Knowledge of Good and Evil

[William]

Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

[The Tanager]

If it is true for humans but not for sharks, then it is a relative truth. Subjectivity applies to relative truths.

That is not how the terms have been used in the traditional literature. If it were, then hardly anyone would ever have called themselves objectivists.

Note the entailment is not a god but an agent's "personal judgement, bias, or opinion." Whether it is from a god or any other moral agent is not relevant to the point.

It only entails an agent if the definition of agent includes the idea of having intention, having a plan, having an aim. The question is whether nature can have intention (and, if you want, to be considered an agent).

You are attempting to define "objective purpose" into existence. It doesn't logically follow that a creator's originally intended purpose for the creation means everyone else ought to have the same purpose in mind for the creation.

I agree. An objective purpose and whether everyone else must have that same purpose in mind are two different questions. Physical laws must be obeyed. Mathematical laws don’t have to be. Moral laws don’t have to be.

The response above does not address the tautological definition fallacy in your argument for objective morality, and I've not claimed morality is objective.

How did it not address your claim of fallacy? You said I defined Y to be A+B and that therefore… My response is that I have not defined Y to be A+B, so the “therefore…” part is irrelevant.

Further, I didn’t say you claimed morality to be objective. I said that I am open to other avenues to get objective morality other than my own. This shows that I’m not defining Y to be A+B. I’m saying A+B is one way to get Y (which is defined on its own, without relation to A and B). Therefore, no tautological definition fallacy as you've described it.

[bluegreenearth]

If it is true for humans but not for sharks, then it is a relative truth. Subjectivity applies to relative truths.

That is not how the terms have been used in the traditional literature. If it were, then hardly anyone would ever have called themselves objectivists.

The number of people who call themselves "objectivists" has no relevance to the claim about the existence of an objective morality being true or false.

Note the entailment is not a god but an agent's "personal judgement, bias, or opinion." Whether it is from a god or any other moral agent is not relevant to the point.

It only entails an agent if the definition of agent includes the idea of having intention, having a plan, having an aim. The question is whether nature can have intention (and, if you want, to be considered an agent).

The idea of "purpose," in the context of a theistic god having an intended purpose for humanity, necessarily entails a subjective personal judgement, bias, or opinion about the function humanity ought to serve. If nature could be argued to have a personal judgement, bias, or opinion about the function humanity ought to serve, then that purpose would also be subjective.

You are attempting to define "objective purpose" into existence. It doesn't logically follow that a creator's originally intended purpose for the creation means everyone else ought to have the same purpose in mind for the creation.

I agree. An objective purpose and whether everyone else must have that same purpose in mind are two different questions. Physical laws must be obeyed. Mathematical laws don’t have to be. Moral laws don’t have to be.

Mathematics is a type of language used to describe objective realities such as the physical laws, but the language isn't itself objective. The English language can also be used to describe objective realities such as the physical laws, but English itself is not objective either. All written and spoken languages are subjective because, without a mind, they are just meaningless shapes and sounds. To suggest otherwise is to mistake the map for the territory. Languages can also describe subjective realties such as different moral systems.

The response above does not address the tautological definition fallacy in your argument for objective morality, and I've not claimed morality is objective.

How did it not address your claim of fallacy? You said I defined Y to be A+B and that therefore… My response is that I have not defined Y to be A+B, so the “therefore…” part is irrelevant.

Further, I didn’t say you claimed morality to be objective. I said that I am open to other avenues to get objective morality other than my own. This shows that I’m not defining Y to be A+B. I’m saying A+B is one way to get Y (which is defined on its own, without relation to A and B). Therefore, no tautological definition fallacy as you've described it.

In the context of your theistic argument, the combination of humanity being created with an objective nature and an objective purpose is asserted to be one way an objective morality can emerge where the concept of "objective morality" is not defined in any other terms. Even though your theistic argument allows for the possibility of objective morality to emerge through multiple avenues, the avenue it prescribes for itself features conditions that are consistent with theism as one of those possible avenues. Because the concept of "objective morality" is not defined in any other terms in the argument apart from being described as something that emerges from humanity having been created with an objective nature and an objective purpose, it is just definitionally the case that objective morality emerges from theism. Therefore, it is tautological. Meanwhile, nothing in the argument demonstrates that the concepts of "objective morality" or "objective purpose" are even logically coherent to begin with.

