The Tanager wrote:
Clearly, humans have subjective opinions concerning moral issues. If this is all you mean, then you've argued for it in a very confusing way. I never argued against this. That
(i.e., "humans do not have subjective opinions concerning moral issues" has never been what people mean by "objective morality". If this is what you have thought all along, then I would love to hear why you brought that to counter something I said in that other thread.
I never meant to imply that because subjective morality clearly exists this somehow negates the idea that an objective morality could also exist.
My argument is simple as follows:
1. We know that morality as a human subjective construct does indeed exist.
That's a given. We have overwhelming evidence for the existence of morality as a human subjective construct. Moreover this is all we have any evidence for.
2. While this fact does not negate or prevent an objective morality from also existing, the fact is that there simply is no evidence for any objective morality.
This is all I'm saying. I'm not trying to claim that since human subjective morality exists this negates the possibility of some objective morality also existing. I'm simply pointing out that we have evidence for the existence of the former, and we have no evidence for the existence of the latter.
Could they both exist simultaneously? Sure. But there's no evidence for objective morality. So where is there any argument for its existence?
The Tanager wrote:
I think you are basing your conclusion on a faulty principle. I keep bringing up the shape of the earth here to try to get to that principle. With the shape of the earth, I think at least four things could be said.
1. We humans have subjective opinions of what we individually judge to be the shape of the earth.
2. The shape of the earth is a subjective fact.
3. The shape of the earth is an objective fact.
4. There is evidence that points to the truth of #3.
Imagine that we didn't have #4. If we only have the first three, would this make #2 the more plausible belief over #3? If so, then the principle behind that would be something like:
P1. If the only evidence we have are subjective opinions on issue X, then issue X is a subjective fact.
I would say this is clearly a faulty principle. The truth of #1 does not point to the truth of #2 (or #3) in any way. It is consistent with both. But you are using this principle in your reasoning. You are saying that #1, by itself, points to the truth of #2 when substituting "morality" for "shape of the earth," at least.
If you are simply claiming that #1 is true, then why did you think I disagreed with that in that other thread?
I'm totally onboard with everything you've said here. And none of this changes anything I've said.
If all we had was #1 then all we would see concerning the the question of the shape of the earth would be human subjective opinions. And that's all we would have evidence for.
Your analogy breaks down at #2. which is false and not something I would ever endorse.
2. The shape of the earth is a subjective fact.
What? If all we have are human subjective opinions of what shape the earth might be, then why in the world would we ever conclude that those subjective opinions represent "
facts"?
Instead, if all we have are human subjective opinions of what shape the earth might be then the only rational conclusion is to say that nobody knows the shape of the earth.
Same thing with morality. If all we have are human subjective moral opinions, we don't say that those opinions are fact about morality. Instead we simply acknowledge that humans have different opinions on what they thing should constitute morality.
That's all.
Now let's look at 3 & 4:
3. The shape of the earth is an objective fact.
4. There is evidence that points to the truth of #3.
If you can do the same thing for morality then you'll be home free!
All I can say at this point is "
Good luck with that".
We know where the earth is. We can point to it for inspection.
Can you point to objective morality so we can inspect it?
The Tanager wrote:
I would suggest that this is because historically humans have been indoctrinated by religions to believe in an absolute morality. So why are they going to suddenly accept that everyone's opinions on morality should have equal merit?
I also disagree with you observations here. I think that many humans do indeed accept that our moral codes are created by our individual opinions on morality.
I agree some people do,
but that is not their initial intuition, whether they were religiously indoctrinated or not. They only get to that point when they accept the consequences of believing morality is subjective. And, even then, they aren't always consistent. As you later say, they still try to support their subjective views as the better view to have.
Based on what I highlighted in red in you above quote I think the burden is on you to provide compelling evidence that all humans are born with precisely the same moral intuition.
You are introducing a premise here that you have not demonstrated to be true, and there's no reason for me to just blindly accept it. In fact, to accept this premise automatically make objective morality true, because surely you know that if all humans are born with precisely the same moral instincts that would indeed amount to objective morality.
But other than a lofty philosophical ideal that would force your position to be true, how in the world could you ever hope to prove such a thing?
What about all the human tribes throughout history that had totally different ideas on morality? How do you hope to explain that if you are assuming that all humans are born with the precise same moral intuition?
I would suggest that the proof against your proposal already exists in the different moral behaviors of different human tribes throughout history.
Your hypothesis that all humans are born with the same moral intuition doesn't appear to stand up to reality.
So you're basically asking me to accept an unproven, and even an unrealistic premise that will obviously force your claim for objective morality to be true.
I can't imagine why I would embrace such an idea that not only has no evidence to support it, but actually has eons of historical evidence that independent human tribes develop different and incompatible moral ideals.
Because of this I would suggest that your proposal of such a premise is unrealistic and goes against observe human behavior.
Again, there's no evidence for it, and overwhelming evidence against it.
The Tanager wrote:
Logic alone cannot be the basis for objective morality because ultimately even logic ends up being dependent on subjective opinions when it comes to choosing fundamental premises upon which to build the logical arguments.
I agree with you that logic alone is not a good test for truth. Here, though, I think you conflate the issue of whether the premises built upon are true and whether the argument will convince someone who believes the premises are not true.
Well, I certainly see no reason to accept a premise that all humans are born with the same moral intuitions. Not only does real world historical evidence show otherwise. But if all humans are born with the same objective moral intuitions. Then who corrupted them? They couldn't have corrupted themselves if they were all born with the same moral intuitions.
I would suggest that your proposed premise has problems even from a purely philosophical perspective. If all humans are born with the same moral intuitions then at what point are they diverging from these primal intuitions? It couldn't be from influences from other humans, because according to your premise all humans have the same moral institutions from birth.
