Quote from: Kupo on September 09, 2015, 03:45:32 PM

There are no facts that support the concept of morality being anything more than subjective.

The point is that there are if you can identify the best definition of morality.

I think this sentence made all of your previous posts make sense to me.

Science reaches objective facts, but physics only reaches conclusions based on assumptions?

All science only reaches conclusions on the basis of some assumed values. All human activity in the quest for knowledge take place on the basis of some assumed values. You have to make the assumption to get the ball rolling, otherwise there is nowhere to go.

So... wouldn't morality be the same way?

Yes, that's the point. For the same reason we have to define the best basis for science before we reach objective facts, we have to define the best basis for morality.

Seems like in a world where no human knowledge is truly factual

Operating from a perspective != all perspectives are equal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpositivism

In philosophy and models of scientific inquiry, postpositivism (also called postempiricism) is a metatheoretical stance that critiques and amends positivism. While positivists believe that the researcher and the researched person are independent of each other, postpositivists accept that theories, background, knowledge and values of the researcher can influence what is observed.[1] However, like positivists, postpositivists pursue objectivity by recognizing the possible effects of biases.[1]

Postpositivists believe that human knowledge is based not on unchallengeable, rock-solid foundations, but rather upon human conjectures. As human knowledge is thus unavoidably conjectural, the assertion of these conjectures is warranted, or more specifically, justified by a set of warrants, which can be modified or withdrawn in the light of further investigation. However, postpositivism is not a form of relativism, and generally retains the idea of objective truth.

there's nothing provably wrong about making someone else feel excessively crappy.

There's nothing provably correct about the assertion that I will fall back to Earth if I jump. . .


Unless you have the right epistemic assumptions. This is why I keep comparing it to epistemology; everything relies on a set of assumptions--or a definition--to get off the ground, the key is finding the best definition.

Quote from: Kupo on September 12, 2015, 07:36:31 AM

Thus, morality would be objective because God would define logic to make it such.

If it is as God defines (in the beliefs of a single entity), then it is by definition subjective.  You cannot know how God would define something, so it be his subjective position.  Objective means independent of any singular entity's beliefs.

Objective doesn't mean that; it means removed from bias. Morality isn't defined by god's subjective belief, but by his nature. It's really not much of a stretch to argue that morality is objective and universal the same way the rules of mathematics are -- the anthropomorphization of the universe into a god is just an easy way for us to come to that conclusion.

edit: there we go, I suck at coding

Quote from: Kupo on September 12, 2015, 08:02:36 AM

there's nothing provably wrong about making someone else feel excessively crappy.

There's nothing provably correct about the assertion that I will fall back to Earth if I jump. . .


Unless you have the right epistemic assumptions. This is why I keep comparing it to epistemology; everything relies on a set of assumptions--or a definition--to get off the ground, the key is finding the best definition.

I don't see why it's somehow not provably correct. Assuming the world is exactly how it is at this moment, and you were to jump with your two legs at this very moment, without any other factors affecting your independent jump, you would land on the ground every single time.

But fine, what are the 'right' epistemic assumptions that prove that morality is objective?

Because I still don't understand how a 'negative sensation' can be provably, objectively wrong outside of our own philosophical musings. Why can't you just tell me already?

>.> I at least like Turkey's rationale regarding a higher power, that makes it simple.

I just can't wrap my head around the idea that the natural, nihilistic universe somehow has inherent rights and wrongs that don't need to be defined by a higher power.

Unless... I don't know. This is melting my face.

If it is as God defines (in the beliefs of a single entity), then it is by definition subjective.  You cannot know how God would define something, so it be his subjective position.  Objective means independent of any biases.

I think you missed the point--since God is omnipotent, logic can be whatever he wants it to be, because he wouldn't be omnipotent otherwise. His 'opinion' is unbiased fact, because he made the laws of the universe and created existence itself, thus he gets to define the rules of logic, too.

But Turkey explained it better than I did.

Quote from: Kupo on September 16, 2015, 11:07:57 AM

Assuming

EXACTLY.

I mean that as more of a "I don't have time to account for everything." Easier to just take a shortcut rather than say something less than to avoid some inane, out-of-the-blue wrench toss like 'but what if I'm wearing rocket shoes'.

Wrong question; assumptions lead to objective facts, assumptions don't prove the existence of objectivity. The key is finding the best definition of morality--not the right one--and my contention is one which fundamentally minimises negative consequences is the most sane and most rational.

But there's nothing in a godless universe that dictates 'sanity and rationality' other than whatever you've decided upon.

The problem I have with this is that it requires you to understand the nature of a supernatural being, which I don't find to be a convincing claim. If you ask a Christian "Would it be moral if God ordered you to rape and pillage?" they will most likely say "No". They'll then try to justify it with some rather flimsy claim that God wouldn't order such a thing in the first place, which requires nothing short of substantial knowledge of his nature.

But they reach that conclusion through reason. The presumption that God is a moral being leads them to conclude he wouldn't order such things; so why not cut out the middle man and go straight to reason in the first place?

I don't know if understanding the nature of the being is necessarily a requirement. If God were to say that 'raping and pillaging is good,' then it would be good, because God said so, and he is the sole dictator of morality in the universe. Folks can reject it as much as they want, but then they'd find themselves on the new wrong side of the argument.

But when we take that away, what is left to dictate what is right or wrong? The only logical conclusion would be that morality is a human construct. Sure, animals may show kindness or cruelty towards one another, but it could be argued that it's just because that's what they feel like doing, because they have emotions. They may have instinctive 'cultural' norms that work in the interest of survival, but they don't have the capacity to follow or create a defined 'moral code' of sorts.

Never mind that humans have their own ideas of morality that they also believe to be objective fact. Let's substitute morality for religion here, because they're basically different versions of the same thing. Imagine ardent believers of various religions, each belief with views that will eventually conflict with one another, were to debate over which religion is the 'right' one? It wouldn't get anywhere--there's simply no factual basis for a 'winner.'

I mean that as more of a "I don't have time to account for everything."

The point is you're still assuming the validity of certain preconditions such as empiricism, physicalism, probability, et cetera.

other than whatever you've decided upon.

Which is exactly the point. Deciding upon the definition allows you to reach objective conclusions according to that definition. The only way we reach objective conclusions in any other area--health, physics, economics--is by assuming the value of certain tenets within the definition.

years of evolution and sentient life have hammered out the 'right' morals necessary for survival?

Well, no. It's good for survival to kill your competition, which obviously isn't moral.

EDIT: my grammar is sloppy right now

Quote from: Kupo on September 17, 2015, 01:29:06 PM

I mean that as more of a "I don't have time to account for everything."

The point is you're still assuming the validity of certain preconditions such as empiricism, physicalism, probability, et cetera.

Quote

other than whatever you've decided upon.

Which is exactly the point. Deciding upon the definition allows you to reach objective conclusions according to that definition. The only way we reach objective conclusions in any other area--health, physics, economics--is by assuming the value of certain tenets within the definition.

The thing that's driving me nuts here is because I feel like your argument is starting sound like mine...? I got the same feeling reading Verbatim's posts.

To me at least,  sounds like your argument can only logically conclude that morality is subjective because otherwise we wouldn't need to assume anything, because we would just know it. It's starting to sound like what I would say (we as people define objectivity, so that makes it subjective). But... it's not that simple...?

I'm still stuck on the hurdle that somehow there's an inherent morality to the universe. I can't see any other way it could exist outside of 'higher power is the only objective force' or 'we humans decided it's objective' which would inherently be subjective...?

Quote from: Kupo on September 17, 2015, 02:00:54 PM

years of evolution and sentient life have hammered out the 'right' morals necessary for survival?

Well, no. It's good for survival to kill your competition, which obviously isn't moral.

I'd think that'd be an exception, because beings that have to kill for survival don't have the luxury of doing otherwise. Morality wouldn't apply to them because they don't have the intellectual capacity for them...? And morality is only a concept with those capable of understanding it and deciding their own morals?

My brain right now:

If you wanna call that "subjectively objective", sure, as long as "subjectively objective" means... like, there IS an objective truth, but we can never know the objective truth—we can only make educated guesses. Then yes, I'd agree with you.

>.> My last two posts here were more of a ramble than something coherent. Getting to this reply took longer than I anticipated, but here goes:

My thoughts about the 'car' analogy: we can make a bunch of parts that when put together, make a car. These parts all exist, but they have no inherent meaning ordained by nature--the concept of a 'car' exists only because we've created that meaning.

We use that kind of thinking (Gestalt psychology) to make sense of the world, and just because it's either to think of objects as the sum of their parts. There are plenty of things that physically exist, but only have meaning because we associate a value with them. (I thought of making an example here, but I thought that would just be confusing, because I suck at analogies.)

In the case of morality, 'sensations' may have a physical basis, but the values associated with them are based on our own beliefs and experiences, derived from instinct and cultural norms. But I can't see any basis for any kind of morality that's objective, and inherently 'superior' to any other kind. (And it always struck me as a sort of 'religious' belief in morality.)

There's also the conundrum that I have this nihilistic view of the world and yet, I have my own sense of 'right' and 'wrong,' and I have no intention of abandoning it (dammit, I even vote this way). Though, it feels so arbitrary, because even though within our own society, there are objective rights and wrongs, they don't seem to have any, uh, 'cosmic' basis. Every worldview has different opinions on morality that believes itself to be the 'objectively correct' interpretation of morality. How would one even begin to 'prove' their own argument is the correct one, while simultaneously providing evidence that the other arguments are incorrect? This particular kind of 'secular objective morality' being expressed here seems like little more than just another opinion, that may or may not have parallels to religion.

>.> tl;dr, it took me until now just to say/realize that I'm a nihilist. Reason for like seven pages being that I have a conflict between my nihilistic beliefs and my own sense of right/wrong. (How the heck am I supposed to reconcile that?)

Quote from: Kupo on September 17, 2015, 02:17:28 PM

To me at least,  sounds like your argument can only logically conclude that morality is subjective because otherwise we wouldn't need to assume anything, because we would just know it.

Come on, Kupo, you know there are objective truths in the universe that we haven't unearthed yet. Science is objective—but we don't "just know" everything about science. That doesn't make science subjective—it just means we're stupid. Everything comes down to educated guesses, conjecture, hypothesis, assumption, theory, etc.

We make all these guesses about the nature of reality—there's no reason we can't do the same with morality.

If you wanna call that "subjectively objective", sure, as long as "subjectively objective" means... like, there IS an objective truth, but we can never know the objective truth—we can only make educated guesses. Then yes, I'd agree with you.

>.> I was confused. I was sort of just rambling to get my thoughts out. Alright.