[
Replying to The Tanager in post #196]
One can believe that the earth is flat but one cannot know the objective reality of the earth being flat.
Yes, I think so.
You don't know so?
Now applying that to the moral subjectivism/objectivism debate, objectivists are saying that one can believe that (for example) abusing someone who is a homosexual is morally good, but they cannot know the objective reality of such an act being morally good because it is actually morally bad.
Do you think it is actually bad or do you know it is actually bad?
If you think it is actually morally bad, then it may not be.
If you know it is morally bad, then you should have logical reasons for knowing so.
No. I was meaning that I can't subjectively experience what it is like to be you and visa versa.
I completely agree. The objectivism in moral objectivism is not disagreeing with that kind of subjectivism.
What kind of subjectivism is it disagreeing with?
I’m not saying that the physical shape of the earth affects us in the exact same way the morality of an action does because the first is a physical property, while the latter is not.
That is confusing to me. You seem to be saying that a morality of an action is not a physical thing.
Perhaps an example of a non-physical objective action is required?
But that doesn’t make ‘temperature’ a subjective thing because the temperature is the same for both.
I see what you are getting at there. I think you are saying that the source (The Sun) is the same for both but they experience it differently.
This can also be observed re ones position on the Earth - same sun, different temperature.
Yet, if 2 persons in the same proximity environment (standing next to each other) they experience the temperature differently.
Morality though, is concerned with good and bad so, is it appropriate/useful to use something which cannot be said to be good or bad as a means of analogy in attempting to explain/argue?
Are you arguing that with objective morality, it does not matter what anyone's subjective worldview/experience is, because objective morality (like the objective shape of the earth) is the only true and valid way we experience it?
Not ‘experience’ in the way we feel the weather to be too hot or pleasantly warm, but in the same way we experience the temperature to be 85 degrees (or whatever).
So we have the sun as the source of the temperature, and in that, it is consistent and an objective reality, but can be experienced differently through the subjective mind-body.
Placing aside the different subjective experiences, the objective source (sun) is what it is and does not change to suit any subjective belief about it. Or - The moon does not turn into cheese because of any subjective belief about it or the earth doesn't go flat just because of subjective belief that is is flat.
The objective reality does not change to suit the beliefs about it.
How is this relevant to the case for a morality being objective/objective morality?
Re that, if sentience did not exist on the earth, would the shape of the earth even matter?
Yes, it would matter because it would have specific effects on various other things that exist. An animal could fall off a flat earth but not a spherical one.
Your argument assumes animals are non-sentient. I disagree with that assessment, but rather than go off on a tangent, I will rephrase.
If consciousness did not exist in the universe, would it matter what the shape of the earth was?
Also to note, while we both can point to the objective earth as something which pre-existed human occupation, is there any morality we can point to in the same way, and claim that it existed on the earth prior to human occupation.
Why would it need to pre-exist humans to be objective?
I suppose, because like the sun, it was an objective thing prior to humans coming along and then referring to it as an objective thing.
Music didn’t exist prior to humans, but it is still an objective thing. Yes, what we each think is ‘good’ music is subjective, but if ‘good’ music were objective, it still would have come into existence only after humans.
Okay. So you are saying that morality did not exist prior to humans, but is still an objective thing?
And like music, morality came via human existence?
If so, we can move to discussing how this process happens.
No, it is not a physical object like the earth. But there is no good reason to believe that physical objects are the only things that exist objectively.
So we have no good reason to use things that do exist objectively as a reliable means of analogy.
Do you have any other means in which to make an analogy in order that an objective morality is identified?
Perhaps we can focus upon the moral-based action which may define an objective moral because an action is something which exists objectively.
If so, perhaps we can move to discussing how this process happens.
Oxford Languages defines belief as “an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.”
In other words, accepting something as true which is not objectively witnessed by the one accepting that something as true?
Knowledge is defined as “facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education.”
In other words, something that is witnessed by the one experiencing it through being enabled to know through that experience.
No, I don’t think so. You are adding things to the definitions given.
Please account for this observation re what you say I am doing.
It uses the word ‘facts’ which is defined as “a thing that is known or proved to be true”. Thus, there isn’t true and false kinds of knowledge under these definitions.
That's a relief.
A "fact" is a thing known to be true. Would you agree with the idea that some facts known to be true, are proven to be wrong as more facts occur?
If so, then shouldn't we think of "facts" as placeholders rather than things we need to believe in as unchangeable truth?
