to consider this carefully before you continue to be involved in this discussion. For the moment, however, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and will reply to some of what you said in your most recent post. I’m not going to reply exhaustively, because some of what you said is, frankly, not relevant.

I appreciate that you took the time to quote me directly in your post. However, when you attempt to combine the quotations that you provided, you make an egregious error. Specifically, you combined some of what I said in my definitions with some of what I said in my arguments to come up with a statement that is obviously nonsensical. When you do this, you are misrepresenting what I have said, either intentionally or unintentionally. Let me explain why this is the case.

When I gave my definitions, I was setting parameters for the discussion. We need definitions so that we know what we are talking about. So, for example, when I defined objective morality, I made use of the term principles, which I had previously defined. After I had laid out these definitions, I attempted to show that the set of objective moral principles was empty. In so doing, I tried to show that principles are just axioms by another name. But this was the conclusion of an argument that I gave, which grew out of your contention that we should treat morality as we do any other science. What I argued was, essentially, since science is based on axioms, if we are to treat morality as we would any other science, then it too must be based on axioms. Therefore, moral principles are just axioms by another name. This is not arguing in bad faith. I did not change my definition. What I did was show that your contention regarding science leads to the conclusion that the set of objective moral principles (as defined previously) is empty. And yes, my argument leads to an implicit contradiction. This is not abnormal. It is common practice in logic to show a statement to be false by showing that it leads to a contradiction. So in no way can what I did be said to equate to me making the statement that you obtained by incorrectly combining my quotations. I did not subtly change my definition. Via argument, I attempted to show that the definition leads to a contradiction, and that the set of objective moral principles is, therefore, empty. As I said before, this is a standard method of argument. Let me give you an example.

Let’s say I define X as “the set of natural numbers that are strictly less than 3 and strictly greater than 2”. I can easily show that X is empty. Suppose q is a member of X. Then q is less than 3. Therefore, q is less than or equal to 2. But q is also greater than 2, by the definition of X. This is a contradiction. Hence, X is empty.

Now, the above is a perfectly acceptable mathematical argument. No mathematician or logician alive would take issue with it. The conclusion that X is empty follows from the argument. It is not part of the definition. The definition is not changed. This is not an argument in bad faith. Neither is my contention that the set of objective moral principles is empty, because moral principles reduce to axioms which are not objective. Again, I began with a clear definition, and I argued to my conclusion. If you want to dispute the conclusion further, then I must once again ask you to please look at the substance of the argument that I made.

I’m going to look briefly now at the four things that you have said I have contended thus far. You said that I hold that 1. the physical universe might not exist 2. we can’t really objectively know anything about anything 3. the laws of the universe don’t actually exist and 4. we don’t really know when we are feeling pain or pleasure. Let’s take these in order.

"The physical universe might not exist." This is fair enough. I do hold that the physical universe might not exist, but please note that I do not hold that it does not exist.

"We can't really objectively know anything about anything." This is not really what I’ve argued. I think that we can have objective truth, but only in specific formal systems. I’ve also held that we can’t show that any particular formal system is objectively the right one. If you want to take these two things together to mean that we can’t objectively know anything about anything, then that’s fine I guess, but that’s neither how I would put it or how I have put it. But even if that is a valid restatement of the conclusion of my arguments, what exactly is your objection here? You seem to just be arguing from incredulity.

"The laws of the universe don't actually exist." I have not made this statement, and I would not make this statement. What I have said is that we can’t say that the laws of the universe actually exist. In other words, it is possible that there are no actual laws of the universe. I have also said that what we usually call the laws of the universe are really just laws of our models of the universe. And since the models are not perfect, they may not be the actual laws of the universe. I would never claim to know that there are in fact no laws of the universe. This is a very important distinction, and is another example of you misrepresenting what I have actually said. I’m beginning to grow tired of this.

"We don’t really know when we are feeling pain or pleasure." I also haven’t argued this. What I have said is that we don’t have an objective way to measure pain or pleasure, and that this is problematic if we are to base a moral system on increasing pleasure and decreasing pain. I’ve also mentioned that some people derive pleasure from pain (either their own, or someone else’s), and that this is problematic as well. I find the fact that you felt the need to ridicule this particular statement that I did not make to be somewhat...telling.

