Knowledge of Good and Evil

[William]

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

[bluegreenearth]

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.

Your proprietary definition of "objective" asserts that a particular moral system is applied to some agents but not others. To reference your earlier example for context, a morality that is applied to humans but not sharks is considered to be objective given your definition. This describes a relative truth because it doesn't apply to everything universally. Therefore, what you have is a classic case of a double standard, otherwise known as a special pleading fallacy. You've basically redefined "objective" in a way that conveniently aligns with the argument for objective morality but without a logical justification for the double standard it produces.

According to your definition, morality is objective under Christian theism despite the fact that it doesn't apply to everything universally (e.g., humans but not sharks), while physical properties like mass or shape are also considered to be objective precisely because they do apply to everything universally (e.g., humans and sharks). Furthermore, your proprietary definition of "objective" allows an objective morality to be no more compulsory, reasonable, or desirable than any alternative system of subjective morality. Meanwhile objective physical properties like mass and shape are compulsory. In other words, the argument still fails to derive an "ought" from an "is." Under Christian theism, there is no logical justification why anyone ought to be objectively moral rather than subjectively moral given your proprietary definition of "objective."

There is really nothing more to discuss at this point because it is clear from the argument that "objective morality" is just an attempt to define itself into existence. It is both a tautological and special pleading fallacy. I could grant every premise in the argument and objective morality under Christian theism would still be functionally equivalent to a subjective morality with all the same problems.

[The Tanager]

Your proprietary definition of "objective" asserts that a particular moral system is applied to some agents but not others. To reference your earlier example for context, a morality that is applied to humans but not sharks is considered to be objective given your definition.

Correct.

This describes a relative truth because it doesn't apply to everything universally. Therefore, what you have is a classic case of a double standard, otherwise known as a special pleading fallacy. You've basically redefined "objective" in a way that conveniently aligns with the argument for objective morality but without a logical justification for the double standard it produces.

No, it distinguishes moral agents from non-moral agents. Morality can be objective or subjective. Morality can also be absolute or relative. Morality can also be universally accepted/performed or not universally so. Objectivists differ on the other two issues. No double standard. No special pleading.

According to your definition, morality is objective under Christian theism despite the fact that it doesn't apply to everything universally (e.g., humans but not sharks), while physical properties like mass or shape are also considered to be objective precisely because they do apply to everything universally (e.g., humans and sharks).

No, both are objective because they don’t depend on the subjective opinions of the agents they are being applied to. Human morality doesn’t depend on the subjective opinions of sharks. Neither does physical shape.

[bluegreenearth]

You are wrong for two reasons.

One, this definition leaves space for any number of proposed standards that would serve to ground moral objectivity. God’s subjective opinion realized in an act of creation (which you keep leaving out, yet it is the key element of the view) is one way to objectively ground it. Logically, the door is open for others.

Two, I’ve said multiple times, that God’s subjective opinion realized in an act of creation could still create a subjective morality. Since that is the case, then it’s obviously false that objective morality = Christian god’s subjective opinion.

1. The criterion of "realized in an act of creation" does nothing to make a god's subjective opinion of how humans ought to behave into an objective morality that transcends the subjectivity problem. This proprietary definition of "objective" only applies in your argument for an objective morality that is functionally equivalent to what is otherwise understood to be just another version of subjective morality. Because the only difference between an objective morality and a subjective morality in the argument is the source of the personal opinion about how humanity ought to behave, it doesn't logically follow that the version of objective morality offered by Christian theism resolves any of the objections it has with subjective morality. It is a distinction without a difference. If Christian theism is true and your proprietary definition of "objective" is granted, it still wouldn't be necessarily good to act in accordance with an objective moral law because the concept of "good" is subjective. Of course, you could apply your proprietary definition of "objective" to the concept of "good" to define "objectively good" as the quality of being in accordance with objective morality, but it wouldn't logically follow that humanity ought to be objectively good either. So, the entire semantic exercise seems to be pointless.

2. I will charitably presume that you didn't intend to contradict yourself when you stated that a god's subjective opinion realized in an act of creation is one way to objectively ground morality while a god's subjective opinion realized in an act of creation also produces a subjective morality. So, feel free to provide a correction in your response to this post.

[bluegreenearth]

Your proprietary definition of "objective" asserts that a particular moral system is applied to some agents but not others. To reference your earlier example for context, a morality that is applied to humans but not sharks is considered to be objective given your definition.

Correct.

This describes a relative truth because it doesn't apply to everything universally. Therefore, what you have is a classic case of a double standard, otherwise known as a special pleading fallacy. You've basically redefined "objective" in a way that conveniently aligns with the argument for objective morality but without a logical justification for the double standard it produces.

No, it distinguishes moral agents from non-moral agents. Morality can be objective or subjective. Morality can also be absolute or relative. Morality can also be universally accepted/performed or not universally so. Objectivists differ on the other two issues. No double standard. No special pleading.

According to your definition, morality is objective under Christian theism despite the fact that it doesn't apply to everything universally (e.g., humans but not sharks), while physical properties like mass or shape are also considered to be objective precisely because they do apply to everything universally (e.g., humans and sharks).

No, both are objective because they don’t depend on the subjective opinions of the agents they are being applied to. Human morality doesn’t depend on the subjective opinions of sharks. Neither does physical shape.

See post #123.

[TRANSPONDER]

No (To Tam's argument above) . I think that is mistaken. Morality cannot be regarded as objective, unless you can show that it exists as a sort of independent law or rule, quite apart from what humans or even gods, think about it.

I don't think you can do that, but are probably thinking that we 'know' some things are 'bad' because we have an instinct against it. Like anti - death. It is an evolved survival trait and (I have said this) is as Objective as you are going to get - an evolved instinct based on a feeling or objective of human well being.

Apart from that it is all human consensus - opinion, and human societies do not always agree.

Also that human opinion doesn't have to agree with the morality of sharks only shows that morality cannot be objective, in terms of some divine law that applies universally.
Even as applied to humans, they don't agree, either because of diffeering preferences, conflicting desires and cultural differences. It seems that subjectivity is a characteristic of morality.

[Bible_Student]

IMHO, morality, understood as the set of principles or rules governing the actions of individuals and human societies, is objective.

Everything that exists must adhere to specific guidelines, not due to a presumed mechanical "law of survival of any species," but to function effectively on a day-to-day basis. Moral rules, when not derived from past teachings or experiences, must be consciously uncovered to ensure proper functioning.

I liken it to the manual for an electronic gadget. Ignoring the manufacturer's guidelines will lead to its damage.

"Divine instructions" represent the "morality" that a follower of a deity who demands specific behaviors, must adhere to. Human laws, even if merely human agreements, mirror the collective human morality derived from the past and inevitably align with "divine" commands that dictated the behavior of all historical human communities in their origin.

Thus, from this perspective, morality is objective. It exists independently of individual awareness and is rooted in the fragility inherent in all material entities.

[POI]

I liken it to the manual for an electronic gadget. Ignoring the manufacturer's guidelines will lead to its damage.

Does ignoring some Biblical instruction lead to some damage?

[bluegreenearth]

IMHO, morality, understood as the set of principles or rules governing the actions of individuals and human societies, is objective.

Everything that exists must adhere to specific guidelines, not due to a presumed mechanical "law of survival of any species," but to function effectively on a day-to-day basis. Moral rules, when not derived from past teachings or experiences, must be consciously uncovered to ensure proper functioning.

I liken it to the manual for an electronic gadget. Ignoring the manufacturer's guidelines will lead to its damage.

"Divine instructions" represent the "morality" that a follower of a deity who demands specific behaviors, must adhere to. Human laws, even if merely human agreements, mirror the collective human morality derived from the past and inevitably align with "divine" commands that dictated the behavior of all historical human communities in their origin.

Thus, from this perspective, morality is objective. It exists independently of individual awareness and is rooted in the fragility inherent in all material entities.

Given your proprietary definition of "objective," how does an objective morality that is derived from a god's subjective commands function to transcend the subjectivity problem?

[William]

FORBIDDEN FRUIT. The Role of Plants in the Human Experience.

[Bible_Student]

Artificial Intelligence lacks the capacity to grasp the importance of social behavior norms. Comprehending specific realities involves intuitive elements and experiences that machines simply cannot have.

Therefore, the comments generated by these automated programs, even when slightly altered by humans, fail to objectively depict real phenomena. "The truth is out there", ... in the surroundings where real individuals interact.

Interactions with such IA-posts are generally unproductive and impractical. It is foreseeable that these "AI-conclusions" often have a negative impact in real-life situations.