Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #1

Post by Divine Insight »

In another thread The Tanager has requested a separate thread for his argument for the existence of a Non-Subjective morality.
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.
I would be very interested to hear these arguments.
The Tanager wrote: If and/or how would one come to know what the non-subjective morality is would be an additional question
I agree. First we need to have reasons to even suspect that such a thing exists. I would like to hear those arguments first.

But yes, if those initial arguments are compelling (which I confess to being skeptic about already), a far more important question would be the question of how we could come to know what those moral rules are.

Without this additional knowledge the existence of a non-subjective morality would be useless. A system of morality whose content cannot be known would be meaningless.

So yes, we not only need to have arguments for the existence of a non-subjective morality, but we then need to know precisely what it contains without ambiguity.

Any ambiguity would bring us right back to having to subjectively guess what we think it might contain anyway. So that would hardly be useful and would instantly return us right back to a state of subjective morality.

So yes, we don't just need to know that an objective morality exists, but we also need to know precisely what it contains.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #71

Post by Bust Nak »

Artie wrote: The law of contradiction says that something can't be good/right/moral and bad/wrong/immoral at the same time...
No, it does not say that at all. Instead the law of contradiction says that something can't be objective good/right/moral and objective bad/wrong/immoral at the same time.

Artie
Prodigy
Posts: 3306
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #72

Post by Artie »

Bust Nak wrote:You are still operating under the presumption of objectivism. Something be right and wrong at the same time
I give up. If you think something can be right and wrong at the same time logical and rational arguments are wasted. I'll respond to other posts if they contain more logical and rational statements.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #73

Post by Bust Nak »

Artie wrote: If you think something can be right and wrong at the same time logical and rational arguments are wasted.
But why do you believe that? Do you have a logical and rational arguments for this claim?

Artie
Prodigy
Posts: 3306
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #74

Post by Artie »

Bust Nak wrote:
Artie wrote: The law of contradiction says that something can't be good/right/moral and bad/wrong/immoral at the same time...
No, it does not say that at all. Instead the law of contradiction says that something can't be objective good/right/moral and objective bad/wrong/immoral at the same time.
Interesting. That may be so. Please provide links and quotes.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #75

Post by Divine Insight »

Artie wrote:
Bust Nak wrote:You are still operating under the presumption of objectivism. Something be right and wrong at the same time
I give up. If you think something can be right and wrong at the same time logical and rational arguments are wasted. I'll respond to other posts if they contain more logical and rational statements.
You are demanding that we work solely under the premise that absolute objective morality exists.

In short, Artie you are committing the cardinal sin of logic by placing your desired conclusion of absolute objective morality as your premise before you even begin.

You are the one who is in violation of logic here. Not us.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #76

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to post 74 by Artie]

Start with wiki."In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. Formally this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p)."

See the bolded bits, it only applies to contradictory propositions or mutually exclusive propositions.

Artie
Prodigy
Posts: 3306
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #77

Post by Artie »

Bust Nak wrote:
Artie wrote: If you think something can be right and wrong at the same time logical and rational arguments are wasted.
But why do you believe that? Do you have a logical and rational arguments for this claim?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... tradiction

Artie
Prodigy
Posts: 3306
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #78

Post by Artie »

Bust Nak wrote: [Replying to post 74 by Artie]

Start with wiki."In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. Formally this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p)."

See the bolded bits, it only applies to contradictory propositions or mutually exclusive propositions.
You said: "Instead the law of contradiction says that something can't be objective good/right/moral and objective bad/wrong/immoral at the same time." Please provide a definition of the law of contradiction where it says so.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #79

Post by Bust Nak »

Okay, but that doesn't tell me why you think logical and rational arguments are wasted on me.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #80

Post by Bust Nak »

Artie wrote: You said: "Instead the law of contradiction says that something can't be objective good/right/moral and objective bad/wrong/immoral at the same time." Please provide a definition of the law of contradiction where it says so.
You are aware of such a thing as Universal instantiation, right? Go back to the definition I provided, substitute P for objective good/right/moral in ¬(p ∧ ¬p).

Post Reply