Peanut Gallery for Tanager & Wiploc on the Moral Argumen

[wiploc]

This is the peanut gallery thread for those who wish to comment on Tanager and wiploc's one-on-one discussion of the question of whether objective morality requires the existence of a god.

I couldn't fit all that in the title, above, so I just called it the moral argument.

Tanager and I won't post here until after our one-on-one thread closes. But we may respond to comments here in our one-on-one thread.

Exception: Once our one-on-one thread exists, one of us will come back here one time to post a link.

[William]

[Replying to post 110 by The Tanager]

Well, I definitely disagree with you about the existence of objective morals. I think there is a case that can be made for it, so I don't just assume it is true. Wiploc and I agreed there, so we wanted to talk about where we disagreed to challenge our own views and each other's.

And what, if any conclusions did you both agree upon after all was said and done? Is there a summary list the reader can go through to get up to speed on that?

Meantime the impression I got is that no agreement had been reached. Can you give even one example of the existence of a moral which is objective?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 111 by William]

You don't need to know what went on in our debate to join in the fun, but we agreed upon very little because we think different things can logically account for moral realism and that each other's view fails in this regard for various reasons. We were not trying to make a list of what actions we agreed were good or bad, although we did talk about some specific examples like rape and torturing babies for fun, where we agreed that those were immoral in every instance. A subjectivist will obviously disagree. Those that think moral realism is false, will not be challenged on that view in this thread (at least they haven't been yet and they will not be in the future by me, even though I think they are wrong).

All I'm saying is that I'm not in this thread to have the objective vs. subjective debate. It's a good question to debate, I'm just not doing it here. Wiploc and I never addressed that issue. Others are free to address it here if they like. You might get more input if you started another thread around that topic, however. Should you want to challenge whether my view (or someone else's) logically leads to moral realism, then that was the general intent of this discussion.

[wiploc]

Perhaps then the answer to the question "Does Objective Morality Require a God?" has to be "no" because Objective Morality does not exist, so there is no need for a GOD to have created it.

If you define "objective" one way, objective morality exists. If you define it another way, objective morality doesn't exist. So there's no particular reason to claim that objective morality doesn't exist.

And it's terrible tactics. Claiming that objective morality doesn't exist just invites Christians to write you off: "Don't even listen to him. He doesn't believe in morality. He thinks any behavior is as good as any other. He can't distinguish rape from kindness. He's an atheist; atheists have no morality."

My position is that godless morality is as objective as god-based morality. If one is objective, so is the other. If one is not objective, neither is the other.

The moral argument depends on switching between two incompatible definitions of "objective." There is no point is conceding that you don't believe in objective morality when--for any given definition of "objective"--our morality is as objective as theirs.

[William]

[Replying to post 113 by wiploc]

If you define "objective" one way, objective morality exists. If you define it another way, objective morality doesn't exist. So there's no particular reason to claim that objective morality doesn't exist.

I define 'objective' in relation to 'subjective'.

There are not more than the one way in which to describe 'objective' and your argument here;

Claiming that objective morality doesn't exist just invites Christians to write you off: "Don't even listen to him. He doesn't believe in morality. He thinks any behavior is as good as any other. He can't distinguish rape from kindness. He's an atheist; atheists have no morality."

...really only shows me how many Christians think about things, not that their thinking is correct abut things.

Indeed, given what I have written over the years and shared on this message board, any Christian who would so blithefully judge me in such a manner would be a shallow disproportionate character indeed, and not worthy of any serious consideration for that.

Even what I have argued so far in this thread shows the astute reader that I accept that subjective morals exist.

Even if one were to view another's morals and agree with them, one is not viewing objective morality.

One can argue that the universe is an objective thing. Things are objective, but morals are not things.

There is nothing about the universe which shows anyone that objective morals actually exist.

Defining something in a way in which one can then argue about it, is creating a strawman. Your argument that the objective can be defined other than as an object, is one such strawman.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 113 by wiploc]

If you define "objective" one way, objective morality exists. If you define it another way, objective morality doesn't exist. So there's no particular reason to claim that objective morality doesn't exist.

I define 'objective' in relation to 'subjective'.

And you define "objective" as having to do with objects, right? Therefore "subjective" refers to subjects? Rocks are objective but geology is subjective?

There are not more than the one way in which to describe 'objective'

Dictionary.com offers these among others:

1. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
2. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
3. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
4. of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
5. existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions are there objective moral values?
6. undistorted by emotion or personal bias
7. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc

Seven is more than one.

and your argument here;
...
...really only shows me how many Christians think about things, not that their thinking is correct abut things.

Knowing how people think is the first step on the path towards persuading them.

Things are objective, but morals are not things.

That's a point of view. I can go you this far: Morals are not physical things.

There is nothing about the universe which shows anyone that objective morals actually exist.

If you're saying that they don't exist as physical things, I'm okay with that.

Defining something in a way in which one can then argue about it, is creating a strawman. Your argument that the objective can be defined other than as an object, is one such strawman.

Ah, insult. I did something to piss you off?

[William]

[Replying to post 115 by wiploc]

And you define "objective" as having to do with objects, right? Therefore "subjective" refers to subjects? Rocks are objective but geology is subjective? Smile

Subjective refers to consciousness - that which is able to define things.

There are not more than the one way in which to describe 'objective'

1. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
2. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
3. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
4. of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
5. existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions are there objective moral values?
6. undistorted by emotion or personal bias
7. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc

Seven is more than one.

It is six more than one to be specific, but they are speaking to the same one thing using seven examples.

Knowing how people think is the first step on the path towards persuading them.

Well I was basing my comment on your own. I am reasonably inclined to understand that such folk who think this way are not open to negotiation.

Things are objective, but morals are not things.

That's a point of view. I can go you this far: Morals are not physical things.

That is correct. Thus, they are not objective. Thus objective morality is not real.

There is nothing about the universe which shows anyone that objective morals actually exist.

If you're saying that they don't exist as physical things, I'm okay with that.

That is what I am saying, when I say that objective morality is not real...it does not exist, thus cannot be identified as some thing which all can agree with, such as 'the sun' or 'the moon' etc. One cannot point at a thing and say "that is an objective moral."

Defining something in a way in which one can then argue about it, is creating a strawman. Your argument that the objective can be defined other than as an object, is one such strawman.

Ah, insult.

My pointing out a fallacy of argument is not me being insulting.