Because like I've said many times now, originally I was asserting that it was subjective. But I don't know how clear I can make it, that I've changed my position since I made this topic. I've mentioned it so many times in my responses and even made an edit in the original post.
I am not asserting that morality is non-objective. — SonJnana
No, it's not. It's belief in the lack of something, which does obviously include the lack of belief in that something, but a lack of belief is agnosticism, not atheism. — BlueBanana
To get back on the track because I think this point is rather interesting... subjective morals can still have intrinsic value, can't they? And objective ones could lack that as well. — BlueBanana
Okay, so you are agnostic on this and want people to convince you that objective morality is true? — darthbarracuda
Possibly. But then I would ask you why would a dictator care if you intrinsically value to not kill if he intrinsically values murder if it's only subjective. — SonJnana
Okay. Just to be clear, dictionary definitions are not always the best tool to go to for philosophical things. How atheism is defined colloquially is not how atheism is used in rigorous philosophy. — darthbarracuda
Hmm... when I imply that he wouldn't care or have any reason to, and you ask me why he would care, how should I answer the question?
Also, I don't think the dictator would intrinsically value killing. For him it'd only be means to achieve safety, success, well-being, or whatever. — BlueBanana
↪darthbarracuda
Wait - the burden is on those who believe it to be objective. — BlueBanana
But it's the burden of the agnostic to clarify why they are agnostic, so the moral realist can know what to focus on, no? Certainly agnosticism has to be motivated by something. — darthbarracuda
I lack the belief because I haven't been presented with an argument that convinces me morality is objective. So do you have one? — SonJnana
But if anyone can intrinsically value any act then there doesn't seem to be good reason to tell someone that they shouldn't do something. — SonJnana
Morality is given to us in the form of a command-from-afar, as something we ought to do — darthbarracuda
Perceiving something as having moral content is intuitive and self-evident, requiring no further explanation — darthbarracuda
A command from who? — SonJnana
It does require explanation because it's not intuitive and self-evident. If it was we wouldn't be having this conversation. You can't just say I'm right because it's obvious. You have to explain that. — SonJnana
Ah, you come from the utilitarianist point of view - if you can't convince them, why tell them what you think, right? But of course if you value something, you want the others to value the same thing, which is why you'd tell them to act the way you think is right. — BlueBanana
I'm hesitant to answer this. I'm only describing what it's like. It's a command from the Other, whether that be God, a victim's face, or whatever. — darthbarracuda
Again I'm describing the experience of perceiving something as having moral content. Do you doubt that we do, in fact, see things as objectively right and wrong, good and bad, even if they aren't actually?
The point I'm making is that the perception that something is good or bad, right or wrong, is intuitive in the same way it is intuitive that a triangle has 180 degrees. It's synthetic a priori. — darthbarracuda
Why should I believe that there is a command coming from anything? I lack a belief in that. — SonJnana
I personally don't see things as objectively morally good or bad because I haven't been convinced so yet. — SonJnana
Also, just because something feels intuitive doesn't make it true. I can intuitively think that what I see in a magic trick is true, but that doesn't mean it is true. — SonJnana
I am only saying that morality oftentimes takes the form of a command-from-afar. I'm providing a phenomenological description of our experience of morality. — darthbarracuda
But why haven't you been convinced yet? What's the argument against what I've said? I want to know what the metaphysical framework you're coming from is. — darthbarracuda
You misunderstand me. Essentially I am saying that if you deny objective morality than you ought to deny that mathematics is also objective. Consider how both operate through intuitive principles that can be applied through logical reasoning. Both can be rationally argued for - at least, we do believe that someone can be right or wrong about mathematics, so why cannot someone be right or wrong about morality? — darthbarracuda
For something to be false is the same as it being not true — BlueBanana
lack of belief is agnosticism, not atheism — BlueBanana
You originally said "Morality is given to us in the form of a command-from-afar, as something we ought to do." So tell me, why should I believe that there is this command coming? Explain to me where it is how you know there is a command, where is it coming from, and why should I believe that it is objective? I don't hear this command. — SonJnana
I don't need any framework. — SonJnana
Someone who says one gumball plus two gumballs = three gumballs can be proven right because if you actually have one and add two, you end up with three. — SonJnana
So far all you've said to support this is that there is some command, but haven't explained how you know there is this command. — SonJnana
Example: a person claims it is true that God exists, and I claim it is not true. I am not claiming that God doesn't exist, only that it is not proven true that God exists, which is correct. — JustSomeGuy
Agnosticism is just the position that we do not or cannot possess knowledge of something. — JustSomeGuy
You don't "hear" the calling of the face of a victim? You don't "hear" the inner voice of your conscience telling you to do something? You don't see morality as a system of imperatives, something we must do based on something that is higher than our own empirical desires? — darthbarracuda
You do need a framework if you're going to explain what it is about my explanation that you find wanting. Otherwise it's just you denying anything I say as "unconvincing" without any dialectic argument. I need to know what you think is wrong with my argument. — darthbarracuda
By the same way we know 2+3=5 and that triangles have 180 degrees, we can know that gratuitous suffering is bad and inflicting needless harm onto others wrong — darthbarracuda
That's not what not being true means. True things are true, even when not proven to be. — BlueBanana
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.