How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[The Tanager]

Thank you for your explanation. Why do we need God to discover what leads to the flourishing of humans and non-humans? If I deprive you and many other animals of oxygen, you will all die. I don't need God to tell me that you and many other animals need oxygen to stay alive and flourish.

Im not saying we cant learn what is good or do good things without being a theist. We could certainly discover that depriving another of oxygen will lead them to die, but thered be no basis to say "flourishing involves not depriving others of oxygen". That this is part of what it means to "flourish" as a human, to be objective, would have to come from outside of our own subjective thoughts. But that alone isnt enough. It would have to come from the one who designed us to flourish in that way. Atheistic evolution, for instance, asserts there is no design behind it all. Theism (whether one believes in evolution or not), provides a designer.

[Compassionist]

Thank you for your explanation. Why do we need God to discover what leads to the flourishing of humans and non-humans? If I deprive you and many other animals of oxygen, you will all die. I don't need God to tell me that you and many other animals need oxygen to stay alive and flourish.

Im not saying we cant learn what is good or do good things without being a theist. We could certainly discover that depriving another of oxygen will lead them to die, but thered be no basis to say "flourishing involves not depriving others of oxygen". That this is part of what it means to "flourish" as a human, to be objective, would have to come from outside of our own subjective thoughts. But that alone isnt enough. It would have to come from the one who designed us to flourish in that way. Atheistic evolution, for instance, asserts there is no design behind it all. Theism (whether one believes in evolution or not), provides a designer.

How can we know anything objectively? Our sensory perceptions are subjective. How can even God know anything objectively?

[The Tanager]

How can we know anything objectively? Our sensory perceptions are subjective.

Are you 100% certain you are a sentient being? That you cant do an infinite number of things? And that you are constantly doing things you dont want to do? If so, then how do you objectively know them?

How can even God know anything objectively?

Are you saying it is logically impossible for anything to know anything objectively? If so, why?

[Compassionist]

How can we know anything objectively? Our sensory perceptions are subjective.

Are you 100% certain you are a sentient being? That you cant do an infinite number of things? And that you are constantly doing things you dont want to do? If so, then how do you objectively know them?

How can even God know anything objectively?

Are you saying it is logically impossible for anything to know anything objectively? If so, why?

I don't objectively know anything. All of my knowledge is subjective. I know that I am a sentient being because I experience being sentient. I have tried to do lots and lots of things e.g. going back in time but failed to do them despite my utmost intention and effort. I am constantly doing things I absolutely don't want to do e.g. breathing, farting, aging, sleeping, dreaming, etc.

Why do you reply to questions with more questions instead of answers to the original questions? Is it because you don't know the answers?

I just want to know how anyone, including God, can know anything objectively. If you know the answer, please tell me. If you don't know the answer, that's ok. I am not going to blame you.

[The Tanager]

Why do you reply to questions with more questions instead of answers to the original questions? Is it because you don't know the answers?

Depends on what the question was. Sometimes I see various things one might have meant and Im trying to get clarification. Sometimes I think it will help the other person see where their logic is getting out of step better than me just stating it is getting out of step. Sometimes it is pure curiosity and a lack of knowledge.

In this latest case it was the first thing; Im trying to grasp how you are using objectively. I think people often confuse having a subjective perspective (one cant have someone elses perspective) with knowledge being subjective (i.e., dependent on ones own feelings, tastes, opinions, etc.). Im not sure if you are doing that or not.

I would say our knowledge (even though its not 100% certain, Id still call it knowledge) that the earth is spherical is objectively known, not subjectively known, even though a subject is the only thing that can have such an opinion/view/belief. What do you think?

[Compassionist]

Why do you reply to questions with more questions instead of answers to the original questions? Is it because you don't know the answers?

Depends on what the question was. Sometimes I see various things one might have meant and Im trying to get clarification. Sometimes I think it will help the other person see where their logic is getting out of step better than me just stating it is getting out of step. Sometimes it is pure curiosity and a lack of knowledge.

In this latest case it was the first thing; Im trying to grasp how you are using objectively. I think people often confuse having a subjective perspective (one cant have someone elses perspective) with knowledge being subjective (i.e., dependent on ones own feelings, tastes, opinions, etc.). Im not sure if you are doing that or not.

I would say our knowledge (even though its not 100% certain, Id still call it knowledge) that the earth is spherical is objectively known, not subjectively known, even though a subject is the only thing that can have such an opinion/view/belief. What do you think?

Thank you for your answer. I think there are two kinds of subjective truths: 1. Exclusive and 2. Shared. What it is like to be me is a subjective truth that is exclusively available to me. Just as what it is like to be you is a subjective truth that is exclusively available to you. A Shared subjective truth is a truth that is shared by more than one sentient being. The existence of the Earth and its spherical shape would fall into this category. It is possible that the Earth does not actually exist and you and I are experiencing a simulation of it. I don't have any way to know for sure. Therefore, the existence of the Earth and its spherical shape are not objective truths.

