objective morality, for the umpteenth time

Posted on by

Another discussion of objective morality has broken out, so I thought I would provide a home for it.

579 thoughts on “objective morality, for the umpteenth time”

  2. Kantian Naturalist: To say that something is true is to say one ought to accept it. And you would be right if all oughts were moral oughts. But they aren’t.There are norms of belief as well as norms of conduct. Modus ponens is not a moral norm, but it is a norm of thought nevertheless. And there are many kinds of norms of conduct that aren’t moral norms (e.g. taboos, etiquette, manners, procedures, policies, rules, laws).

    Right. There are different kinds of oughts. Consider, ‘You ought to be using a Phillips head screwdriver for that job.’

  4. walto: Right. There are different kinds of oughts.

    To say that the statement “to eat pork is evil” is false is to make a statement about moral ought.

    peace

  6. fifthmonarchyman: To say that the statement “to eat pork is evil” is false is to make a statement about moral ought.

    peace

    It’s a claim about claims involving moral oughts, not itself a moral ought claim. Compare: “addition is an operation in arithmetic” is a claim about arithmetic. It’s not itself an arithmetical claim (i.e. an equation). Likewise, a claim about moral oughts is not itself a moral ought-involving claim.

  8. Kantian Naturalist: It’s a claim about claims involving moral oughts, not itself a moral ought claim. Compare: “addition is an operation in arithmetic” is a claim about arithmetic. It’s not itself an arithmetical claim (i.e. an equation). Likewise, a claim about moral oughts is not itself a moral ought-involving claim.

    I think that might go a bit too far. I think it might be better to say SOME (call them) “meta-moral” claims are themselves moral claims, while others aren’t. So, for example, the claim that

    Eating pork is evil is false

    would be a moral claim, since it entails that eating pork is not evil. While on the other hand, the claim that

    Eating pork is evil is soooo yesterday

    is not itself a moral claim, since it doesn’t entail the truth or falsity of any (object level) moral claim.

  9. walto: That argument seems sound to me–but keep in mind that by “bare” I mean to indicate that this “revelation” doesn’t entitle you to knowledge of this hypothetical being’s omnipotence, or any other “godly” feature.

    So now, where do you think you can go with it?

    With what?

    You seem to have went to a lot of trouble to say that you agree that one particular thing can be revealed by an omnipotent God. I agree that God could reveal his bare existence if he wanted too.

    God could after all reveal anything that could be revealed including his bare existence.

    I would say that it would have been easier to explore what an omnipotent God could not reveal.

    peace

  10. What I want to know is what you think you can do with the conclusion to the argument that I provided, which is about as far as I think you can get with “revelation.” How do you get from that to the claim that God exists (if you think you can)?

    I have the impression, anyhow, that you think you can get from

    An omnipotent being could make it so I could know things if it wanted to

    to

    An omnipotent being exists

    I’d like to know how.

    As for the trouble I went to, I wanted to see how much of your premise can find any leg to stand on. If you put it in any stronger way, it stops being plausible.

  11. Kantian Naturalist: Compare: “addition is an operation in arithmetic” is a claim about arithmetic. It’s not itself an arithmetical claim (i.e. an equation).

    Wait a minute, a more relevant question would be

    Is the claim that there are no valid arithmetical claim’s itself an arithmetical claim?

    lets see

    Let X = an arithmetical claim
    Let Y = an valid arithmetical claim

    X≠Y seems to be an arithmetical claim (ie an equation).

    What am I missing?

    peace

  12. walto: What I want to know is what you think you can do with the conclusion to the argument that I provided, which is about as far as I think you can get with “revelation.”

    I don’t think it’s as far as you can get with revelation and I don’t think I could do much at all with the argument you provided.

    walto: I have the impression, anyhow, that you think you can get from An omnipotent being could make it so I could know things if it wanted to
    to An omnipotent being exists

    You have a very mistaken impression. That is not my position at all.

    I’m not sure how I can be more clear on this point.

    walto: I wanted to see how much of your premise can find any leg to stand on.

    What premise is that?

    peace

  13. Couldn’t an omnipotent being reveal things to me so I can know them?

    You know, your very favoritist question!

    I’m trying to see if there’s anything you can do with it.

  14. Walto,

    I know that God exists because God has made himself known to me not because I have reasoned from a set of premises to the logical conclusion that God exists.

    Do you understand that???

    peace

  15. walto: Couldn’t an omnipotent being reveal things to me so I can know them?

    All that is is a justification for knowledge.
    It’s not an argument for God’s existence

    “God exists therefore I can know stuff”

    peace

  16. If you insist you’ve got nothing but your feeling, that’s fine with me. I don’t think that’s been your usual stance, though, and I was trying to see if I could help you make an actual case.

  17. walto: I’m trying to see if there’s anything you can do with it.

    You can justify knowledge with that.

    peace

  18. walto: If you insist you’ve got nothing but your feeling, that’s fine with me.

    It’s not a feeling it’s knowledge.

