Twilight II Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 But if everyone responds differently to absolute morality, in philosophy it becomes in principle indistinguishable from subjective. That is, unless you wish to claim that you, Twilight (and, I guess, people with *identical* moral frameworks to yours), are the one person in the world who is choosing not to ignore the completely obvious absolute morality, then clearly everyone has a slightly different perspective on the absolute morality. I agree, this would not change the thing in itself, but it would make it virtually useless as a guideline for actually acting in the world. Again, you are assuming that God cannot reveal His absolute moral standards to people. Which is a fundamental flaw in your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 8, 2013 Author Moderators Share Posted January 8, 2013 Not so much cannot, but apparently has not. You are not engaging with the fact that there are many people, all claiming to have direct access to absolute morality, but all claiming that it says slightly different things. This is an important issue. How do you explain that? Are 99% of them wrong? Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Not so much cannot, but apparently has not. You are not engaging with the fact that there are many people, all claiming to have direct access to absolute morality, but all claiming that it says slightly different things. This is an important issue. How do you explain that? Are 99% of them wrong? Because people suppress the truth in unrighteousness... It is not that it isn't available, it is usually because they want to create their own standard, whilst expect others to live by Gods standard... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Originally Posted By: Bravus Benefit is not absolute and it's often complicated - the benefit I gain might come at a cost to someone else, for example. Something like 'the greatest good for the greatest number', coupled with a level of altruism, would be the most beneficial - not because it's 'right', but because it *works*. Which is just another way of saying subjective morality. Who gets to decide who wins and who loses? You did not address this post Bravus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Not so much cannot, but apparently has not. You are not engaging with the fact that there are many people, all claiming to have direct access to absolute morality, but all claiming that it says slightly different things. This is an important issue. How do you explain that? Are 99% of them wrong? Upon what basis do you claim that God has not revealed His absolute standard of Morality? Because of people ignoring those standards? Or twisting them to suit themselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 What I am interested in though Bravus, is how you justify a bankrupt worldview that only allows for subjective morality. You may deny this, but you have offered no other alternative. You argue for subjective moral standards, but have seemed to fail to grasp that subjective moral standards can only be identified if there is an absolute moral standard to measure them against in the first place. So your own worldview fails the most basic tests of credibility... Yet you argue from that and claim the Christian Worldview is not correct. How can you make such claims when your own worldview lacks any credibility when it comes to accounting for morality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeMo Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Quote: Responses? I pretty much agree with everything you are bringing up, Bravus. Your alternative 3 fits my world view. There probably is an absolute moral standard appointed by God, but for whatever the reason (too rebelious or too broken), we just don't get it, or don't understand it correctly, or don't hear it correctly. I also think a certain amount of morality is socialized into us as an "absolute" social norm or standard; which may be different from God's idea of morality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Quote: Responses? I pretty much agree with everything you are bringing up, Bravus. Your alternative 3 fits my world view. There probably is an absolute moral standard appointed by God, but for whatever the reason (too rebelious or too broken), we just don't get it, or don't understand it correctly, or don't hear it correctly. I also think a certain amount of morality is socialized into us as an "absolute" social norm or standard; which may be different from God's idea of morality. There is a problem with this reasoning. If you don't get it, don't understand it or don't hear it correctly, then you have not committed a sin and cannot be judged a sinner... But we know that everyone will realise their sin in the judgement, so this reasoning you have presented cannot be correct... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeMo Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Quote: Again, you are assuming that God cannot reveal His absolute moral standards to people. Which is a fundamental flaw in your argument. Quote: Not so much cannot, but apparently has not. I'll offer a twist on your "has not" option" He has successfully communicated absolute morality to the minority who are willing listen and who have learned to "hear" God's voice. But they have failed to effectively deliver it to the world. He has tried to communicate it to humanity in general; but because of our God-given free will, most choose not to listen; of fall to the temptation to give it their own interpretation. Society (or a given denomination) adopts said interpretation; and it becomes the "absolute" moral code (as far as that people group goes). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Quote: Again, you are assuming that God cannot reveal His absolute moral standards to people. Which is a fundamental flaw in your argument. Quote: Not so much cannot, but apparently has not. I'll offer a twist on your "has not" option" He has successfully communicated absolute morality to the minority who are willing listen and who have learned to "hear" God's voice. But they have failed to effectively deliver it to the world. He has tried to communicate it to humanity in general; but because of our God-given free will, most choose not to listen; of fall to the temptation to give it their own interpretation. Society (or a given denomination) adopts said interpretation; and it becomes the "absolute" moral code (as far as that people group goes). I would broadly agree with this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeMo Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Quote: I would broadly agree with this... Wow -really?! Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 8, 2013 Author Moderators Share Posted January 8, 2013 What I am interested in though Bravus, is how you justify a bankrupt worldview that only allows for subjective morality. You may deny this, but you have offered no other alternative. You argue for subjective moral standards, but have seemed to fail to grasp that subjective moral standards can only be identified if there is an absolute moral standard to measure them against in the first place. So your own worldview fails the most basic tests of credibility... Yet you argue from that and claim the Christian Worldview is not correct. How can you make such claims when your own worldview lacks any credibility when it comes to accounting for morality? It's very difficult indeed to conduct a reasoned discussion with someone who simply ignores what I say and instead projects on to me views that I simply do not hold - and then expects me to defend those views. Please address the arguments I *am* making, not the ones you are having with yourself. I do not argue for subjective morality. I have said so clearly and repeatedly. I do argue against objective morality. Within your simple binary framework, where there are only two possibilities, you have decided that arguing against objective morality is the same thing as arguing for subjective morality, but it is not. What you tend to do is simple assume your own framework to be true, without making any arguments to support its truth, then judge and reject the arguments of others based on it. Or, even more precisely, fail to understand (or if you understand, to engage with) the views of others if they do not fit your framework, and reject different arguments that they were never making in the first place. I guess this is the 'meta' post - the discussion about the discussion. I'll get a coffee and make a more content-full post about intersubjective morality... the 'or...?' in the title of this thread. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 8, 2013 Author Moderators Share Posted January 8, 2013 The third alternative, beyond objective (true for everyone (usually assumed to be because of supernatural origin)) and subjective (adjudged by each individual) morality is intersubjective (collectively arrived at through social processes) morality. The notion that there exists only subjective and objective morality broadly corresponds to a psychological view, looking at the person as an individual. An intersubjective view is more sociological, recognising that human beings are social creatures, and think through moral questions and developed moral frameworks in social groups, from families to nations. The term 'mores', which shares a root with 'morals', captures some of this - 'the ways in which people in a society live'. It is, of course, as possible to be intersubjectively immoral as moral, or to have a broken intersubjective moral framework. When compared to the claim that there exists an absolute, objective moral framework to which human morals can be compared, this appears as a fatal flaw, but in the absence of such objective morality, intersubjective morality has checks and balances that are more powerful and effective - measured in terms of benefit and harm - than a purely individual, subjective morality. The discussion about the existence of an objective morality seems to have stalled at the assertions level, so all I can see is that I am not convinced by the case made. And in its absence, seeking, together, ways to benefit more people (and animals and the environment) and harm fewer seems to me like the most useful and effective thing we can do. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Originally Posted By: Twilight II What I am interested in though Bravus, is how you justify a bankrupt worldview that only allows for subjective morality. You may deny this, but you have offered no other alternative. You argue for subjective moral standards, but have seemed to fail to grasp that subjective moral standards can only be identified if there is an absolute moral standard to measure them against in the first place. So your own worldview fails the most basic tests of credibility... Yet you argue from that and claim the Christian Worldview is not correct. How can you make such claims when your own worldview lacks any credibility when it comes to accounting for morality? It's very difficult indeed to conduct a reasoned discussion with someone who simply ignores what I say and instead projects on to me views that I simply do not hold - and then expects me to defend those views. Please address the arguments I *am* making, not the ones you are having with yourself. I do not argue for subjective morality. I have said so clearly and repeatedly. I do argue against objective morality. Within your simple binary framework, where there are only two possibilities, you have decided that arguing against objective morality is the same thing as arguing for subjective morality, but it is not. What you tend to do is simple assume your own framework to be true, without making any arguments to support its truth, then judge and reject the arguments of others based on it. Or, even more precisely, fail to understand (or if you understand, to engage with) the views of others if they do not fit your framework, and reject different arguments that they were never making in the first place. I guess this is the 'meta' post - the discussion about the discussion. I'll get a coffee and make a more content-full post about intersubjective morality... the 'or...?' in the title of this thread. But that is the problem Bravus, you are making some very basic errors in your reasoning. You are stating there are three types of morality, when only two are possible. To try to bridge this obvious error, you are basically trying to change the discussion on the nature of the laws of morality, to human response and uses of those types of morality. So yes, I do understand the point you are making, but reject it as a simple basic informal logical error of equivocation. You are switching the use of the word morality between its two meanings and then applying the usage of one to the meaning of the other... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 There are two uses of the word morality. 1. Peoples responses to a situation. 2. A standard of morality. What Bravus is using here is what is called a logical fallacy of equivocation. He is taking peoples responses to a situation and then trying to state that those responses themselve are a standard of morality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 This is a standard tactic of evolutionists when they try to prove evolution. Example: "We see dogs evolving (changes within genetic constraints), therefore evolution (changes outside of genetic constraints) is true... This is the same type of argument: "People respond to morality (subjective responses) in three different ways, therefore the laws of morality (laws of morality) are three diferent types." Subtle, but a logical fallacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 8, 2013 Author Moderators Share Posted January 8, 2013 (repeating the same things more loudly, more times, doesn't make them true...) Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 8, 2013 Author Moderators Share Posted January 8, 2013 The scary thing with those who claim that absolute morality is that, although they can rarely be induced to say it that baldly, their underlying belief structure is: "My morality and God's absolute, objective morality are identical. Therefore I am right, and more than that I am morally good. Those who disagree with me are closing their eyes and hearts to God's absolute, objective morality, and therefore are wrong, and more than that are morally evil." Terrifying. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 8, 2013 Author Moderators Share Posted January 8, 2013 Originally Posted By: Bravus Not so much cannot, but apparently has not. You are not engaging with the fact that there are many people, all claiming to have direct access to absolute morality, but all claiming that it says slightly different things. This is an important issue. How do you explain that? Are 99% of them wrong? Because people suppress the truth in unrighteousness... It is not that it isn't available, it is usually because they want to create their own standard, whilst expect others to live by Gods standard... Like so. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 (repeating the same things more loudly, more times, doesn't make them true...) Neither does denying them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 The scary thing with those who claim that absolute morality is that, although they can rarely be induced to say it that baldly, their underlying belief structure is: "My morality and God's absolute, objective morality are identical. Therefore I am right, and more than that I am morally good. Those who disagree with me are closing their eyes and hearts to God's absolute, objective morality, and therefore are wrong, and more than that are morally evil." Terrifying. You have not dealt with the problem of equivocation that you got yourself into Bravus. You have ignored that and launched into an ad hominem attack, rather than attempt to logically defend your position. Which of course reveals that your position is indefensible. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 And this is usually the case when someones logical fallacies that are inherently wrapped up in their worldview are shown to them. When they cannot defend their illogical position, they have two main options they can appeal to.. 1. Admit their logical fallacy and realise their worldview is illogical. 2. Launch an ad hominem attack. Unfortunately in this case, option 2 seems to be the response of choice. :-) Suppressing the truth in unrighteousness does not leave that many options, when number 1 is taken out of the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 8, 2013 Author Moderators Share Posted January 8, 2013 Sorry, no, no ad hominem intended at all. Apologies if it felt that way, it was not meant to. I think that the equivocation problem only *exists* inside your framework. You fall into the logical fallacy of circular reasoning when you assume what you intend to prove. If there is no external, objective moral standard - which is what I am arguing - then there is no difference between the moral frameworks humans come up with and that (non-existent) standard. All we have are human moral frameworks. My position is internally consistent. The fact that it is not consistent with yours is... kind of the point of the discussion. :) Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Sorry, no, no ad hominem intended at all. Apologies if it felt that way, it was not meant to. I think that the equivocation problem only *exists* inside your framework. You fall into the logical fallacy of circular reasoning when you assume what you intend to prove. If there is no external, objective moral standard - which is what I am arguing - then there is no difference between the moral frameworks humans come up with and that (non-existent) standard. All we have are human moral frameworks. My position is internally consistent. The fact that it is not consistent with yours is... kind of the point of the discussion. Apology accepted, it did seem to be pure ad hominem, but with the internets way of crippling communication, we will have to give each other certain leeway.. -------------- Of course my pre-suppositions are circular Bravus. Everyones are. Yours are quite plain. You pre-suppose that your experience and ability to view the universe is an acceptable standard of quantifying and measuring truth. But the problem with that, is that you have no external authority to appeal to, so you just end up in a vicious circular argument. "I see because I see." I am of course starting with a circular argument, but it is a virtuous circular argument, in that it can be tested without appealing to itself ad infinitum... :-) "I see because God gave me senses to see and as an absolute first cause that logically explains everything, I can trust God that I do actually see." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Basically everyone starts their worldview with a circular pre-supposition. But a pre-supposition that can be examined and tested logically, to provide a foundation for life, the universe and everything is valid. A pre-supposition that rests on its own claim, however, is invalid and usually contradictory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.