[The Tanager]

Thank you for your answer. I think there are two kinds of subjective truths: 1. Exclusive and 2. Shared. What it is like to be me is a subjective truth that is exclusively available to me. Just as what it is like to be you is a subjective truth that is exclusively available to you. A Shared subjective truth is a truth that is shared by more than one sentient being. The existence of the Earth and its spherical shape would fall into this category. It is possible that the Earth does not actually exist and you and I are experiencing a simulation of it. I don't have any way to know for sure. Therefore, the existence of the Earth and its spherical shape are not objective truths.

The objective truth of something doesnt depend on the level of certainty one can have about it. Its either A or B (or C or D, etc.). Its objectively true that either (a) the earth exists with a particular shape or (b) the earth exists with a subjective shape (i.e., its literally an oblate spheroid to you, flat to me, triangular to someone else, etc.) or (c) there isnt a real earth; its just a simulation programand possibly some other options.

When I say I believe (a) is true, Im not basing this on my personal feelings, tastes, or opinions (thats subjectivity), but on information outside of me (objectivity). As the subject, I have my belief (I dont have your belief or anyone elses because thats impossible), but that doesnt automatically make it a subjective truth.

[Compassionist]

Thank you for your answer. I think there are two kinds of subjective truths: 1. Exclusive and 2. Shared. What it is like to be me is a subjective truth that is exclusively available to me. Just as what it is like to be you is a subjective truth that is exclusively available to you. A Shared subjective truth is a truth that is shared by more than one sentient being. The existence of the Earth and its spherical shape would fall into this category. It is possible that the Earth does not actually exist and you and I are experiencing a simulation of it. I don't have any way to know for sure. Therefore, the existence of the Earth and its spherical shape are not objective truths.

The objective truth of something doesnt depend on the level of certainty one can have about it. Its either A or B (or C or D, etc.). Its objectively true that either (a) the earth exists with a particular shape or (b) the earth exists with a subjective shape (i.e., its literally an oblate spheroid to you, flat to me, triangular to someone else, etc.) or (c) there isnt a real earth; its just a simulation programand possibly some other options.

When I say I believe (a) is true, Im not basing this on my personal feelings, tastes, or opinions (thats subjectivity), but on information outside of me (objectivity). As the subject, I have my belief (I dont have your belief or anyone elses because thats impossible), but that doesnt automatically make it a subjective truth.

How can I or you or anyone else know anything objectively? My knowledge that I live on a planet is 100% subjective. I know that I live on a planet because I see the planet. I also saw the curvature of the planet while flying in planes. Our sensory perceptions are subjective. While it is possible that what we perceive through our senses is actually real. It is equally possible that they are simulations or hallucinations or dreams. I can't figure out how anyone can know anything objectively.

[Compassionist]

I don't know the answer to your questions. If I knew, I would have answered them.

Okay. I was just confused as to why you repeated what you had already said as a response to those questions.

Both theism and atheism provide subjective morality. If you disagree that's fine. If you want to explain the basis for your disagreement please do. If you don't want to explain that's fine. Thank you for your thoughtful replies.

I definitely owe it to you. The quick version (that will need further exploration, clarifications, support, etc.) is that a creator would be responsible for designing humans in the way they are designed, including whether or not they are moral agents. God would be responsible for making humans to be concerned with their own flourishing (and whether part of that includes the flourishing of non-humans) and what objectively leads to that flourishing.

On atheism, we can see what objectively leads to different goals (say, that human flourishing involves not causing injustices on other creatures), but we have no way to say one goal is objectively better than another. A creator would be responsible for giving humans a specific goal (or not).

If God designed humans and other living things, why didn't he make all living things autotrophs? Why are there design flaws in human bodies https://nautil.us/top-10-design-flaws-i ... dy-235403/ if we were designed by an all-knowing and all-powerful God? Why are 99.9% of all the species to exist so far on Earth already extinct if they were designed by God?

[The Tanager]

How can I or you or anyone else know anything objectively? My knowledge that I live on a planet is 100% subjective. I know that I live on a planet because I see the planet. I also saw the curvature of the planet while flying in planes. Our sensory perceptions are subjective. While it is possible that what we perceive through our senses is actually real. It is equally possible that they are simulations or hallucinations or dreams. I can't figure out how anyone can know anything objectively.

If all of this is a hallucination or simulation or dream, then this planet is subjective. If not, then it is objective. But if it is a hallucination or simulation or dream, there are still objective truths that could, conceivably, be known (who is dreaming, how the simulation is being run, etc.). We may not be the ones with such knowledge, but there is still the possibility of knowing something objectively even in those situations.