    I don’t feel God exists. I know God exists

    I know God exists because God has made himself known to me,

    Certainly not because I feel a certain way

    peace

  19. walto: I was trying to see if I could help you make an actual case.

    Again God’s existence is not something you make a case for.

    God’s existence is the thing that allows you to make cases.

    peace

  22. walto: Let’s see you do it!

    You want me to beg?

    here is the syllogism

    P1: God who can reveal stuff to me so that I can know it, exists
    conclusion: I can know stuff

    The conclusion follows necessarily from the premise

    peace

  24. Obviously P1 is problematic for those of us who (really really) don’t believe in God. I was trying to get you an argument for God from a plausible revelation premise.

    But you’ll have to help me!

  26. fifthmonarchyman: It’s not a feeling it’s knowledge.

    I don’t feel God exists. I know God exists

    I know God exists because God has made himself known to me,

    Certainly not because I feel a certain way

    peace

    I thought you said that ( God exists ) is an observation based on your worldview, otherwise it would be a claim?

  27. newton: I know God exists because God has made himself known to me,

    Certainly not because I feel a certain

    That’s question-begging 101. I’m trying to help you put something together that’s not obviously fallacious.

  28. walto: That’s question-begging 101. I’m trying to help you put something together that’s not obviously fallacious.

    By since we all know the Christian God exists, it is ok.

  29. walto: Obviously P1 is problematic for those of us who (really really) don’t believe in God.

    Why should that be a problem for me? I know God exists

    walto: I was trying to get you an argument for God from a plausible revelation premise.

    I thought I made it clear that God’s existence is not established by argument. I think I have said just that at least 20 times here.

    What else can I do?

    peace

  30. newton: I thought you said that ( God exists ) is an observation based on your worldview, otherwise it would be a claim?

    We can describe my experience of God’s existence as observation.
    I observe that God exists
    Just as my existence can be described as observation from your perspective.

    You observe I exist

    This is not complex.

    You are not making a claim when you acknowledge my existence you are simply sharing your observation

    peace

  31. walto: That’s question-begging 101.

    Again what question am I begging???
    God’s existence is not in question

    peace

  32. fifth, to walto:

    I thought I made it clear that God’s existence is not established by argument. I think I have said just that at least 20 times here.

    fifth,

    You may not be bright enough to realize it, but this is an argument:

    I know God exists because God has made himself known to me,

    A rational person would go on to ask questions such as:

    Has God really made himself known to me?
    How can I tell?
    Are there other explanations for my mental state?

    …and so on.

  33. fifth, to newton:

    We can describe my experience of God’s existence as observation.

    Observations can be mistaken, particularly when they are as tenuous as your “observation” that God exists.

    Hence the questions I just posed:

    A rational person would go on to ask questions such as:

    Has God really made himself known to me?
    How can I tell?
    Are there other explanations for my mental state?

    …and so on.

  35. fifthmonarchyman,

    I keep telling you I’m trying to help you build an argument that can maybe move somebody other than you. But it seems you’re leaving all the heavy lifting to me! 😱

  36. walto,

    Instead of trying to help fifth, you should be working through your confusion regarding objectivity and objective morality. You’re confused enough that you managed to mock your own position, after all!

    Also, you might want to try to figure out why you fall apart and start making false accusations (quote mining, equivocation) when someone correctly points out your errors.

  37. KN,

    The interesting question is whether there are any objectively valid [in Kant’s idiosyncratic sense] moral judgments that are true.

    Yes. In other words, the interesting question is whether objective morality exists.

    Walto’s mistake is to answer ‘yes’, based on the fact that people make judgments regarding morality that purport to be objective. As you and I know, that’s not enough. Judgments that purport to be objective don’t thereby become objective.

  38. walto: I keep telling you I’m trying to help you build an argument that can maybe move somebody other than you.

    Again, no one will ever be convinced to abandon their rebellion against God by an argument. That is what the Holy Spirit does.

    I will be happy to help anyone who is genuinely seeking the truth but I don’t expect to ever move anyone.

    If people’s allegiances could be moved by argument then regeneration would be unnecessary

    quote:

    Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
    (Joh 3:3)

    end quote;

    peace

  39. Amazing that you spend maybe 4 or 5 hours a day here arguing with people in that case.

    I thought you could use some help. But….suit yourself.

  40. walto: Amazing that you spend maybe 4 or 5 hours a day here arguing with people in that case.

    What makes you think that I’m here to argue that God exists? Are you here to argue that God does not exist?

    If so that is just sad

    I’m here because I’m interested in ID and especially it’s relationship to AI. More generally I’m interested in science and I enjoy talking to folks with a different perspective from mine.

    I find it to be amazing that folks on your side of the fence are literally obsessed with the question of God’s existence. I’ve said many many times that I would rather talk about something else here.

    I commented on this particular thread because I thought you were having an interesting discussion on objectivity.

    The problem is that in every single thread that I comment on the atheists feel compelled to bring up God’s existence again for some reason.

    It’s almost like they are trying to convince themselves of something.

    peace

  41. KN,

    You think there aren’t any [true statements regarding objective morality],

    Right.

    …and FMM thinks that there are if and only if they conform to God’s will.

    Right, and his approach fails because

    a) he can’t demonstrate God’s existence;
    b) even if he could, he would need to determine God’s will; and
    c) even granting a) and b), God’s opinions regarding morality are subjective, unless fifth can demonstrate that morality is independent of God.

    I’m inclined to think that facts about human nature are the best candidates we’ve got for what makes objectively valid moral judgments true or false.

    That seems to be a pullback from your earlier claims regarding ‘human flourishing’. In any case, the facts regarding human nature can’t lead us to objective morality. You inevitably run into the Humean is/ought problem.

    Besides that, you also run into your perennial problem of elevating the interests of humanity above those of other sentient creatures.

    I don’t know what walto thinks.

    He hasn’t settled on a position. In an earlier discussion, he tried to argue for an objective morality based on the aggregated desires of sentient beings. That failed for a number of reasons that I summarize here and here.

    Now he says:

    To be clearer, I’m still comfortable saying that values are both man-made and objective, if we’re talking about prudential values (what makes lives go well) for persons or societies. But I’m not so sanguine about moral values.

    And:

    What I mean is that I’d still try to argue that the best world is a function of that type of aggregation, but I don’t mean ‘most moral’ by ‘best’ there.

    I asked him:

    Have you also given up the idea that we can somehow sense the results of that (objective) aggregation? That was a role you attributed to conscience, back when you still thought the aggregation was a moral aggregation.

    He responded:

    As indicated I still think emotions function in the world of value judgments much as perceptions function in the world of factual judgments.

    However, he now seems to be restricting that claim to prudential values, not moral values:

    But I’m afraid I’m not willing to hazard much on morality anymore. I’d like to think it’s somehow derivable from the prudential values (David Sobel has an interesting paper on that subject), but, if it is, I doubt I’m the guy for the job.

  42. dazz: I describe that as psychotic

    If you what to call the vast majority of humanity psychotic because we observe that God exists that is certainly your prerogative.

    Forgive us if we dismiss your aprasial.

    peace

  43. walto, to fifth:

    Amazing that you spend maybe 4 or 5 hours a day here arguing with people in that case.

    I thought you could use some help. But….suit yourself.

    I think the Godbot behavior is fifth’s attempt to convince himself.

    Imagine how it feels to be him. He’s built his life around his faith, but he can’t defend it, and he gets his ass handed to him on a daily basis — by atheists, no less.

    That’s gotta sting. It’s an itch that he can’t quite scratch, but he keeps trying.

  44. fifthmonarchyman: What makes you think that I’m here to argue that God exists? Are you here to argue that God does not exist?

    If so that is just sad

    I’m here because I’m interested in ID and especially it’s relationship to AI. More generally I’m interested in science.

    I find it to be amazing that folks on your side of the fence are literally obsessed with the question of God’s existence. I’ve said many many times that I would rather talk about something else here.

    I commented on this particular thread because I thought you were having an interesting discussion on objectivity.

    The problem is that in every single thread that I comment on the atheists feel compelled to bring up God’s existence again for some reason.

    peace

    I’ve heard this complaint from you before, but I think your take on the nature of your participation here is wildly inaccurate. I suggest that if you have look with an unbiased eye, you’ll find that what you do here is nothing at all like what you think you’re doing.

    Just take a random sample of your initial post on a couple dozen threads, and you’ll discover what it is that you are actually interested in. And what you really want to talk about.

  45. walto: Just take a random sample of your initial post on a couple dozen threads, and you’ll discover what it is that you are actually interested in.

    I’ll grant that I will step in when I see God blasphemed and my friends demeaned and belittled in threads.

    But that does not mean it’s what I’m interested in or that I wouldn’t be very happy if that sort of juvenile school yard behavior was not so prevalent here.

    As Ive said dozens of times

    If you don’t want me to remind you that you know God exists don’t blaspheme him

    peace

  46. Based on the evidence, you must consider not talking about Jesus for five minutes utter blasphemy.

    Anyhow, I just thought you might like to try to put an actual argument together. If not, fine. Sorry to have suggested it.

  47. walto: Just take a random sample of your initial post on a couple dozen threads, and you’ll discover what it is that you are actually interested in.

    I’ll tell you that often I avoid commenting in threads because I know that as soon as I do the the usual suspects will arrive and talk will immediately switch to God’s existence.

    peace

  48. walto: Based on the evidence, you must consider not talking about Jesus for five minutes utter blasphemy.

    nope, but to give you a hint calling God an imaginary sky daddy would count as blasphemy and calling Christians stupid and irrational would count as belittlement.

    peace

  49. fifthmonarchyman: I’ll tell you that often I avoid commenting in threads because I know that as soon as I do the the usual suspects will arrive and talk will immediately switch to God’s existence.

    peace

    Well, if your opening remark on a thread that was previously devoted to, say, thermodynamics is something from the Bible, what can you expect?

Leave a Reply