-->
@janesix
Well right there you said you were confident "for the most part" indicating remaining inconfidence.
morality is objective
Posts
Total:
69
-->
@Fallaneze
I have varying degrees of confidence in everything.
Mostly, I know nothing really.
-->
@Fallaneze
Here is how it supposed to go.
Some things (such as fire) seem hot and other things (such as ice) feel cold. Those sensations are not random or arbitrary - they reflect an objective quality of such things, ie their temperature. By analogy whether something feels good or bad is due us sensing its 'objective moralty'.
What j6 called 'conscience' could be termed our 'moral sense'.
Our moral sense informs about the objective morality of things the way our heat sense informs us about their temperature.
-->
@keithprosser
I am surprised that you, as a n atheist, are not a moral relativist.
-->
@janesix
My post was my understanding of what 'moral objectivism' is all about, expressed as clearly as I could. It was my view until a few months ago - right now i'm very much agnostic re meta-ethical theory.
-->
@keithprosser
The only difference is that morality is abstract unlike temperature where the corresponding differences can be physically measured with instruments.
-->
@keithprosser
Why are you unsure now?
-->
@janesix
Well to be fair you are somewhat unsure yourself. You are probably sure, mostly.
-->
@Fallaneze
Yes,
I asked him because I am trying to understand people and their thought processes.
-->
@janesix
I do too. That's why I've asked you so many pestering questions.
-->
@Fallaneze
You are not pestering, i have enjoyed our conversation
-->
@janesix
Me too. I enjoy the socratic method. For the record, I agree with you that morality is objective but prefer to label myself as a moral realist.
-->
@Fallaneze
What is a moral realist? I don't think ive heard that term.
-->
@janesix
A moral realist believes that morality is discovered rather than invented. It's unambiguous. Objective morality, on the other hand, is more ambiguous. By objective morality some people mean the same thing as moral realism but other people think it means that once you select a moral standard, you can objectively determine which actions are moral or immoral (meaning the standard itself is invented).
-->
@Fallaneze
Ok, thank you for explaining. I guess I would consider myself a moral realist too then.
-->
@janesix
Very welcome!
-->
@janesix
In short, I don't think there is any escaping Hume's 'is/ought' dilemma. It's 'obvious' that murder or rape etc are bad, but their badness doesn't seem to follow from the laws of physics - you have to bring in 'values' and values are inherently subjective. Non-atheists have a ready-made alterative source of moral value, but we atheists really should trace things back to physics - and its not so easy!Why are you unsure now?
-->
@keithprosser
Perhaps instead of changing your moral beliefs to better fit your worldview paradigm you should allow your moral beliefs to change your worldview paradigm.
-->
@Fallaneze
While this course of action could have utility (for example it might promote action that Is intended to favor the public good for example) it is not really a very sound pathway to truth and beliefs unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your point of view, are not a choice. It is one of the central ironies of my personal subjective world view that I am nearly certain that I must be wrong about some things. It is a virtual certainty. Yet I believe also that the.things that I "know" are correct. That is precisely why I try not to make claims without qualifyers. For example science is reliable if we accept that the physical universe actually exists. If our assumption of 'reality is faulty then science does not necessarily have explanatory power. Science also does not have explanatory power to say anything about what existed before the universe what exists outside the universe or what will exist after the universe or even if those terms have meaning in that context.Perhaps instead of changing your moral beliefs to better fit your worldview paradigm you should allow your moral beliefs to change your worldview paradigm.
My argument has never been that anyone is necessarily wrong. My argument is only that without observable physical evidence we cannot even be as certain as we are of 'reality which is not at all if you'll remember. My argument is that whether there is a creator or a deity or a god or some entity that fits all three of those descrptiors or if none exist at all or if many exist some one may be right by accident but no one can know that they are right.
-->
@Fallaneze
Perhaps instead of changing your moral beliefs to better fit your worldview paradigm you should allow your moral beliefs to change your worldview paradigm.
That would be useful advice if it wasn't precisely what i am doing!
-->
@janesix
Isn't thinking what you think and what everyone else thinks are the same thing a trait of solipsism?
-->
@FaustianJustice
Maybe, i don't really know
-->
@Fallaneze
The only difference is that morality is abstract (post #36)morality is objective but prefer to label myself as a moral realist. (post #42)
So is morality real or abstract?
There are / is NO RULES , FULL STOP......
Of course morality isn't real. Molesting kids is ok. Rape ok. Murder is ok. That is why dictators are usually atheist.
-->
@keithprosser
Morality is both real and abstract.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If every atheist was a genocidal megaloaniac pedophile it wouldn't prove or disprove the existence of god. If you want to argue god is a useful fiction that is a seperate issue!Of course morality isn't real. Molesting kids is ok. Rape ok. Murder is ok. That is why dictators are usually atheist.
-->
@Fallaneze
Morality is both real and abstract.
It's really the idea that morality is 'abstract' I have a problem with. It seems to me 'abstract' is one of those words that gets bandied around without its meaning ever being made clear. You said morality was abstract but temperture wasn't'; but I think may be temperature is an abstraction and it is heat that is real.
What do we mean by 'abstract'? I'm shading towards conceptualism...
-->
@keithprosser
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
-->
@janesix
That's how I understand it. I would express it by saying 'only the concept of an abstraction exists'.existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.