[bluegreenearth]

To exempt a god from being a moral agent is special pleading.

No, it isn’t. I actually haven’t said anything about whether God is a moral agent or not. That would still be an open question. I’m not saying I don’t have a view there, but just that I haven’t even addressed that issue one way or the other. We are talking about human morality and whether the source of this morality is ‘objective’ or ‘subjective’ to the moral agents involved (i.e., humans).

When you state "human morality," it seems to presume the existence of a single morality. What is the argument for the existence of a single human morality?

Sure, under your theistic model, a god's morality lies outside your mind. However, it doesn't lie outside the god's mind.

Just that morality lies outside of some mind isn’t what makes it objective. In your view, my morality lies outside of your mind, but that doesn’t make you an objectivist about morality.

Your morality exists inside your mind in my view, and your morality exists inside a god's mind in your view. Either way, it is subjective.

Therefore, morality is inherently subjective.

What you said before this isn’t sound, so this doesn’t logically follow.

If morality is derived from the personal feelings or opinions of a god, then it logically follows that morality is subjective because "subjectivity" is the quality of being derived from personal feelings or opinions. What about that statement is unsound?

To adopt a god's subjective morality as your standard is your subjective choice, but it doesn't logically follow that anyone else ought to make the same choice.

I agree. Neither does it logically follow that anyone else ought to believe the earth is spherical because I have adopted that belief.

Peoples beliefs, including what they believe about the shape of the Earth, are subjective. However, if you mean to imply that morality is objective in the same way the physical shape of the Earth is objective, it is not sufficient to assert this claim without a supporting argument.

[The Tanager]

The number of people who call themselves "objectivists" has no relevance to the claim about the existence of an objective morality being true or false.

I agree. That isn’t what we were talking about. We were talking about the terms themselves and, there, this has great relevance. If the philosophers defined ‘objective’ the way you do, then hardly any (if any at all) would have considered themselves ‘objectivists’, yet they still called themselves objectivists. That is clear proof that they used the terms differently than you want to use them.

Mathematics is a type of language used to describe objective realities such as the physical laws, but the language isn't itself objective. The English language can also be used to describe objective realities such as the physical laws, but English itself is not objective either. All written and spoken languages are subjective because, without a mind, they are just meaningless shapes and sounds. To suggest otherwise is to mistake the map for the territory. Languages can also describe subjective realties such as different moral systems.

Yes, language is subjective. The concepts language points to can be subjective or objective. But this wasn’t what I was addressing. I was talking about the distinction between an objective purpose and the freedom of individuals in regards to those objective purposes.

In the context of your theistic argument, the combination of humanity being created with an objective nature and an objective purpose is asserted to be one way an objective morality can emerge where the concept of "objective morality" is not defined in any other terms.

That’s simply not true. ‘Objective morality’, as I’ve used it, is something like “laws in the moral sphere that are true independent of the opinions of the moral agents it applies to.” That’s defining it in other terms; nothing in there about having an objective nature and objective purpose. Those are things that, when combined, logically result in objective morality.

Because the concept of "objective morality" is not defined in any other terms in the argument apart from being described as something that emerges from humanity having been created with an objective nature and an objective purpose, it is just definitionally the case that objective morality emerges from theism. Therefore, it is tautological.

I’ve stated multiple times that I believe there are forms of theism where subjective morality would emerge, so you are clearly wrong here. If it were definitionally the case (by the definition I use), then I wouldn’t be able to say that.

Meanwhile, nothing in the argument demonstrates that the concepts of "objective morality" or "objective purpose" are even logically coherent to begin with.

When we analyze the terms, I see no logical contradiction. If that is true, that means they are logically coherent, even if false. If you see logical contradictions in the terms, then point them out.

[bluegreenearth]

Meanwhile, nothing in the argument demonstrates that the concepts of "objective morality" or "objective purpose" are even logically coherent to begin with.

When we analyze the terms, I see no logical contradiction. If that is true, that means they are logically coherent, even if false. If you see logical contradictions in the terms, then point them out.

Combing the term "objective" with the term "morality" is incoherent in the way you define those terms in your argument because theistic morality is described as being derived from the personal feelings or opinions of a god and objectivity is described as being true independent of anyone's personal feelings or opinions. Similarly, combining the term "objective" with the term "purpose" is incoherent because purpose is described in your argument as being derived from the personal feelings or opinions of a god.

[The Tanager]

Combing the term "objective" with the term "morality" is incoherent in the way you define those terms in your argument because theistic morality is described as being derived from the personal feelings or opinions of a god and objectivity is described as being true independent of anyone's personal feelings or opinions.

Notice the bold above. You are saying you are taking my definitions and analyzing them and getting a contradiction. You are not. You are taking my definition of morality and your definition of objective and getting a contradiction.

Your definition of objective = true independent of anyone's personal feelings or opinions.

My definition of objective, given in the previous post = true independent of the opinions of the agents it applies to. If you don’t add this element, then philosophers would have always called theists subjectivists when talking about science as well and they never have, theists themselves or the ones discussing things with them.

My definition of morality has been something like “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.”

God is not a moral agent of these moral laws we are talking about because He is the lawgiver. As an aside, this doesn’t mean God is what we would call immoral (although a god theoretically could be if god gave us objective purpose to do objective harm to each other); it’s just that god would be the law giver, not the agent under the law.

Show the contradiction between my definitions that makes it so that I can’t say human morality is objectively sourced in God’s act of creating human moral agents. Or show why one or more of my definitions are wrong.

Similarly, combining the term "objective" with the term "purpose" is incoherent because purpose is described in your argument as being derived from the personal feelings or opinions of a god.

Same as above. My definition of purpose = the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. God is the one doing/creating not the thing being done, created, or coming into existence.

[TRANSPONDER]

If your argument depends on Your definitions being used - one being that it is God's purpose, then of course nobody is obliged to accept a faithclaim (a god exists and has a purpose - never mind which god) as a parameter for discussion.

if that is what you are arguing, then your entire argument is blown out of the water before you even start.

Possibly you will advance the argument that one cannot assume that there is a not a god using morality for its' purpose, but you are the one making the faithclaim and thus the burden of proof falls on you. The goddless argument relies on the materialist default which does not have to be pt roved; we know things work without a visible god doing it.

I may be misunderstanding here, and if so, correct me, but it looks like you just destroyed your whole argument.

[The Tanager]

If your argument depends on Your definitions being used - one being that it is God's purpose, then of course nobody is obliged to accept a faithclaim (a god exists and has a purpose - never mind which god) as a parameter for discussion.

if that is what you are arguing, then your entire argument is blown out of the water before you even start.

The discussion has been about what morality follows from theism and naturalism. That means accepting the actual teachings…of both theism and naturalism…and logically following them through. You are not obliged to have that discussion, but to think I’m trying to prove theism or naturalism is true, and then critiquing me for assuming theism and naturalism in that attempt is a complete misunderstanding.

The goddless argument relies on the materialist default which does not have to be pt roved; we know things work without a visible god doing it.

Materialism is not the default; it is a positive worldview that has to be supported just like everyone else has to do with their worldview. Agnosticism is the default on every issue. And materialist worldviews lead to morality being subjective. I’m not making a value judgment on that, just following it out logically.

[TRANSPONDER]

If your argument depends on Your definitions being used - one being that it is God's purpose, then of course nobody is obliged to accept a faithclaim (a god exists and has a purpose - never mind which god) as a parameter for discussion.

if that is what you are arguing, then your entire argument is blown out of the water before you even start.

The discussion has been about what morality follows from theism and naturalism. That means accepting the actual teachings…of both theism and naturalism…and logically following them through. You are not obliged to have that discussion, but to think I’m trying to prove theism or naturalism is true, and then critiquing me for assuming theism and naturalism in that attempt is a complete misunderstanding.

The goddless argument relies on the materialist default which does not have to be pt roved; we know things work without a visible god doing it.

Materialism is not the default; it is a positive worldview that has to be supported just like everyone else has to do with their worldview. Agnosticism is the default on every issue. And materialist worldviews lead to morality being subjective. I’m not making a value judgement on that, just following it out logically.

Sure, but it seems subjective with a god or without - morality is subjective opinion. Objective morality must mean that some kind of moral law exists apart from the opinions of man or god. It seems there is no reason to suppose that is so.

As to philosophers talking about moral objectivity, i would be interested to see what they meant by that; I would suppose a suggestion that morals did indeed exist apart from subjective opinion. A philosophical position that need not exist in reality. Just as with monism and dualism. One philosophical view has to be the wrong one.

Materialism HAS been supported. Science has 'supported' it by showing that things work without any need for a god. Thus the burden of proof is on the god - claim and until they can discharge that, materialism is the default, logically, scientifically and indeed philosophically.

You will probably be familiar with philosophical materialism (metaphysical materialism I believe they call it) and it is taking materialism to an extreme which in practice we materialists don't do, not because it can't be argued that even the spiritual and miracles happens in some practical (natural) way, but because it makes a gnostic claim that can't possibly be discharged.

Over to you and this truly futile discussion you and William are having.

p.s I had a look online and this may help. Though it has been discussed before and some apparently didn't listen understand or remember and so are probably beyond help.

Moral objectivity, also known as objective morality, is the idea that morality is objective and that right and wrong exist without regard to opinion. Moral objectivists believe that a set of principles determines whether an action is permissible or impermissible, and that these rules are universal. For example, a moral objectivist might believe that it is always wrong to treat someone as a means or to act in a way that increases suffering or decreases happiness.
..

Yes. One must make allowances for philosophers, who seem to ignore science and talk about philosophical ideals. The reality seems to be that the right or wong (human well -being) exists apart from individual opinion (a human collective instinct) but itself is only extant relative to humans. The cosmos, physics and the planet earth doesn't care if a thing is good or bad for us. Only humans care about human well - being.

So while human well being instinct (good or bad) is the nearest to objective you will get, it is subjective as it relates only to us. I'd also say that disagreement about What is good or bad is also relative, but that is a detail aside from the relative objectivity (if one can put it that way) of the instinct of human well - being being a universal; the nearest to objectivity there seems to be.

And gods do not appear to enter into it at all and their moral opinions are only subjective even if they did.

did notice the discussion (thread on cultural Christianity) about burning bushes and mental communication from God.

Itr seems misguided. If from a god, whether put into our heads or on a printed page, it is Objectively true if actually from a god (though what it says may just be opinion until validated - like any other claimant) and only Subjective if in the human head, Whether imagining a mental message from a god or seeing a bush that caught alight and imagining a message from a god in it.

The claim it was, or could be, really a god requires validation or it is valueless as a claim.

[The Tanager]

Sure, but it seems subjective with a god or without - morality is subjective opinion. Objective morality must mean that some kind of moral law exists apart from the opinions of man or god.

It seems that way because you don’t have the correct definition of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ as used in the philosophical discussion on this matter throughout history.

Materialism HAS been supported. Science has 'supported' it by showing that things work without any need for a god.

A materialistic framework can make sense of the scientific data, but so can a theistic framework. Science ‘supports’ both in that way. The case for one versus the other is philosophical in nature. Feel free to offer a philosophical case for materialism, if you want to carry the rational burden of the positive claim you’ve made.

Yes. One must make allowances for philosophers, who seem to ignore science and talk about philosophical ideals.

Materialists (of every kind) are philosophers. The danger is in those who don’t think they are doing philosophy; they think they are doing science, when they are actually doing philosophy and, because they are unaware, often do it very poorly. The same applies to the theists who don’t think they are doing philosophy; they also do it very poorly.