reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 13, 2007 5:40:32 GMT -4
I have my own set of morals that don't approve of the blowing up of children, but there is no set of morals to speak of cast down by god for us all to follow. As long as we have the freedom to have individual opinions, morality will be subjective.We have the freedom to have individual opinions on whether stars should be visible in the Apollo lunar surface photographs too, but that does not completely undermine our ability to justifiably argue that the conspiracy theorists are wrong—or at least, are not offering a better alternate theory. You guys are falling all over yourselves casting fear, uncertainty, and doubt about religious beliefs in order to gain freedom for your personal beliefs. That doesn't cut it when arguing against the conspiracy theorists, and it shouldn't cut it here. You need a leg to stand on such that you can—to the best of your ability at this time--make a positive case (in the sense of not negative) for a society that does not approve of blowing up children, of killing the non-Muslims in the neighborhood, of keeping the town dry of liquor, etc. Don't get to hung up by the subjective-objective dichotomy. To move away from subjectivism is not to fall into a trap of objective dogmatism. Just be prepared to change your views as better evidence and arguments come to light. These can be tough issues, but the goal is to latch on to any technique that provides progress over what was in place before. The fact that we will endlessly disagree and bicker over particular issues does not have a bearing on the fact that we can make our lives better. Don't let philosophy discourage you. In general, your entire life is a story of progress. I agree, because to live a practical life is to forego a lot of the philosophical nonsense being discussed here. All I'm really arguing is that morality by nature is subjective, and the existence or nonexistence of a God or Gods doesn't really change that. Each society has their own set of morals and that's fine as long as it works for them. Obviously from a personal standpoint I have some problems with societies that condone prejudice, sexism, violence or oppresion. I can feel secure about my morals and recognize that they are not at odds with some perfect set handed down by God because no such set really exists.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 13, 2007 5:55:56 GMT -4
An opinion on ethics can't be "obviously untrue". It can only be different from yours. If morality is subjective, then the only thing objectively true about different sets of morals is that they are different. Value judgements are seperate subjective opinions that can't be applied as true or false.
How could objective perfection be possibly knowable? List anything knowable that is perfect. Not something YOU think is perfect. Something that is actually, truthfully perfect.
Well those sneaky Gnostics must have found a way to telepathically transmit their ideas through time and space directly into my brain, because I came up with that opinion all by my lonesome. So it's "unfortunate" that a different opinion on the nature of God has persisted through time? Those rotten Gnostics. Having different opinions and all. What were they thinking? It's a crying shame the Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Scientologists, and rotten Atheists propagated their "obviously untrue" theories as well.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 13, 2007 9:34:15 GMT -4
No, universal is a precise term in moral philosophy meaning unanimous agreement or applicability. Something that is objective ought therefore to be universal, but universality isn't proof of objectivity or equivalent to it.
There is the danger of equivocation in there because of the way the first sentence is worded. Agreement references the subjects doing the agreeing, applicability, the objects being agreed upon. My coffee cup is empty. Our agreement on that can be unanimous. The applicability is to just this one cup. Not all coffee cups are empty. So, in your guys' objective/subjective scheme of things, it is objectively true that my cup is empty, yet not necessarily universally applicable to cups in general.
If I appear to be disinterested in universality, it is because for the past few weeks I have been involved agonizing over new software development struggling to design applications that will efficiently support the insanely wide variety of customer needs. Reality is just too messy to impose a one-size-fits-all solution on it. Yet, if we don't accommodate enough of the diversity, the consequences will be serious. Our customers will not be able to get their work done easily, and we will likely be put out of business. The lack of universality does not excuse us of from the requirement to act correctly.
The practical answer resides not into following the philosophers into seeking some grand, universal ideal, but in visiting customers, discovering their specific needs, and designing a system that captures what universality is there but is adaptable to the contingent and accidental. It won't be perfect, but all that is needed for now is general improvement. We'll strive to make it better on the next go around.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 13, 2007 10:39:39 GMT -4
Yes, but not nearly as well as a lunar module.
That's just bragging...
A guidance system is only as good as the fidelity and congruence of its sensors.
This sounds like grounds for excellent moral advice. Keep your eyes wide; the chance won't come again.
A guidance system pits itself against a largely deterministic environment -- the physical world. Morality pits us against other moral agents.
...who will also get around to dope-slapping you if your actions make their lives unlivable. True, the feedback is not as clear-cut and free from noise and interference as an engineered system, but you are not exempt from consequences. An economy based on slavery will produce different results from one that allows each the freedom to work toward one's full potential.
Moral agents negotiate amongst themselves to find a mutually beneficial compromise.
Well said. Let's not overlook that negotiation is process of supplying and responding to feedback as part of the attempt reach a workable condition for all.
That's what makes moral questions interesting.
I don't wish to imply that moral questions are easy or were all solved long ago by a guy who couldn't get a job working in a trade, so spent his days lecturing passersby. If anything, I hope I can get some to look over their lives, our lives, and appreciate all the moral problems we have suitably resolved and do continue to resolve all day long, every day, and over the course of human history. Being alive and being reasonably happy much of the time is not the normal state of affairs.
The question "Is X the right choice?" is the stepping-stone. The fun questions are the ones that precede and follow it. More important is "How do we go about deciding whether X is the right choice?" And once we have agreed upon that and come to a conclusion, "X is the right choice," then we have to wonder what to do with the consequences of people not doing X. If we establish a responsibility to do X, then is there a basis for enforcement?
These questions all presume a moral framework in which to evaluate them. (It's a bit like trying to argue if logic is useful or not. You use logic to construct such an argument.) The question "How do we go about..." implies a particular end or objective. Your line of questions won't produce a moral framework; it will visualize an existing one.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 13, 2007 14:31:05 GMT -4
An opinion on ethics can't be "obviously untrue". It can only be different from yours. If morality is subjective, But I believe morality has an objective reality, and is not purely subjective, so a moral opinion can be obviously true or false, and can be judged for its value in how closely it approaches the reality. 2+2=4. For any right triangle, the square of the length of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides. Now admittedly, we don't usually encounter physical objects that could be termed "perfect" unless we have a wide criteria of what perfect means, but that does not mean that we cannot conceive of perfection. Some mathematical and physical laws approach perfection. We will never encounter a right triangle that is "perfect", but we can conceive of one, and use imaginary perfect triangles in practical applications. It's unfortunate that the true teachings of Christianity with regards to God were lost because of their substitution with what was trendy among the Greek philosophers of the time - an abhorrence of the physical and the discorporate, passionless, unknowable god.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 13, 2007 22:18:07 GMT -4
Well, I disagree entirely. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that issue.
I anticipated that you would bring up math. Is God math? Now that's an interesting idea! As you said, there is no such thing as a perfect right triangle in reality, there is only the idea of a perfect right triangle. There can be an idea of objective truth, but nothing phyisically tangible.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 14, 2007 9:21:08 GMT -4
There can be an idea of objective truth, but nothing phyisically tangible.
How is this supposed to work? Is your claim that "there can be an idea of objective truth, but nothing physically tangible" itself an objective truth, or is it subjective? If it is objective, how did you find that out? If it is subjective, why should anybody listen to you?
Edit: spelling
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 14, 2007 12:09:23 GMT -4
I anticipated that you would bring up math. Is God math? Now that's an interesting idea! As you said, there is no such thing as a perfect right triangle in reality, there is only the idea of a perfect right triangle. There can be an idea of objective truth, but nothing phyisically tangible. Well that's a definite shift from your earlier position. Before you said that God must be unknowable because we can't conceive of anything perfect. Now you say we can in fact conceive of something perfect, but nothing perfect can actually exist (can have objective reality). But your earlier statements said both that God exists (or existed at one point) and that He was perfect (and therefore unknowable). So how do you reconcile these two seemingly contrary opinions?
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 17, 2007 21:38:51 GMT -4
There can be an idea of objective truth, but nothing phyisically tangible.How is this supposed to work? Is your claim that "there can be an idea of objective truth, but nothing physically tangible" itself an objective truth, or is it subjective? If it is objective, how did you find that out? If it is subjective, why should anybody listen to you? Edit: spelling I'm not quite sure anybody should listen to me anyway. I'm pretty much just ranting.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 17, 2007 21:44:10 GMT -4
I anticipated that you would bring up math. Is God math? Now that's an interesting idea! As you said, there is no such thing as a perfect right triangle in reality, there is only the idea of a perfect right triangle. There can be an idea of objective truth, but nothing phyisically tangible. Well that's a definite shift from your earlier position. Before you said that God must be unknowable because we can't conceive of anything perfect. Now you say we can in fact conceive of something perfect, but nothing perfect can actually exist (can have objective reality). But your earlier statements said both that God exists (or existed at one point) and that He was perfect (and therefore unknowable). So how do you reconcile these two seemingly contrary opinions? Well, do we know what God is? What God's true nature is? No, and that's why God is perfect. I think we could possibly conceive of God's perfect nature, but God's actions are a different story. But you certainly bring up a good point, and I may have to rethink my positions a bit.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 17, 2007 21:44:34 GMT -4
Either way, I still think morality is subjective.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 18, 2007 8:12:50 GMT -4
Either way, I still think morality is subjective.
Well, there you go, Jason. You go right ahead, get your Bible out, and get back to hitting us on the head with it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 18, 2007 11:00:51 GMT -4
You think I've been hitting you over the head with the Bible? You must not have read the "Grace, Works, or both" thread, where I was actually doing that for a time.
I'll be satisfied with "I may have to rethink my positions a bit." That's pretty much the best result anyone can hope for in an internet debate - to cause someone else to rethink and reconsider.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Oct 18, 2007 14:03:32 GMT -4
The problem here is that if there is an objective morality, we appear to have none but the subjective in determining the properties of that objective morality. As mortals, we have no way of even judging the qualities of a deity, except through the subjective. We can’t say if God is perfect or not, as we have no way of knowing his or her qualities -- and we therefore have no way of knowing if divinely inspired morality was from a good or bad deity.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 18, 2007 15:00:07 GMT -4
The problem here is that if there is an objective morality, we appear to have none but the subjective in determining the properties of that objective morality. When it comes right down to it, we have only subjective means to determine any properties of any objective truth. How do we determine that Apollo was not hoaxed? We look at the photos, the reports, the transcripts, the video, and other evidences we have available and we decide that it would be more difficult to falsify all this than to have actually done it - a subjective judgement. How do we determine that the Earth is round? We read books that say it is. We look at pictures that were taken from space. We can see ships slowly disappear over the horizen from the bottom up and infer it may be round. But when it comes down to it we merely decide to accept that saying the world is round seems to fit the facts we're aware of. Again, a subjective judgement. So to complain that moral truths can only be determined by subjective means is merely complaining about reality as a whole - none of it is accessible to us without using subjective means at some level. The very fact that we are approaching reality as individuals (and must, ultimately, approach it as individuals) means that our perceptions of it must be subjective - varying with the individual. But that fact does not mean there is no objective reality that does not depend on our perception of it. In fact the only reliable soruce of information on God is God Himself. How do we know if a particular morality that claims to be divinely-revealed is good? That is to say, that it conforms to reality? By testing it. If we do what has been defined as good and find that good results follow then we have gained some measure of assurance that it is correct. If we do as it directs and are unhappy with the result then we either have made a mis-step along the way or it is not correct.
|
|