Another post on morality

[Alueshen]

So morality is the yardstick (if you will) that we use to determine if an action is "good" or "bad". The misunderstanding is, IMO, that morality is itself standard of good or bad.

Kind of like the length of a ruler doesn't determine what a foot is, it is the measurement that determines what the length of the ruler will be. We chose the measurement and while one might argue that choosing the dashed lines that go on a ruler night be entirely arbitrary, I'd argue that the length of any form of measurement is indeed very specific based on what you are trying to accomplish, that is, no one would would measure the distance from the earth to the sun using a ruler any more than they would use light years to measure their height.

Morality does not make a statement about the good and bad until a set of values is established. The idea that there is such a thing as "objective morality" is a non-nonsensical notion as there are no such thing as values independent of subjects.

To say that life is valuable is to assume that there is a thing called life and there are those that value it, once you have established this subjective notion you can make objective statements about how life is best valued.

To say that god is the source of morality is really just saying that god is the source of all values, but he is still the subject of the subject object relationship....That is unless you're willing to argue that values are independent of god in which case he's just the messenger and seemingly unnecessary.

Thoughts?

[wiploc]

Ok, given that definition I agree that no morality could be objective. Because by the definition you've given for something to be objective it must be independent of thought. And a concept of morality cannot even exists beyond thought.

Great, now we can get back to the point (my point, anyway) that the OP contradicts itself when it says that:
1. rules built on a foundation of subjective values can be objective,
2. moral rules cannot be objective because they are built on a foundation of subjective values.

There is no definition of "objective" for which that can be true.

(Note that I am paraphrasing freely, without looking back at the OP.)

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 27 by Artie]

Preventing suicide is literally torture unless you know you can make them happier, and sometimes you just can't. Sometimes, even trying will make it worse and they'll just suffer more.

I don't think morality can be so easily tied to human survival, and I think tying it to evolution is even worse.
Do you think having children relates to morality?

[Alueshen]

Ok, given that definition I agree that no morality could be objective. Because by the definition you've given for something to be objective it must be independent of thought. And a concept of morality cannot even exists beyond thought.

Great, now we can get back to the point (my point, anyway) that the OP contradicts itself when it says that:
1. rules built on a foundation of subjective values can be objective,
2. moral rules cannot be objective because they are built on a foundation of subjective values.

There is no definition of "objective" for which that can be true.

(Note that I am paraphrasing freely, without looking back at the OP.)

With all due respect and without being snarky, I'd say that paraphrasing is where you went wrong. Having said that, it's helpful in the sense that it tells us what you "hear" in your mind when you read what I've written.

In all honesty I didn't get it the first time I was told what I'm telling you and it had to be explained to me.

So let's examine what you've said.....

1. rules built on a foundation of subjective values can be objective

Let me try one more analogy...

The rules of baseball are subjective. If you swing and miss three times you are out. Now it could have been 4 swings or it could have been or 2 swings, but whoever created the rules for baseball decided on 3 and 3 is the value that has been defined as being a strikeout.

Now there is nothing objective about the rules of baseball....BUT, once you've established the rules of baseball we can make objective observations relative to those rules or relative objective application of the rules.

Three strikes is, (relative to the rules that have been defined in baseball) objectively a strikeout.

There is no contradiction to this statement and this is exactly the same principle I employ in the OP.

This once the rules of baseball (analogous to values) have been established we can make objective observations in light of those rules.

2. moral rules cannot be objective because they are built on a foundation of subjective values.

I'm saying that morality and the rules that morality is used to judge are two separate things.

Here are use an extreme example as it's is the easiest way to illustrate my point.

The statement, "it is immoral to steal".

Generally this is a true statement, but what if we had replicators that could literally replicate virtually anything that we possessed? If someone took something that belonged to me, if I could instantly replace it, would that change how I felt about stealing?

Now don't misunderstand, I didn't say that in all cases it would make it ok, I'm just asking if it would change how you felt about it.

[wiploc]

Here are use an extreme example as it's is the easiest way to illustrate my point.

The statement, "it is immoral to steal".

Generally this is a true statement, but what if we had replicators that could literally replicate virtually anything that we possessed? If someone took something that belonged to me, if I could instantly replace it, would that change how I felt about stealing?

You take a brightline rule from baseball (three strikes and you're out) and call that objective. Then you take a fuzzy moral rule (stealing is wrong unless the victim doesn't mind very much) and say it's not objective.

That's an evasion based on an arbitrary and self-serving selection of rules. You could have taken a brightline rule from morality (lying is always wrong) and a muddy rule from baseball (the ump should call for a new ball when he thinks the old one is kinda sorta scruffy).

In any case, it has nothing to do with the contradiction in the OP.

[Alueshen]

[Replying to post 33 by wiploc]

At this point I'm convinced that you don't want to understand, I mean, I can understand the stealing analogy being misunderstood, but you got the three strikes thing totally backwards from what I clearly said. I mean, even after I said that the rules of baseball after totally arbitrary (subjective) you turn around and say that I said the opposite.

I said that once you define the rules, then and only then can you make objective statements about situations that occur, like, three strikes is objectively speaking an out ONLY AFTER and WITH RESPECT, to rules that you have already subjectively defined.

Is the idea that something can be both subjective and objective at the same time (with certain qualifiers) confusing you?

[wiploc]

At this point I'm convinced that you don't want to understand,

Then we're done here.

[instantc]

Here are use an extreme example as it's is the easiest way to illustrate my point.

The statement, "it is immoral to steal".

Generally this is a true statement, but what if we had replicators that could literally replicate virtually anything that we possessed? If someone took something that belonged to me, if I could instantly replace it, would that change how I felt about stealing?

I could say something about this. If taking things had no consequences as in your above scenario, then I don't think we'd be talking about stealing anymore. In what sense would I be taking away your car, if you would still have it after I am done?

That being said, even in that scenario one could commit an immoral act of stealing, if he wasn't aware of the system being in place, wouldn't you agree? Or would you argue that an attempted murder suddenly becomes a moral act, if it turns out that the perpetrator was unwittingly having a blank in the chamber the whole time? Moral nature of an act pertains to motive and not to consequences.

Thus, I'm not convinced by your analogy.

[Alueshen]

[Replying to post 35 by wiploc]

-Cheers

[Artie]

[Replying to post 33 by wiploc]

At this point I'm convinced that you don't want to understand, I mean, I can understand the stealing analogy being misunderstood, but you got the three strikes thing totally backwards from what I clearly said. I mean, even after I said that the rules of baseball after totally arbitrary (subjective) you turn around and say that I said the opposite.

Just wanted to chip in and say I understand perfectly well what you mean.

[Alueshen]

[Replying to post 38 by Artie]

Well, I didn't intend my comment to come off as snarky to Wiploc, honest, but not snarky....

Ok well, the conversation wasn't going anywhere anyway.