Clown Fish Shows WJM a Thing or Two

_{Barry Arrington

June 3, 2016

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

WJM challenges the moral subjectivists:

I challenge CF and zeroseven to explain, from logically consistent moral subjectivism, how any of their moral views do not depend entirely upon personal preference, and how that principle cannot be used to make anything moral – even cruelty.

Clown Fish rises to the challenge:

Morals, regardless of their origin, span the gamut from deeply entrenched to weakly held. I assume that you would agree with this. It was “beat” into me from an early age by my parents that I must hold the door open for women and the elderly. I think that you would agree that this is not an objective moral value, yet I feel very uncomfortable if I don’t get to a door fast enough when a woman or an older person is entering a building. Is this a personal preference on the same level as ice cream flavours or music. Of course not. No more so than my revulsion when I hear racially charged language, which is also the result of my parents “beating” that value into me. So, if you persist in making the false claim that subjective morality is no more than personal preference, then you have no idea what subjective morality is.

Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. WJM challenges Clown Fish to demonstrate that under his premises, anything can be made to be moral, even cruelty. Clown Fish responds by saying that his morality is based on the conditioning that his parents imposed on him. Which demonstrates WJM’s point. If Clown Fish’s parents had conditioned him to hate Jews, then under Clown Fish’s reasoning Jew-hating would be moral for him.

I use the Jew-hating example, because some Islamic parents do in fact make a concerted effort to condition their children to hate Jews. Under Clown Fish’s reasoning, when those children wind up hating Jews as a result of their parents’ conditioning, their Jew-hatred is entirely moral. In fact, CF reasoning leads to this conclusion: The more powerful their hatred for the Jews, the more moral it is.

Also, notice this gem: “Is this [i.e., holding doors open] a personal preference on the same level as ice cream flavours or music”? Well, I presume by this statement that CF means to show that his personal preference for door holding is felt more strongly than his personal preference for ice cream or music, and therefore the former is in a different category from the latter. Well, yes they are in different categories CF. One is in the category “strongly held personal preference.” The other is in the category “weakly held personal preference.”

Wait a minute though. While in one sense, they are in different categories, in a more important sense — and the only relevant sense in responding to WJM’s challenge — they are in exactly the same category. It does not seem to occur to CF that a strongly-held personal preference [door holding; racial dignity] is exactly the same as a weakly held personal preference. They are both personal preferences. Yet, somehow, CF believes he has rebutted WJM’s reasoning. Astounding.

Yep, CF showed WJM alright. He showed him that he is exactly right.

Comments

clown fish @58 You said:
HeKS, no, I am not reversing myself. Most of the people who actually did the killing, probably did it out of fear. But there were still thousands who were actively involved who did it because they believed that it was the right thing to do.
If you want to continue to maintain this, then we are back to my original point on the issue, which is that...
In addition to the fact that you continue to ignore the recognized distinction between Moral Ontology and Moral Epistemology, you’re simply assuming that those who did Hitler’s bidding 1) believed in the existence of objective morality, 2) cared about doing what was objectively good, and 3) thought that killing millions of Jews and others belonging to other groups was objectively good. You can’t know this, and what we know about the history of the Holocaust, its motivations and the expressions of people who were involved simply don’t support that interpretation.
You claimed, first, that these thousands of people went along with Hitler because they "believed that it was objectively good", and now, somewhat more vaguely, because "they believed it was the right thing to do." But again, you are really just guessing here, and in kind of an historical vacuum at that, since we know that the motivating ideology that led to the Holocaust had nothing to do with a belief in objective moral values and duties but was intended more as an evolutionary battle between the races in a fight for supremacy. Furthermore, the methods used to persuade people to go along with the Nazi regime's attempt to solve "the Jewish problem" had nothing to do with helping them to somehow recognize that the "final solution" was mandated by a commitment to carrying out some objective moral good. Rather, appeals were made to their desperation, their bitterness, their suspicions, and their self-interest. You said in #58:
If they all did it out of fear, it would have only taken one to say no and stop it.
Nobody said that everyone involved did it out of fear (at least not fear for their lives). But your comments seem to suggest that you think the only two options are that people either did it out of fear or else they did it because they thought it was objectively good. That simply isn't the case. Many did it out of hate. Many did it out of anger and bitterness. Some were clearly demented. The whole affair was justified primarily by reference to social and fiscal and scientific reasons. But there is little reason, if any, to conclude that thousands of people went along with Hitler's murder of Jews and other minorities because 1) they believed that objective morality existed, 2) they held to a deontological moral philosophy, 3) their support for the actions of the Nazi regime was derived from their belief in objective morality and an adherence to their deontological moral philosophy rather than for consequentialist reasons, and 4) they thought the slaughter of Jews and other minorities, in itself, constituted an objective moral good. I'm not aware of any reason to think these criteria were met and the evidence would seem to suggest that they were not met. So, it's not at all clear to me that there is any validity whatsoever to your claim that thousands went along with the Nazis and the Holocaust because they "believed that it was objectively good". Of course, having said all that, we must return to the fact that even if we had some reason to think you might be right about this, it still would not be a valid argument against the existence of objective morality, because the possibility of people being wrong about what is objectively good or bad simply does not mean that there is no such thing as objective morality. Moral Ontology and Moral Epistemology are logically independent of each other, as I explained in #55.HeKS_{June 5, 2016
June
06
Jun
5
05
2016
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT}

JAD "I wonder if that is an accurate description of the “is/ought” problem. Is God an is?" You will have to take the up with Sev. I think Sev is an atheist. My post 60 was just a follow up to 56. Vividvividbleau_{June 5, 2016
June
06
Jun
5
05
2016
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

Vivid to Sev:
One final thought. Since there only is, and one cannot get an ought from an is, we at least know what an immoral act is not. An immoral act is NOT an act we ought not do. Does anyone else find this to be a bit odd?
I wonder if that is an accurate description of the “is/ought” problem. Is God an is? According to an on-line source:
In Ex. 3:13-14, Moses asks God, “Whom should I say has sent me?” and God responds by saying, “I AM that I AM… You must say this to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” However, it could be awkward for Moses to go to the Israelites and Pharaoh and say, “I am has sent me.” So, in Ex. 3:15 God revises this phrase and changes it to the third person by saying, “Tell them that ‘He is’ has sent you.” The word “He is” comes from the Hebrew root word haya, which means, “to be.” It is the third person form of this word, “He is,” that becomes the name Yahweh.
https://www.knowingthebible.net/the-meaning-of-yahweh From what I know and have read and studied this appears to be accurate. Therefore, when we ground moral values and obligations in Yahweh we are in fact grounding them in an “is”—His existence. However, God is personal vs. impersonal. The question/problem then is how can we ground morality in the impersonal? (As is what the naturalist believes.) If our existence is the result of mindless/impersonal evolution, what is the grounds of moral values and obligations? That’s the problem which confronts the naturalist/ materialist, grounding morality in the impersonal, because that is ultimately all that there really is (according to their worldview.)john_a_designer_{June 5, 2016
June
06
Jun
5
05
2016
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Seversky said:
There are disagreements which can be resolved by appealing to observations of the natural world and there are those that can’t. The first are about objective issues, the latter are subjective.
Are mathematics and logic part of the natural world? If so, can you direct me to where I can find them? No? We all agree that at least the fundamental principles of mathematics and logic are objectively binding commodities or (1) we have no means by which to resolve disagreements about the natural world, and (2) we have no means by which to measure the natural world in a way that will resolve disagreements about it. As I have argued that we operate as if conscience is a sensory ability that can receive objective moral information, so too are the capacities of logical and mathematical thinking. Even though they are abstract and conceptual, we necessarily act as if those capacities are relaying objective, universally-binding information about reality (whether it is limited to what one defines a "natural" or "physical" world or not). We act as if these abstract capacities - logic, math, morality are providing objectively binding information about our experience. Indeed, these abstract concepts are the tools by which we demonstrate the objective nature of things we experience, but logic and math themselves cannot be themselves demonstrated to be objective in nature because they are the root tools by which such things are demonstrated. That morality cannot be demonstrated to be objective misses the whole point: conscience is the capacity, like logical or mathematical thinking, by which objective moral truths can be demonstrated. Thus, our capacity to resolve any kind of disagreements about anything presumed objective in nature requires we acknowledge abstract concepts such as math, logic and morality as objectively binding arbiters.
The debate about whether Newton’s or Einstein’s theories offered a better, more comprehensive account of the physics of the Universe was resolved by observation of that Universe, either directly or by experiment.
You're skipping the part about how such disagreements about the natural world are arbited. If logic and math were not considered objectively valid arbiters of true statements about the natural world, no such disagreement could ever be resolved.
A disagreement about whether your taste in music is “better” than mine cannot be resolved in that way because taste in music is not a property of objective reality but of our response to that reality. It is subjective.
Incorrect. If one is a physicalist, then one's "taste in music" is in fact a property of objective reality, even though it is is an objectively real fact about an individual that is not shared by everyone, like a fingerprint or iris pattern. Personal preferences and individual values would be like fingerprints or iris patterns - they would be patterns of interacting matter and energy relatively unique to the individual physiology we call a person.
By the same token, our moral judgements or evaluations of human behaviors in the world are subjective. In physics, the speed of light can be measured to see if it is constant, irrespective of the motion of an observer. There is no similar way to measure whether it is always wrong to kill, regardless of circumstances.
How are you going to measure the speed of light without logic or mathematics? Why would you "measure" it at all, or consider it a resolution to the argument about how fast it travels, given that both mathematics and logic themselves cannot be found in the natural world? If they are conceptual and exist only in the minds of individuals, they cannot be accepted as objectively true or universally binding ... right? If your argument is that because we cannot find morality in the natural world, it is therefore subjective, then both math and logic are also subjective. If your argument is that we cannot use our conscience to objectively measure the good or evil in a proposition because our conscience is subjective, then you must certainly agree that neither logic nor mathematics can be used to measure or prove anything because, like our conscience, they are necessarily abstract, subjective concepts.
I see no way to escape the subjectivity of morality.
By your argument, I see no way to escape the subjectivity of mathematics and logic.
Lacking any evidence to the contrary, even a moral code handed down from on high inscribed on tablets of stone is just another – albeit divine (allegedly) – opinion.
Even though we cannot find any of the principles of mathematics and logic in they physical world, we are capable of recognizing self-evidently true logical and mathematical statements. We cannot prove them; we cannot find them in the physical world; yet it is by their existence that we are able to prove other things and resolve disagreements about objectively existent commodities. The same is true of morality. There are self-evidently true moral statements (love is good, cruelty is evil) the denial of which result in absurdity, just like denying that 1+1=2 or denying the principle of identity. You cannot act as if logic, math or morality is subjective; it is by those fundamental concepts that we demonstrate objective facts and truths.William J Murray_{June 5, 2016
June
06
Jun
5
05
2016
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

Sev One final thought. Since there only is, and one cannot get an ought from an is, we at least know what an immoral act is not. An immoral act is NOT an act we ought not do. Does anyone else find this to be a bit odd? Vividvividbleau_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT}

Germans who refused orders during war would have been tried for insubordination. They would then either have been put into a concentration camp or have been shot. This would make their refusal an act of suicide. If that's what you're advocating see #51. -QQuerius_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT}

HeKS, no, I am not reversing myself. Most of the people who actually did the killing, probably did it out of fear. But there were still thousands who were actively involved who did it because they believed that it was the right thing to do. If they all did it out of fear, it would have only taken one to say no and stop it.clown fish_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT}

Me: "The holocaust, as horrendous as it was, was an outlier." Mungy: "One of the most blatantly ignorant things I’ve ever seen written by clown fish." Well, that has to be the most blatantly ignorant thing said by Mungy, or anybody. If the holocaust wasn't an outlier then it must be part of the norm. And if it is part of the norm then humanity is screwed. Which might make Kairosfocus happy, but it doesn't jive with the rest of society.clown fish_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT}

Sev "Indeed they were. But judgements about the immorality of what was done in those camps are quite different from scientific explanations of what was done and why and how it occurred. Again, the difference between ‘ought’ and ‘is’." If a judgement about the immorality of what was done is not a judgement of what " ought" not have been done what are we judging? To call it "immorality" is very strange indeed, it's just "is" I've rephrased what you mean below, without smuggling in the word "immorality" Indeed they were. But judgements about the" ISness "of what was done in those camps are quite different from scientific explanations of what was done and why and how it occurred. Again, the difference between ‘ought’ and ‘is’. Vividvividbleau_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

clown fish @46
HeKS: “you’re simply assuming that those who did Hitler’s bidding 1) believed in the existence of objective morality, 2) cared about doing what was objectively good, and 3) thought that killing millions of Jews and others belonging to other groups was objectively good.”
No, actually I think that most were just trying to preserve their own lives. The big question is, if you were a German soldier in one of those camps, would you turn the gas valve? I can’t honestly say, one way or the other. And I don’t think you could either. That is what is so scary about subjective morality. But not liking the possible implications of a scary situation doesn’t change it.
With all due respect, the big question is not whether you, or I, or anyone else would turn the gas valve. The big question is whether or not turning gas valve would truly be wrong. Furthermore, I have to point out that you have reversed yourself here on your prior claim about the Holocaust. You initially said this:
[The Holocaust] was not done by one person, or ten, or one hundred. That required the support of thousands. Thousands who believed that it was objectively good.
However, now you are admitting this:
I think that most were just trying to preserve their own lives.
If most of these people were going along with this horrible evil because they were trying to preserve their own lives, then they were not doing it because they thought it was objectively good. Those two motivations, at their core, represent completely different moral philosophies. That's not to say that it's impossible for a person to ever operate according to multiple moral philosophies (after all, people have been known to behave inconsistently at times), but in terms of a philosophical rationale for action, the two propositions are inconsistent, with the acceptance of one motivation making the other unnecessary. If someone is told to do something that they themselves think is objectively good, they don't need to be intimidated into doing it on fear of being murdered if they don't. And if someone does something because they are afraid they will be murdered if they don't, we aren't really justified in speculating that they may have also thought the thing objectively good even in the absence of the threat to their life. It must also be noted that if most of these people went along with the Holocaust out of fear for their lives rather than because they thought it was objectively good, then we would have to conclude that if anyone was doing it because they thought it was objectively good (rather than simply necessary for a desired outcome) - which we can't know and have reason to think was not the case - those ones would have to be considered outliers. Finally, we must contend with the proper distinction between Moral Ontology and Moral Epistemology. To see the reason for this recognized distinction we need only consider the logical claim underpinning the argument against objective morality on the basis of moral disagreement. In arguing that objective morality must not exist because people disagree about what is objectively good or evil, one is making the claim that it is logically impossible that, on the one hand, certain objective moral truths, values and duties could exist while, on the other hand, humans could a) fail to properly discern what all of those truths, values and duties are, and/or b) disagree about what some of those truths, values and duties are. The argument is a claim that these two propositions are logically contradictory and mutually exclusive. The problem, of course, is that there is no obvious logical link between these propositions, or any clear reason why they would be mutually exclusive. Instead, the propositions more obviously seem to belong to two separate spheres of inquiry, and hence the reason that they have been relegated to two different categories of philosophical consideration, with the first belonging to Moral Ontology and the second to Moral Epistemology.HeKS_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT}

The holocaust, as horrendous as it was, was an outlier. One of the most blatantly ignorant things I've ever seen written by clown fish. Not that it's objectively morally wrong, mind you.Mung_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

vividbleau @ 37
Sev “The debate about whether Newton’s or Einstein’s theories offered a better, more comprehensive account of the physics of the Universe was resolved by observation of that Universe, either directly or by experiment.” Was the Holocaust not observed? Did we not observe the gas chambers, the stacks of dead emaciated corpses, we’re not the despicable horrors not documented?
Indeed they were. But judgements about the immorality of what was done in those camps are quite different from scientific explanations of what was done and why and how it occurred. Again, the difference between 'ought' and 'is'.Seversky_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

Clown "In none of these does fear for your life if you don’t comply come into play. At worst, they are dealing with peer pressure. Hardly justification for systemic racism." Hmmmm yeh. So how is this relevant? Vividvividbleau_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Excellent points, HeKS. Without an objective morality to the contrary, it becomes imperative that the "redundant" human population on earth be significantly and immediately reduced in the name of slowing the severe anthropogenic environmental destruction in progress. That human evolution can now be scientifically monitored and directed is also undeniable, thus . . . Each human should receive a "Darwin Evaluation Score" (DES) based on - Genomic health - Intelligence - Significant contributions - Current age - Mental health - Societal compatibility Excess populations that fall below these criteria would be humanely eliminated regardless of their antisocial objections. From what I've read so far, it seems obvious that CF would not make the cut. But let's see whether CF might have some irrational, sentimental objection to phase 1, voluntary suicide. CF? - QQuerius_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Vivid: "If the answer is no then the following is not an objection to objective morality but just an observation that fear and things like peer pressure can get us to do things we might personally think immoral. Isn’t this rather obvious? ” If the killing of Jews, or any identifiable group, is do “objectively” bad, why did it happen?”" On this I would agree. The holocaust, as horrendous as it was, was an outlier. I think that most people who had an active role, did so out of fear. But how do you explain slavery? The people supporting it were not the fringe, or doing it out of fear. The same holds for the people who prevented women from getting the vote. Or those that thought it was morally imperative to forcibly remove Indian children from their culture so that they could be raised as Christians. Or those who thought it was morally acceptable to allow children to work in coal mines or textile factories simply because their parents were poor. Or those who forced black people to the back of the bus, or those who denied them service at s whites only diner. In none of these does fear for your life if you don't comply come into play. At worst, they are dealing with peer pressure. Hardly justification for systemic racism.clown fish_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

Clown If the answer is no then the following is not an objection to objective morality but just an observation that fear and things like peer pressure can get us to do things we might personally think immoral. Isn't this rather obvious? " If the killing of Jews, or any identifiable group, is do “objectively” bad, why did it happen?" Vividvividbleau_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

Vivid: "Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be saying that if morality was objective everyone would always act in accordance with that objective morality." No. We can obviously be influenced out of fear, or peer pressure, or the offer of tickets to the next Justin Bieber concert. But you will not succeed in something that the populace is strongly opposed to unless you have force to back it up. Surely you are not suggesting that everything throughout history that we would disagree with was the result of force.clown fish_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Clown "Presumably, they could have opted for the objectively moral route. But they didn’t.....If the killing of Jews, or any identifiable group, is do “objectively” bad, why did it happen?" Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be saying that if morality was objective everyone would always act in accordance with that objective morality. Vividvividbleau_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

HeKS: "you’re simply assuming that those who did Hitler’s bidding 1) believed in the existence of objective morality, 2) cared about doing what was objectively good, and 3) thought that killing millions of Jews and others belonging to other groups was objectively good." No, actually I think that most were just trying to preserve their own lives. The big question is, if you were a German soldier in one of those camps, would you turn the gas valve? I can't honestly say, one way or the other. And I don't think you could either. That is what is so scary about subjective morality. But not liking the possible implications of a scary situation doesn't change it. Even KairosFocus, in the same situation, would probably turn on the showers. He would like to think that he wouldn't (as we all would) but he would be a damned liar if he categorically said he wouldn't.clown fish_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

Hi clown fish, I'm just about to head out, but I want to quickly point out that you haven't really addressed the point. Whether Hitler personally pulled a trigger isn't the issue. In addition to the fact that you continue to ignore the recognized distinction between Moral Ontology and Moral Epistemology, you're simply assuming that those who did Hitler's bidding 1) believed in the existence of objective morality, 2) cared about doing what was objectively good, and 3) thought that killing millions of Jews and others belonging to other groups was objectively good. You can't know this, and what we know about the history of the Holocaust, its motivations and the expressions of people who were involved simply don't support that interpretation. No less than Hitler, the philosophy of those involved in the Holocaust was consequentialist in nature rather than deontological, with one of the intended consequences being the preservation of their own lives, which they feared would be forfeit if they refused to comply. Other higher-ups clearly felt no compunction whatsoever about ignoring any objective moral standards. Gotta run.HeKS_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

HeKS: "It’s certainly hard to keep aware of who is who around here :) You see two screen names expressing similar ideas in similar ways and you wonder if it’s the same person or just coincidence." I know. I wonder who's to blame? :) I would much prefer my Acartia persona, but that is not morally acceptable here. And I have probably shortened my Nemo existence by even mentioning it. But I prefer honesty. Thank you you for allowing me to respond to your previous thread here. If WJM is opposed, I will honour his decision "But why should we think that’s the case? Why should we think that Hitler truly believed in objective moral values that are binding on humans?" Does it really matter? How many people did Hitler personally kill? My guess is, none. But he relied on others to do it. Thousands. Presumably, they could have opted for the objectively moral route. But they didn't. "Hitler’s ethic was, by his own admission, scientific and evolutionary, not religious." Well, we could argue this for days, but Hitler, to the best of my knowledge, never pulled a single trigger. If Obama (or Trump, or whoever) told you to kill a bunch of Jews, would you do it? I know very little about you, but I know enough to say that you wouldn't. And neither would I. If the killing of Jews, or any identifiable group, is do "objectively" bad, why did it happen?clown fish_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

Hi clown fish, It's certainly hard to keep aware of who is who around here :) You see two screen names expressing similar ideas in similar ways and you wonder if it's the same person or just coincidence. If you would have liked to have responded further in that thread, you can always address issues here as they would certainly be relevant to the thread subject and so I don't think WJM would consider it a thread hijack. Or I suppose you could comment over in that thread if you are able to. Regarding your comments about Hitler...
that was not done by one person, or ten, or one hundred. That required the support of thousands. Thousands who believed that it was objectively good. If we can have that big a disagreement about what is morally acceptable, how can we argue that morality is objective?
... I will offer the same response that I did to Mark Frank when he raised a similar argument in that other thread:
The point you are trying to make is based on the assumption of “everything else being equal”. In other words, it assumes that what we have here is a mere difference of opinion on what the objective moral truth happens to be, while all the underlying philosophies on both sides of the equation are essentially the same (or close enough that it makes no material difference). But why should we think that’s the case? Why should we think that Hitler truly believed in objective moral values that are binding on humans? Why should we think that he didn’t disregard or suppress the prodding of his conscience for one reason or another? And why should we even think that Hitler viewed what he was doing as “murder”. Hitler’s ethic was, by his own admission, scientific and evolutionary, not religious. His rationale was utilitarian. His moral philosophy was consequentialist in nature rather than deontological. So everything else was not equal.
HeKS_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Hi a Vivid, my weekend is great. 27 degrees and sunny (that is hot and sunny for you less metrically inclined):) "What is it besides “people disagree therefore it cannot be objective” that the answers given to this objection are not persuasive to you?" It is not that people disagree that is the problem. It is the frequency, and extent, and amplitude, to which they disagree that is the problem. A sociopath or psychopath (or several) that disagree is an aberration. An outlier. It ceases to be an outlier when the outliers become the norm. The argument against evolution is the number, frequency and amplitude of evidence that you say is counter to it. We can argue whether or not the evidence against evolution is real, but why aren't you holding objective morality up to the same standard of proof that you are holding evolution?clown fish_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

HeKS: This is one of the issues I addressed in my first post here, starting at the heading, Arguments Against Objective Morality." I remember it well. It was in response to one of my previous responses, under a different name (acartia_bogart). I also remember that you took flack from some of the less civil (moronic and childish) UD regulars for accepting my commendation for honestly representing what my views were. "Also see my comments 35, 69 and 80 in the ensuing discussion thread (80 addresses Mark Frank’s attempt to counter this distinction)." I would have responded further, but someone banned me from commenting (not your fault).clown fish_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Clown Hi Clown hope you are enjoying your weekend. "But, regardless, that was not done by one person, or ten, or one hundred. That required the support of thousands. Thousands who believed that it was objectively good. If we can have that big a disagreement about what is morally acceptable, how can we argue that morality is objective?" It seems to me that we keep going around in circles. You keep bringing up this objection, it keeps getting answered, then it is brought up again as an answer to the objection :) What is it besides "people disagree therefore it cannot be objective" that the answers given to this objection are not persuasive to you? Heks in 38 just addressed this very thing. Perhaps a fresh perspective would help, I dunno, but I would highly recommend reading the link Heks gave where once again this objection has been addressed. A valid response is not to repeat the objection "that people disagree therefore it can't be objective" That's just going around in circles. Just saying... Vividvividbleau_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Vivid: "Yeh evil like beauty is in the eye of the beholder as you stare at the pictures of the stacked bodies in the railroad car." Hi Vivid, yes, I don't think that anyone here (subjectivist or objectivist) would look on those pictures as anything but abhorrent. But that is why I am optimistic about the future. But, regardless, that was not done by one person, or ten, or one hundred. That required the support of thousands. Thousands who believed that it was objectively good. If we can have that big a disagreement about what is morally acceptable, how can we argue that morality is objective?clown fish_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

WJM, You've written a lot of great articles on this subject. Your problem is that you're dealing with people who do not understand that a distinction exists between Moral Ontology and Moral Epistemology. A failure to understand this distinction is why they keep trotting out the same tired counter-argument against objective morality (i.e. people disagree about morals). This is one of the issues I addressed in my first post here, starting at the heading, Arguments Against Objective Morality. Also see my comments 35, 69 and 80 in the ensuing discussion thread (80 addresses Mark Frank's attempt to counter this distinction). I'm sure you personally know all this stuff, WJM, but these people disagreeing with you and your articles need to have these distinctions drummed into their heads so they start looking at this whole subject matter from a proper perspective and stop making these kinds of silly and misguided epistemological arguments against the basic existence of objective morality, which is a question of Moral Ontology. If there is some kind of valid argument or there against the existence of objective morality, it certainly isn't that "people disagree", no matter how many times people claim otherwise.HeKS_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Sev "The debate about whether Newton’s or Einstein’s theories offered a better, more comprehensive account of the physics of the Universe was resolved by observation of that Universe, either directly or by experiment." Was the Holocaust not observed? Did we not observe the gas chambers, the stacks of dead emaciated corpses, we're not the despicable horrors not documented? Vividvividbleau_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Sev "A disagreement about whether your taste in music is “better” than mine cannot be resolved in that way because taste in music is not a property of objective reality but of our response to that reality. It is subjective." Yeh evil like beauty is in the eye of the beholder as you stare at the pictures of the stacked bodies in the railroad car. Listen I know you find what happened appalling and I know you are as sickened as anyone. Here is what I also think, that in any conceivable time, place or universe, the Holocaust is,was, and always would be an objectively evil act. Am I right? As to your moral equivalency argument about God, the Bible, Noah , whatever, it is irrelevant, it is a distraction. My only and final comment on this (I should not even comment really because it is a deflection from the issue before us) is that if such acts of evil intent were perpetrated by God then God is despicably wicked. Vividvividbleau_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

William J Murray @ 21
Seversky @18: Because people and cultures and religions disagree about a thing doesn’t mean that thing itself is subjective in nature. This has been pointed out several times in many different threads. Did you miss them all?
No, but there are disagreements and disagreements There are disagreements which can be resolved by appealing to observations of the natural world and there are those that can't. The first are about objective issues, the latter are subjective. The debate about whether Newton's or Einstein's theories offered a better, more comprehensive account of the physics of the Universe was resolved by observation of that Universe, either directly or by experiment. A disagreement about whether your taste in music is "better" than mine cannot be resolved in that way because taste in music is not a property of objective reality but of our response to that reality. It is subjective. By the same token, our moral judgements or evaluations of human behaviors in the world are subjective. In physics, the speed of light can be measured to see if it is constant, irrespective of the motion of an observer. There is no similar way to measure whether it is always wrong to kill, regardless of circumstances. I see no way to escape the subjectivity of morality. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, even a moral code handed down from on high inscribed on tablets of stone is just another - albeit divine (allegedly) - opinion.Seversky_{June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply