The Tanager wrote:
And since you are using this idea to support your claim, you have the burden to show it is a good support, not to make a claim and then say that it's true unless someone can prove you wrong.
I'm not arguing that morality is a subjective human construct because I want it to be true, or even because I have some personal reason to support this idea. I'm simply suggesting that all evidence points to this being the case, and there is absolutely no evidence to support a postulate of some objective concept of morality that exists outside of human consciousness.
So my actual "claim" is that since there is no evidence to the contrary, AND since morality as a subjective human construct fits with everything that can be shown to exist concerning this idea, then where is there any argument that we should even consider a proposal of some objective morality.
As I said in my previous post. Can you even point to it? If not, then what does the idea even mean? Where would we find this proposed objective morality?
I think those are valid questions.
It's not that I'm just out to "win a debate". I couldn't care less about that. In fact, if you could actually show where we could obtain this imagined objective moral code, I'm totally open to looking at that. If you could actually produce such a thing how cold I dispute it?
I would not only need to accept it, but I would also find it extremely interesting.
But, as we all know, no such thing exists. Even the idea of an objective moral system appears to be nothing more than a human construct of imagination. It's as illusive as fairies. No one can produce it.
I'm just arguing for reasonable conclusions. I'm not looking for proofs unless you can produce an objective system of morality, in which case that would constitute a proof of its existence. As it is right now, you don't even have the thing you are arguing for. At least I have the known truth that humans do indeed construct fantasies and imaginary concepts in their minds. At least what I am proposing fits in with what we know about reality.
The Tanager wrote:
That does not follow at all. Just because someone is guilty, it does not mean that just anyone has the right to punish them in any way they want, but that's not the important point to make here.
Ok, so now your introducing the concept of guilt and punishment. I take it that you see guilt and punishment to go hand-in-hand with a concept of morality.
I would agree. This is because, as I have already stated in previous posts, morality is nothing more than an idea of judging someone to be 'guilty' of something and deserving of being punished for it.
What do we even need such a concept for?
Why do we need to judge people to be "guilty" and deserving of a punishment?
In secular law all that needs to be determined is whether a law has been broken and what the consequences for having broken the law are. There is no need to judge the character of the person in question to suggest that they are an "immoral person" or that they are "deserving" of punishment.
So morality and a concept of having laws in a society really have nothing at all to do with each other.
Morality is really all about passing judgement on someone's "guilt" and decreeing that they are therefore deserving of some specific form or degree of "punishment".
These concepts aren't even required to have a society with secular laws and consequences for breaking those laws. If I get fined for driving without a license what in the world does that have to do with morality?
There is no need for a concept of morality to have a society of laws.
The Tanager wrote:
I brought this up to be thorough, because I'm interested in really analyzing these ideas, challenging my own beliefs from all angles, giving the various perspectives voice, rather than simply trying to validate my already held beliefs. Many would say that original sin makes all humans guilty. I don't believe in original sin (at least not in that sense) but it is a view out there (and does not have to be tied to the Bible, although it usually is), that calls your argument here into question.
You can say there is no good reason to think "original sin" exists or that you think you can definitely show that it doesn't exist, or perhaps a different response. I was giving you that opportunity.
And this just goes further down the road toward the concepts of guilt and punishment. But those ideas can't be shown to be anything more than human imagination, or wishful thinking.
In short, there's simply no evidence that any such thing exists.
I would argue the adage, "
Concepts that can be proposed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".
In other words, my position is that human imagination can fully explain where these concepts of morality, guilt, and punishment came from. Humans simply imagined them. And all the evidence points to this being the case? Why? Well the most obvious evidence is that no two humans can even agree on what the concept of morality should even include. Everyone has their own subjective opinions on this.
Thus what do we objectively see in our world? We see humans having obvious subjective opinions on moral ideals.
Do we see any sign of any absolute (i.e. consistent) objective morality system of morality anywhere? I claim the answer to that question is a resounding, "No. We don't".
Therefore to argue for the existence of such an imagined absolute objective morality is to argue for something that has never been seen to exist and that no one can even produce.
For the sake of argument, let's say I accept your argument that an absolute (i.e. consistent) objective moral system exists.
Where do we go from there?
Can you produce this objective moral system so that we can know precisely what it has to say?
If not, then even if it does exist, of what value could it possibly have to humans since no human could know what's in it anyway?
It's a concept that has no value until it can be produced. And no one can produce it.
So that seems to speak to the end result does it not? Until we can produce this proposed objective moral system to know precisely what it says, what good would it be even if it did exist? We'd still be back at square one having to subjectively argue and guess about what it might potentially contain. So what would have been gained?
The Tanager wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:
Also if moral concepts don't extend to the animal kingdom, then how could you make a moral argument against animal abuse?
There is a difference between being a moral agent and what goes into moral considerations by moral agents. Why would moral agents only be allowed to consider one's effect on moral agents and not non-moral agents?
For me, the question becomes one of what we even mean by an "
objective morality". Why should a system of objective morality only apply to humans?
This seems to me that this is a problem for those proposing that objective morality exists. They would need to explain why their proposed objective morality is not universal applying to everything.
But again, before they even bother wasting time trying to explain this, shouldn't they first need to produce this system of objective morality?
They can't even point to where it exists or what it might have to say, and they are already arguing that it doesn't need to apply to everything universally.
In other words, they are already making apologetic excuses for something they haven't even been able to produce in the first place.
I question why I should even bother wasting time getting into apologetic arguments about something that can't even be shown to exist in the first place.
This would be like arguing whether little girl fairies have to behave the same as little boy fairies. We haven't even established that fairies exist. So why are we wasting our time getting side-tracked into how they might need to behave?
Let's try to focus in on the question of where we might find an absolute system of morality first. Then, only after having found it and studied what it has to say, perhaps then we can see why it might not be universal.
But until we find this proposed objective system of morality moving on to discussions about why it might not be universal is kind of meaningless.
The Tanager wrote:
You have said that morality is a human subjective construct. That is what I've responded to. I agree with you that morality is not naturally objective (although, if true, moral platonism and a physical reductionism would seem to me to be naturally objective morality).
Yes, if there exist some higher level of "Moral Platonism" that would indeed constitute a naturally objective morality. But where is there any evidence for the existence of such a moral system? And even if it did exist, how could we have a clue what it even has to say about morality?
This seems to always come back to the same place. Even if your hope that an objective morality might exist turns out to be true. It would still result in the same situation we currently have. No human would have a clue what's contained in the Platonic Objective Moral System and we'd be left to our subjective guesses and opinions anyway.
So even if we grant that a Platonic System of Objective Morality exists, we'd still be in the same boat as human subjective morality. In other words, we'd still need to just guess about what might be in the Platonic System of Objective Morality.
I mean, where would this debate end even if you won?
If the conclusion is that, Yes, an objective system of morality does indeed exist, but No, we can never know what it has to say. Then of what use is it?
We couldn't even know if we are personally in harmony with what it demands, much less use it to pass moral judgements on the guilt of others.
An objective system of morality that is beyond the reach of humans, wouldn't be very useful.
The Tanager wrote:
The example is a counter to the principle you used here to argue for a human subjective concept. That principle is that disagreement on X means that X is not objectively true. That's a demonstrably false principle.
My apologies for perhaps not making my position clear.
I'm not saying that because humans can't agree on a consistent system of morality that this means that no consistent system of morality can exist.
What I'm saying is that since no two humans can agree on a consistent system of morality we can at least not that no humans possess a consistent objective moral system.
Perhaps one human could? But which one?
So my argument isn't that because we can't see the existence of a consistent objective system of morality this means that it can't exist.
My argument is simply that there clearly is no evidence that any such system exists.
So my point is that no evidence exists for objective morality. This doesn't mean that it can't exist. It just means that we can't even produce it for discussion.
Yet here we are attempting to discuss it anyway.
I bought this up because you were arguing that humans even have disagreement over the shape of the earth. But that's actually not true globally. The vast majority of educated humans have totally accepted the overwhelming evidence that the world is a globe. Our GPS satellites even depend on this being true.
So yes, there exist an extremely small handful of people who refuse to accept obvious facts of reality. But how's that suppose to support a proposal of the existence of an objective morality that NOBODY can produce?
I don't see the parallels there.
The Tanager wrote:
Now, moral facts may not be demonstrable in the way scientific facts are, but so what? Does your argument assume that science is the only way to truth? If so, then you need to support that claim of scientism or your argument fails.
I see no reason to bring science into the discussion.
Can you point to any evidence for the existence of an objective moral system?
You're not restricted to using the scientific method. You can use whatever method you like. It just needs to be compelling.
Where is this proposed system of objective morality?
And far more importantly, what does it have to say about morality?
As things currently are, we are debating a concept that you can't even produce in any form.
At least my suggestion that morality is a subjective human construct appears to match up with everything we know about reality. I don't see how you could argue that this isn't both, possible, and most likely. It would certainly produce the results we actually see. All humans have their own personal subjective opinions on what they consider to be moral or immoral.
The evidence matches up with the hypothesis perfectly.
Where is there any evidence for the existence of a consistent objective moral system?
So far I haven't see where you have produced any evidence for its potential existence. Much less having produced the actual moral system itself.
You have chosen to argue for something for which there exists absolutely no evidence at all. None whatsoever.
I wouldn't want to have to take your side of this debate because I can't for the life of me think of anything I could say to support the idea.
The Tanager wrote:
Your argument rests on everything being a moral "agent". I'm asking you to support that over against only some things being moral agents. You have the burden to support the claim your arguments rest on.
I'm not going to fall for the trick of trying to push the burden of proof onto your opponent.
Everything I have stated about morality being a human subjective construct holds up in the face of real evidence.
You are the one who has a burden of proof to produce your proposed objective system of morality.
I have clearly shown that no humans possess such a system. Or at least if any human does possess such a system it can only be one person, because as we all know, we're never going to find two humans who agree on every moral question.
So I have already produced tons of evidence for why human ideas of morality are subjective constructs.
Now it's YOUR TURN.
Where is your evidence that some proposed consistent system of absolute morality exists, and where can it be found?
Until you can produce at least "
some" evidence for your position don't be trying to push the burden of proof off onto me.
Don't be acting like I'm the one who needs to prove something while you are totally free from having to prove anything.
You are making a claim that a potential objective system of morality might exist.
So where is it? Where can it be found? And what is contained within it?
If you can't produce these things they I don't see how you can question the evidence I have already presented that demonstrates that all humans have are subjective opinions that aren't even in agreement with their brothers and sisters.
Are you seriously interested in actually seeking truthful answers?
Or have you gotten off track to trying to switch the burden of proof onto a debate opponent instead?
I don't need to prove anything. We all know that humans cannot agree on moral concepts. That's a given.
Where is your "
objective morality" hiding? And why is there no evidence for it?
That's the question.
The Tanager wrote:
No, I'm saying let's see which is more reasonable to believe is true. We start with arguments for subjective morality. After that we look at arguments for non-subjective morality. We then decide which inference is the most plausible explanation.
I believe I have already given more than sufficient arguments that human morality is nothing other than subjective human opinions.
It's YOUR TURN:
The Tanager wrote:
After that we look at arguments for non-subjective morality. We then decide which inference is the most plausible explanation.
By all mean, please do!
Thus far I haven't seen any compelling argument for non-subjective morality.
I would love to hear them. So if you have any please offer them up for consideration and critique.
The Tanager wrote:
You made the claim that subjective morality exists in that other thread and this one. I am responding to that claim. I'm also willing afterwards to offer my own reasons for believing in non-subjective morality. If and/or how would one come to know what the non-subjective morality is would be an additional question, but it does not settle this one that we are talking about because of the claims you have made. After this discussion, start a thread on that and I'll share my thoughts.
Here's the thread.
Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality
