4 ms·
>>It should be obvious to anyone with some knowledge of history and modern homo sapiens cultures that there is no such thing as "Moral Objectivity" Actually ob
by keane 10y ago
>>It should be obvious to anyone with some knowledge of history and modern homo sapiens cultures that there is no such thing as "Moral Objectivity"
Actually observing what humans do (history, culture) as you propose would be absolutely insufficient for determining if Moral Statements refer to Objective Moral Facts or are just invented delusions that were useful. We can't merely observe what humans happen to think or happen to do to tell. We can't reason "Humans happen to believe X therefore X is the case/exists" which is the sense of what we seek in metaethics. The sense of what you propose is akin to reasoning "Humans practice X therefore humans practice X" but similar tautologies are not very useful.
>>Morality (as in, what is considered culturally acceptable) varies greatly across time, cultures and individuals.
No one denies this: human behavior changes. But that's not the question at hand.
>>Morals that seem more universal than others may very well be biologically hardwired or selected by virtue of helping the cultures who carry them prosper (not unlike genes).
This is yet another Fact and fails to escape the limitations observed by Is-Ought.
>>This is the classic "I want it to be true, therefore it's true" non-argument.
The argument isn't to prove that morality is objective or to prove God exists. It is just an observation that "For morality to be Objective, this is the necessary dependency: God" and a suggestion that we understand moral language accordingly. As the Marquis de Sade roughly put it "If God does not exist, everything that Is, is Right". Moral statements are either real (Moral Realism) which requires a departure from strict Empiricism or they are invented opinions (Moral Anti-realism) a position consistent with Empiricism/Atheism/Materialism. The actual instance of "I want it to be true, therefore it's true" occurs when soi disant Empiricists think they can logically hold Moral Realism (often Secular Humanists who've overlooked these implications.)
- olalonde 10y agoAtheists do not believe a "morality that depends on god(s)" exists and it would indeed be contradictory to do so. I think we agree there.
- burntsushi 10y ago> are just invented delusions that were useful Your language is incredibly disingenuous. Another phrasing might be, "useful social constructs." "Delusion" doesn't really make sense as a descriptor of subjective morality since there's no claim that they are objective in the first place. Namely, your description of those who disagree with you presupposes that your view is correct. In particular, it feels like this is just an outright lie: > The argument isn't to prove that morality is objective or to prove God exists. It is just an observation [...] If it were "just an observation," your language wouldn't be laced with the presupposition that Moral Realism is the "correct" philosophy.
- keane 10y ago>Another phrasing might be, 'useful social constructs.'…there's no claim that they are objective You can call the social constructs whatever you like and no one is foolish enough to deny their utility. But as you note, they are not claimed to be objective; it is admitted that they are nothing more than (subjective) opinions. In trying to learn what they really are Chris Hitchens and Carl Sagan teach us how to approach invented opinions with Empiricism's perspective: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". >just an observation That's really all Hume did with a single paragraph known as Is-Ought. But it has frightful consequences, showing subjective morality to no more than a disposable invention in light of reason and logic. This line of thought from the 1700s that without God morals were made up gave us Surrealism, Dada, modern art, postmodernism, the thought of Max Stirner, Nietzche, Hobbes, Satre, Camus, Marx, Dostoevsky, Bukowski, et al ad nauseum and continues to this day. >presupposes that your view is correct If my view is not correct, it should be easy for you to refute Is-Ought. You can't and won't.
- burntsushi 10y agoI'm not trying to debate your view (we disagree on too much for that to be fruitful, subjective morality doesn't require one to disprove is/ought), I'm calling into question your tactics. You're saying one thing and doing another. It's dishonest.