So I suggest that your ideal philosophically proposed premise already has purely philosophical problems associated with it. If all humans are born with the same moral intuitions then there's no logical reason why they should deviate from this as they grow.
The Tanager wrote:
We don't pass moral judgements on people's choice of ice cream. Why should we pass moral judgements on people's choice of a partner in life?
Or (for subjectivists), why pass moral judgments on priests who sexually abuse children...on religious folk who damage and even kill members that are LGBTQIA+...on tribes who are okay with genocide...on rapists...and so forth.
I totally agree! My position is that the very concept of morality is useless in all forms. Whether it be subjective or objective.
Why do we need to judge people as being immoral? What's the point to it?
Look at the priests. They have been taught that to indulge in sexual pleasures is a sin. They have been taught that to abuse children is a sin as well as being illegal. But the fact that is has been deemed to be both immoral and illegal doesn't stop them from doing it.
So moral ideals aren't even effective deterrents. All that's needed is a secular law to do something about it after the fact. After all, even the fact that it's against secular law doesn't seem to slow the priests down.
Moreover if you want to judge them, why not just take them to a secular psychiatrist. They'll be glad to decree the man to be "
sick". Not in term of any moral judgements, but simply in terms of secular analysis of how the vast majority of people behave. The priest's behavior would be classified as "
abnormal" even by secular standards.
The bottom line in this is that a concept of morality doesn't even serve any useful purpose.
What is served by decreeing that the priest is '
immoral"?
And in Christianity what do you do if Jesus decides to forgive him? What then? Did an immoral priest just go to heaven?
The Tanager wrote:
Objectivists do not typically believe that everything is a moral question, just the moral ones.
How do you decide which questions are moral questions?
For example, why should the question of who someone chooses to become sexually intimate with and live with for the rest of their lives even be considered a moral question? Why should this be branded a "
right" or "
wrong" choice?
How about divorce? Why does that need to be judged "
right" or "
wrong"? If a couple is no longer getting along, why should it be considered to be wrong or immoral for them to part ways?
What about polygamy? If everyone involved in the polygamous relationship is happy with it an not being coerced into it , then why judge it to be "
immoral"?
Why should polygamy even be on the list of "
moral questions".
So even the idea of which questions should be considered to be moral questions is open to human subjective opinion.
The Tanager wrote:
Without wanting to sidetrack this discussion, I would offer a different understanding of what Christianity is. God created humans and wanted to join with them in the work of caring for and creating great things in the world (so, in part, to be a moral community). Humans have tried to do it without God and messed things up. God pursues us in spite of this, willing to look past that, reconnect, and restore us to that relationship and purpose (i.e., make us into moral people). But this is not an immediate restoration because we too slowly let go of our self-will.
I see this as nothing more than a human subjective opinion on what they imagine a religious fable to mean.
I'll share my human subjective opinions on these very same thoughts below:
The Tanager wrote:
God created humans and wanted to join with them in the work of caring for and creating great things in the world (so, in part, to be a moral community).
I see no reason to think that a truly intelligent wise God shouldn't have been able to achieve that goal if that's what he wanted to do.
The Tanager wrote:
Humans have tried to do it without God and messed things up.
My Bible says that God kicked the humans out. Something that was totally uncalled for, IMHO.
The Tanager wrote:
God pursues us in spite of this, willing to look past that, reconnect, and restore us to that relationship and purpose (i.e., make us into moral people). But this is not an immediate restoration because we too slowly let go of our self-will.
I don't buy this because I see in the Bible too many attempts by this God to try to solve the problem. All of which (
again in my human subjective opinion) were nothing more than a display of extreme ignorance. stupidity, violence, and futility.
Have you ever wondered why this God can never actually solve a problem intelligently? After reading the Bible I'm prepared to offer my consulting advice to the Biblical God for FREE! I can see where is could definitely use some help in making better choices on how to deal with his problems.
The Tanager wrote:
But this is not an immediate restoration because we too slowly let go of our self-will.
Finally, what's up with Christianity?
According to Christianity this God
GAVE UP ENTIRELY on the idea that we might come around to his way of thinking. Jesus was supposedly sent to offer us undeserved amnesty for being unable to cooperate on our own. In fact, Christianity even demands that we can never cooperate on our own and that we can only be accepted by God via the undeserved amnesty that Jesus has to offer.
So Christianity has this God giving up entirely on his original hopes and dreams that he could ever work with cooperating humans. And now he apparently had to resort to the extreme desperation of simply offering the rebellious humans undeserved amnesty if they'll simply ask for it.
I can only guess that once he gets them into heaven he'll convert them over to robots that will no longer be permitted to have any free will as they have already proven that they can't handle it.
After all, where does Christianity allow anyone to actually surrender to the will of God? That's not even an option. We aren't even permitted to do that in Christianity. All we are permitted to do is confess that we refuse to obey God and ask Jesus to remove our free will and convert us into totally obedient robot who are no longer permitted to think for ourselves.
In Christianity the option to choose to be in harmony with God has been completely taken off the table. Confessing to Jesus that you can't behave yourself is hardly agreeing to work in harmony with God. It's just an admission that you can't do it.
Also there's the question of asking why it is that humans can't do this? Why did this God create billions upon billions of humans who can't even have the same goals as him?
Shouldn't he be firing his engineers who design human souls for him?
That would be my first suggestion to God.
QUIT mass producing humans until you figure out how to design them better. For crying out loud!
Even most manufacturing companies know better than to keep producing grossly defective products that don't perform as they had hoped.
But not the Biblical God. He just keeps producing inferior designed humans non-stop and then seems to want to hold them responsible for having been poorly designed.
Thank goodness it's all nothing more than a poorly written collection of ancient fables.