Knowledge of Good and Evil

[William]

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

[The Tanager]

(Note: I'm going to be away from my computer for about ten days and won't be able to immediately respond for a while. Your patience will be appreciated.)

No worries. I hope it’s for fun!

The objective morality in your argument is arbitrary because it is derived from the subjective personal opinion of a creator who arbitrarily decided…

Yes, God’s choice was subjective (although not arbitrary if you mean based on whim rather than any reason or system). But what humans ought to do, because of that choice, is objective and non-arbitrary.

If your reasoning were true, then physical shape is subjective on theism as well, but that is not how anyone uses the term.

Now, if you want to link objective morality to human flourishing as you appear to have done in your response, then this can obviously be done by making "the state of cooperative coexistence" the objective standard without appealing to any form of theism at all.

What makes that standard (1) objective (i.e., independent from the opinions of the moral agents it applies to) or (2) the objective purpose of those agents?

[bluegreenearth]

(Note: I'm going to be away from my computer for about ten days and won't be able to immediately respond for a while. Your patience will be appreciated.)

No worries. I hope it’s for fun!

I managed to squeeze some time in my schedule to provide a response after all but really don't expect another opportunity until I return from my trip.

The objective morality in your argument is arbitrary because it is derived from the subjective personal opinion of a creator who arbitrarily decided…

Yes, God’s choice was subjective (although not arbitrary if you mean based on whim rather than any reason or system). But what humans ought to do, because of that choice, is objective and non-arbitrary.

It is arbitrary in that the god had infinite possibilities to choose from when creating the universe, the people who inhabit it, and the objective moral system he intended for them to follow. The god could have literally created anything and had no prior conditions to reason from when choosing to create. So, yes, it was necessarily based on a whim.

As for objective morality, what humans ought to do cannot be derived from a morality that is objective because of the "is-ought" fallacy.

If your reasoning were true, then physical shape is subjective on theism as well, but that is not how anyone uses the term.

I was conducting an internal critique of your reasoning for an objective morality. So, if morality can be objective according to your reasoning, then physical shape could be objective for the same reason. In any case, you reasoned that the god's choices were subjective but perceived by humanity to be objective. So, it logically follows from your reasoning that physical shape would be subjective on theism but perceived by humanity to be objective.

Now, if you want to link objective morality to human flourishing as you appear to have done in your response, then this can obviously be done by making "the state of cooperative coexistence" the objective standard without appealing to any form of theism at all.

What makes that standard (1) objective (i.e., independent from the opinions of the moral agents it applies to) or (2) the objective purpose of those agents?

According to your argument, "objective" is defined as the quality of being “independent of the opinions of the agents it is being applied to.” Cooperative coexistence describes a measurable state of reality that is independent of the opinion of the agents it is being applied to. Sure, people could have different opinions about how to achieve a state of cooperative coexistence but this wouldn't be relevant to the fact that the state of cooperative coexistence itself is objective. Accordingly, it can serve as an objective standard for morality.

Now, you might be tempted to ask why ought morality be grounded in the objective state of cooperative coexistence, but the same question applies to a morality grounded in the combination of an objective nature and objective purpose. There is no logically justifiable answer to this question that can be offered without committing the "is-ought" fallacy. So, no points scored there. Furthermore, your objective morality still doesn't resolve the subjectivity problem. The reason why I don't usually argue for an objective morality is precisely because any version that grants people the freedom to choose between taking an objectively moral action or a subjectively moral action fails to resolve the subjectivity problem.

[otseng]

Now you can do what you like and make your petty threats or you can stay out of my face. Or you can kick me off the board and as i say, you can deal with that bit of weaponized petty authority after I'm gone.

Over to you friend, because none of this was personal, nor actually infraction of rules, unless you want to think it is.

Moderator Warning



Publicly responding to a warning is in itself a violation of the rules, esp when you're simply attacking another moderator.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[The Tanager]

It is arbitrary in that the god had infinite possibilities to choose from when creating the universe, the people who inhabit it,

I agree.

and the objective moral system he intended for them to follow.

I’m not sure I agree here; I’ve got to give this more thought. Thanks for helping me do so! If God makes creatures with specific natures to where specific actions harm them (i.e., are bad for them), there just is a good and bad way to treat them. The purpose comes in whether God makes people moral agents to where the objective good/bad now applies to them. So, I think the objective moral system just naturally follows. In other words, I’m not sure God could decide that “moral” included harming other individuals.

The god could have literally created anything and had no prior conditions to reason from when choosing to create. So, yes, it was necessarily based on a whim.

Oxford Languages defines “whim” as “a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained. God isn’t necessarily filled with a sudden desire, doesn’t have to be changing God’s mind, and could be making choices out of love, which is an explanation, so I don’t see how it is necessarily based on a whim unless you have a different definition in mind.

As for objective morality, what humans ought to do cannot be derived from a morality that is objective because of the "is-ought" fallacy.

Why are you treating “what humans ought to do” and “morality” as two distinct things? They are two ways to speak of the same thing.

I was conducting an internal critique of your reasoning for an objective morality. So, if morality can be objective according to your reasoning, then physical shape could be objective for the same reason.

Physical shape is objective.

In any case, you reasoned that the god's choices were subjective but perceived by humanity to be objective.

No, I reasoned that God’s subjective choice led to an objective result that can be perceived by humanity as an objective result.

So, it logically follows from your reasoning that physical shape would be subjective on theism but perceived by humanity to be objective.

How does it logically follow from my reasoning that physical shape is subjective? Spell out why you think that step by step because I don’t see why you are saying that.

What makes that standard (1) objective (i.e., independent from the opinions of the moral agents it applies to) or (2) the objective purpose of those agents?

According to your argument, "objective" is defined as the quality of being “independent of the opinions of the agents it is being applied to.” Cooperative coexistence describes a measurable state of reality that is independent of the opinion of the agents it is being applied to. Sure, people could have different opinions about how to achieve a state of cooperative coexistence but this wouldn't be relevant to the fact that the state of cooperative coexistence itself is objective. Accordingly, it can serve as an objective standard for morality.

I phrased the question weird with that “or”. Yes, this gives us (1), but not (2). What makes this objective standard the objective purpose of those agents?

Furthermore, your objective morality still doesn't resolve the subjectivity problem. The reason why I don't usually argue for an objective morality is precisely because any version that grants people the freedom to choose between taking an objectively moral action or a subjectively moral action fails to resolve the subjectivity problem.

Could you define this “subjectivity problem” clearly, so that I make sure I’m not misunderstanding you?