[
Replying to Subjectivity]
Is man, in his so-called reason, an objective observer of the universe?
Yes. We learn by observation. It is a scientific approach. If a dog walks into a room, we can conclude that a dog walked into the room, even if one person didn’t see it or saw what they thought was something else. The scientific consensus shows a dog walked into the room. This does not mean the group decided that a dog walked into the room or constructed that a dog walked into a room. The scientific approach of observation merely confirms it.
Is human experience not inherently subjective
Experience is, but the fact that the heart pumps blood is not subjective, eating more calories than one burns causes weight gain is not subjective, children from fatherless homes are more likely to be poor or become involved in drugs is not subjective, etc.
When 4.5 billion subjective observers independently arrive at identical conclusions about the nature of reality, can it be concluded with intellectual honesty that reality has been objectively observed? Or is it accurate to say that we have simply gathered evidence of reality? Weighing evidence for and coming to a reasoned position on specific claims of morality is very different to having an objective understanding of moral truths, and it seems to me you've made the logical error of equating evidence of reality with knowledge of reality.
I do not think I have made that error. Is it intellectually honest to suggest rape could ever be right/good? Who has decided that it is wrong to eat too much food and then make oneself throw up? Isn’t it intellectually dishonest to pretend that is simply a social construct rather than a moral truth and something all men can know? And how do we know it? By acknowledging the way the world works, by observing man and his relationship with this world we live in, by using reason and logic, science, and facts.
Does the proportion of people who make a given claim in any way influence the veracity of that claim?
Not at all and that is my point. The wrongness of bulimia is not because a large group of people have decided it is wrong. My point was all men can know it is wrong via reason and observation. It isn’t something we have to be told.
RightReason wrote:
[Replying to bluethread]
Quote:
When it comes to morality the objective/subjective dichotomy is a false choice. Morality is a social construct.
I disagree. Morality is not constructed – it is determined or recognized if you will.
Can you give me an example of rape being Good?
Some sex is designated as rape by social contract. If not, there would be no arguing regarding what constitutes rape and such arguing does exist.
Sorry, I do not understand this comment.
Quote:
Quote:
Those who argue for an intrinsic morality are attempting a cheap cheat, because they do not wish to examine the true basis of their moral standards.
I will examine the true basis of moral standards – THE WORLD WE LIVE IN
There is a natural law to which all men are subject, whether he/she admits it or not.
That is the empirical standard. Not only do not all accept that standard, not all empiricists agree regarding the nature of the world we live in. I hold to the constitutional morality that I accept, because I believe it best fits "THE WORLD WE LIVE IN". However, that does not make the morality I accept objective. If nothing else, it is subject to "THE WORLD WE LIVE IN", as I have repeatedly attempted to point out to those who think that deities are subject to the same morality as humans are.
I hear this argument attempted and I always find it intellecutally dishonest. It amounts to playing the philosophy card. If we are both in a room with a table between us and I say can you atleast admit there is a table in the room and you say, "How do we know the table is really there? In fact, how do we know any of us are really here?" You go on to suggest your reality may be different than my reality. A little like when someone is stoned and they say, "How do I know the color blue you see is the same color blue I see." It may sound quite profound but there is a nonsense to it. And a dishonesty in not being able to admit or acknowledge what we both know.
"The great march of mental destruction will go on. Everything will be denied. Everything will become a creed. It is a reasonable position to deny the stones in the street; it will be a religious dogma to assert them. It is a rational thesis that we are all in a dream; it will be a mystical sanity to say that we are all awake. Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer. We shall be left defending, not only the incredible virtues and sanities of human life, but something more incredible still, this huge impossible universe which stares us in the face. We shall fight for visible prodigies as if they were invisible. We shall look on the impossible grass and the skies with a strange courage. We shall be of those who have seen and yet have believed.� -Chesterton
Also, If you haven't noticed, almost every moral standard that humans accept is ignored by at least some other life form.
What other life forms? Plants and animals? They can’t reason and are not the same as human beings so different laws apply to them – duh.
So, IMO, "THE WORLD WE LIVE IN" hardly argues for a truly objective morality.
On the contrary – that is precisely what argues for an objective morality. We all are human beings and we all live in the same world and we all are subject to the same natural laws of this world we live in. I didn't design the world or decide how it operates, but I have to aknowledge it.
Your argument appears to be that if most people believe something, it is true, and the minority who don't believe it are incorrect in their belief
Not at all. I am arguing the very opposite. Rape, oppression are wrong regardless of any group or individual you could find to argue otherwise.
In what way does believing something serve as evidence for the truth of what is believed?
You misunderstand. If I say something like all men know the wrongness of rape this is not the same as saying since all men agree rape is wrong, rape must be wrong. Rather, I am saying knowing that rape is wrong is something that all can know.