For example, in another discussion I am having, the idea of there being Irrefutable Facts (IFs) is been examined. I offered an example of something which can be said to be an (IF) - and this is in a sense, a "step up" from "facts" in that
IF
facts can be changed as more data becomes known
THEN - unlike IFs, they are changeable.
(Please be aware this IF is not the same as this (IF) )
Harkening back to morality, we can understand that process in a similar way as we understand "facts" - in that morals are changeable as more data comes along.
What objective morals are (IFs)?
Is Objective Morality an Irrefutable Fact?
My understanding of what knowledge is, has to do with whether something is true or not, not whether I believe I actually know, if indeed I really do not actually know.
Does that make sense to you?
I agree with your understanding of knowledge. Under the definitions I gave, God’s knowledge would be composed of his beliefs. You seem to use those two terms as mutually exclusive ones, which would make it nonsense for you to say knowledge can be composed of beliefs. But you’d still need a word for what I call ‘belief’ that is different than ‘knowledge’ and your notion of ‘belief’.
Yes. The words have been used in a way which I thought was adequate to differentiate between knowledge and belief.
Re what I wrote just before this, it appears that the only kind of knowledge I think is worth pursuing, is (IF).
Everything else would fall under belief - justified and unjustified.
Thus the new words would be defined to replace the old. Irrefutable Fact replacing Knowledge and (depending on the belief) Justified Perception/Unjustified Perception.
The above is not a (IF) as these new wordstrings would have to be examined and shown to be unable to be critiqued. Once that happens, they become (IFs).
This is also true of all facts that are not Irrefutable Facts.
The replacement idea is for the purpose of reducing any/all possibly confusion/misunderstanding re the current ability to use the words interchangeably, so that a clear line is drawn which (if not everyone at this point) at least you and I can possibly agree with/on.
I don’t think we can know it as a fact with 100% certainty, but I don’t find that to be much of a problem.
You can think of no example of an (IF)?
I offer the following as an (IF).
WHEN
a=1...z=26
THEN is is an (IF) that the wordstring "I don’t think we can know it as a fact with 100% certainty" = I don’t think we can know it as a fact with 100% certainty = 488
I haven’t actually started arguing for the existence of objective morality. I’ve been trying to clear up the actual disagreement between subjectivists and objectivists. But I do hold objective morality to be true, while not known with 100% certainty.
So even that we have 100% certainty that the sun is the local source of life-giving heat et al, and that the earth's shape is spherical and that the moon is not made of cheese... we cannot accept the knowledge as (IFs)?
Or is it a matter that a misleading analogy has been applied to the idea of Objective Morality?
It wasn't clear to me what you meant by objective morality being in "God’s act of creation".
The critique was that if God existed, morality would still be subjective because we are talking about God’s opinion on the matter.
No. The critique is focused something other than God's opinion. The opinion is shaped from a prior process, in that even if morality comes from God, from God's perspective it is a subjective experience re where the source of the morality is situated. (Where the morality derives) which is within God, not what comes out of God in the form of opinion and objective creativity (action).
I disagree because the objectivity is dependent on God creating objective human morality (or not), just like the objectivity/subjectivity of the shape of the earth would be created by God or the objectivity/subjectivity of ice cream tastes, etc.
To justify your use of those analogies, we must consider the skin of the thing.
God creating objective human morality requires God first creating the human form. Thus the dependency - that which is required in order for objective morality to become - requires something objective (in the case of morality, the human form) before such can occur.
"God's act of creation" more than implies we exist within a created thing. I don't understand why you think my statement is not relevant in the context of our discussion.
It’s connected, but that we exist in a created thing is assumed true for looking at what that created thing is like in certain ways.
Assuming something is true would fit into the Unjustified Fact category.
The critique I responded to (morality would be subjective if God exists) assumes God exists and created this world.
Objective morality (OM) assumes the same.
OM cannot exist if God does not exist. Thus, the idea of OM fits in the Unjustified Fact category.
Your desire to establish whether we exist in a created thing or not is a prior question that is worth exploring, but the focus I responded to was further down that line as a connection with the previous discussion on what morality would be like if God didn’t exist.
It would be like "subjective" given the reverse engineering being done here.
This would mean that Subjective Morality would fit under the Justified Fact category.
So we have (as suggested alternatives);
Irrefutable Fact (IF)
Justified Fact (JF)
Unjustified Fact. (UF)
Re language (an definitions of) we can agree to place the existence of language as (IF) and the content of language (re development) as JF (able to change as more data comes in) and some forms of use of language as (UF) as in "nonsense".