I have to say that your assertion that I don’t understand the word “axiom” is bordering on comical. I know exactly what an axiom is. I have a degree in mathematics and physics. You are correct that the fact that we must assume the existence of something as an axiom does not entail that it does not actually exist. I haven’t contended that it does. Again, you dispute what I haven’t argued.

Your critique of solipsism is noticeably absent. Yes, it's a double edged sword, but so what? So it implies that I might not exist. Why is that a problem? Also, I did not claim to adhere to solipsism, only to be unable to show it to be incorrect. I take it from your lack of any statement to the contrary that you agree with me here. But I’m not actually interested in arguing about solipsism. I mentioned it in passing to make a point. And, of the two of us, you are the only one who has mentioned Deepak Chopra, new thought, and, previously, the law of attraction. I have made no mention of these things. I don’t actually know what Deepak Chopra believes, and I don’t particularly feel like discussing it at the moment. I’d much rather stay on topic.

I did answer your question about reality not existing until humanity came up with axioms. I don’t make that statement. I hold that reality does exist, and that it did exist before humanity came up with axioms. But I take this axiomatically, so it remains true that I can’t say that reality exists independently of axioms. It’s existence may be independent of axioms, but my saying that it exists is not.

As it happens, I took Philosophy 101. I also took a lot of courses in logic. So I know for a fact that we can choose useless axioms if we want to. We’ll just get a useless system. You are equating “true” with “what works”. I don’t think that these two things should necessarily be equated.

This is a description of how we build useful systems, not of how we must build any system. I can assure you that mathematicians build all kinds of formal systems, some of them useful, some of them not. No sophistry required.

No, I certainly did not. Please read that quote again.

Please understand, Blamtasticful, that I'm very happy to continue this discussion. But I am growing very tired of having my words twisted. I take great care to choose my words carefully. If I make an error, then I don't mind being shown this. But there is no need to be unnecessarily argumentative. There is no need to engage in mockery. If you don't understand what I mean, then please ask me to clarify rather than inferring a meaning and attacking your inference. There is no need to try to win this discussion. I'm here to learn, same as you.

Peace.

disillusioned

So again your argument is apparently we can't really know what pain and pleasure are, we don't really know anything about the physical universe, and that we really don't even know that reality actually exists. As if that wasn't enough you think that therefore objective morality can't exist. I believe that you are attacking morality because intuitively it seems like a weaker target. Why don't you concern yourself with the objectivity of everything else that you have admitted you don't believe exists as well.

I think your arguments speak for themselves for how you have rigged the deck to make it impossible for someone to have a fair chance to argue for objective reality. Please refer to my last post.

Your argument has been that axioms are all arbitrary. This is not true we have good reason for holding quite a few of them. You are just being radically skeptical. As a mathematician it should concern you that you are using the term axiom as a word game for why we can't have good reasons that an axiom is true including that it works IN REALITY. Therefore it stands to assume that there could certainly be justifiable axioms for science and morality and I have given some including happiness, well-being, or fulfillment. If you truly think science isn't really objective or based on physical reality or that we don't have good reason to do so then please proclaim that loudly and proudly so that everyone here gets what you are willing to part with. It definitely doesn't sound like something that a scientist would say; maybe that's why you are more of a mathematician. But then again physicists tend to think they know much more than most scientists lol. Who knows maybe that makes them good at their job.

I am not twisting your words I am keeping your reasoning accountable rather then simply dismissing arguments which seems to be your preferred method for challenges that seem to bother your arguments.

To be honest you just seem irritated that I don't take your arguments at face value when I have good reason for not doing so. My last post was simply an attempt to batter through what are sadly some of the more childish arguments that have been made. This may be pointless because at this point it seems that you have simply made up your mind. You haven't really attempted to engage my arguments in good faith which would give them a fair shake and you have to stoop to the possibility of solipsism in order to doubt my arguments. If anything is telling it seems to be that. If Solipsism is true I can just as easily say that therefore objective morality can exist.

Being a mathematician just shows why mathematicians don't always make great philosophers. Your arguments and responses speak for themselves. I will simply have to put my arguments in the good graces of those reading and ask them if they think I don't have a point? Am I truly completely unjustified in my criticism? Just because you don't like my conclusions doesn't mean they are false. It would nice if you took more time to at least consider more the merits of my arguments instead of just denying their validity or implying that I might be too mean. If you could more aptly address the arguments this wouldn't be much off a problem. I mean c'mon your last justification for me quoting your contradictory statements first about humans possibly in relation to morality and later stating that our universe requires the existence of humans was simply "No I certainly did not state that read that quote again." I did and it's still valid lol. Help me out here.

Honestly it kinda just seems a lot like you are only interested in having a discussion on your terms. Unfortunately a real exchange of ideas doesn't allow for that and considers all possibilities. You have done more to dismiss my arguments than the rare times that you truly address them like how something can be true and not work. You believe that me doubting your assertion that we might not really know anything is an argument from incredulity. No it is the result of a reductio ad absurdum. I believe I have demonstrated that if the physical universe exists in at least close accordance with our basic scientific understanding that it objectively follows that morality is a feature of that universe. . This is objective morality. I am open to anyone else going through my responses to see if I am making truly egregious errors and I would love the chance to have that conversation. I don't think I am making some crazy assertions but will leave it up to them.

I think what you fail to realize is that their are actually quite a few academic moral realists who are atheists such as Peter Railton. I hope you will take that view more seriously and less flippantly in future rational considerations than what you have done with my arguments. Sadly I don't think you are taking time to be truly critical about your own arguments to see if you are really being consistent in your responses. If the universe can't be an objective basis for something then to be honest I don't know what you are smoking. Sorry if this seems harsh but I'm going to stand up for my arguments when they are good.

Please try again.

September 3, 2017

I started this thread with the intention of having a serious, civil discussion on the topic of objective morality. That has been my goal all along, and it remains my goal. I have no interest in allowing this thread to turn into a competition or a personal conflict. So, Blamtasticful, as long as you continue down the path that you're currently on, I'm afraid that I'm not going to be responding any further to your posts here. I have shown, several times, citing specific examples, that you are misrepresenting what I have said. You persist in making ad hominem attacks, and accusing me of being intellectually dishonest. I don't claim to be a great philosopher, or even really a philosopher at all. But I do know what I have said, what I have meant, and what my motives are. If you want to circle back and try again for civil discourse with me, here or elsewhere, then I will happily participate in that discussion.

I do hope that others who have been following this thread have not been put off by this recent diversion from its purpose. I'm still hoping for as many perspectives as possible here. I've tried to share part of my current thinking on what I mean by objective morality and why I think it doesn't exist. I'm happy to clarify, to discuss problems that this leads to, or to discuss problems with my arguments themselves. But what I would really like to see is a different perspective altogether. So if someone else would like to offer their thoughts here, then please do not hesitate. We don't need to be bound to anything that has already been said either. We can back up, or even start again from the beginning. The only think I'm asking is that we keep this civil and serious, and that the focus be to try to learn.

I appreciate the contributions that everyone has already made.

September 3, 2017

Too bad. I rest my case.

September 3, 2017

Well, I'm still interested in one aspect of objective morality.

Specifically, what the Duke Law article mean by that which is found and that which is made when it comes to an objective moral law. However, I'd like to put some flesh on the bare bones of my query and plan to do so in the next few days. Therefore, I'll return and do so when time permits.

Many thanks,

BAA.

September 3, 2017

Excellent BAA, I'm happy to hear this! I still think that there is a lot to be said about this topic, and I'm looking forward to exploring it with you when you are ready.

The Question of Objective Morality

Recommended Posts

Blamtasticful

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

padgemi

Storm

bornagainathiest

disillusioned

Link to comment

Share on other sites

disillusioned

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Blamtasticful

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Blamtasticful

Link to comment

Share on other sites

disillusioned

Link to comment

Share on other sites

disillusioned

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Blamtasticful

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest end3

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Blamtasticful

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest end3

Link to comment

Share on other sites

disillusioned

Link to comment

Share on other sites

disillusioned

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Storm

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest end3

Link to comment

Share on other sites

disillusioned

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Storm

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Blamtasticful

Link to comment

Share on other sites

disillusioned

Link to comment

Share on other sites

disillusioned

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Blamtasticful

Link to comment

Share on other sites

disillusioned

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Blamtasticful

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest