romansh wrote:

jamest wrote:
The OP asks for the best argument for morality being objective. I've provided you all with the ONLY essential basis for an objective morality. Regardless of your disregard for that metaphysics, what I said stands as a rational fact: there can only be an objective argument for morality if there is only one being underpinning all experience.

You have me wrong James ... as physicalist this leads to being a closet monist.

It is more an assertion than a fact ... at least in my opinion. While the different forms do unto others have pluses and minuses there can be undesired repercussions to your argument for morality. There is no one size that fits all.

It is not an assertion at all that IF there is only one being experiencing itself in many forms then morally those forms should treat each other as themselves. It's perfectly reasonable/consistent - objective - to state that alongside said metaphysics.

I'm just here to explain to you why it is possible to produce an argument for morality being perfectly objective. I'm not here to prove God's existence or discuss why humans can be dicks.

jamest wrote:
If there is only one being experiencing life as it is diversely experienced, then the objective moral argument is to treat all experienced entities as yourself. Rationally, it is a perfectly consistent moral argument.

Maybe I should take up a simpler topic because I'm just not seeing it. I'm thinking quantum field theory.

You asked for the "best" argument for morality being objective. It doesn't get any better than perfectly consistent.

You might at this point want to argue that 'reality' isn't essentially one being, but that's a different thread.

I have a rule: I don't shoot guns in the dark. I like to see the target I'm shooting at. So, no argument will be forthcoming from me at this point.

I started the thread with no ulterior motive than what was stated in the OP. I'm not looking for someone to pick a fight with. I know that's the general MO around here, but it's not my intent this time.

jamest wrote:
...IF there is only one being experiencing itself in many forms then morally those forms should treat each other as themselves.

IF there is only one, my money is on Christopher Lambert.... sorry... Seriously, IF there is only one, it must be schizophrenic with all these "others" running around as "themselves."

It's perfectly reasonable/consistent - objective - to state that alongside said metaphysics.

And equally evidenced. Is there a name for this philosophy? I could save us both some time doing a little personal reading. THEN maybe we can have that argument

The problem, in my view, with the question of what is the best argument for morality being objective is that the answer depends on what you think is meant by both "objective" and "morality". The entire debate in philosophy resides in the fact people do not agree about the content of those terms and whether any particular system that prescribes behaviour actually represents what people call morality in the real world.

Even if I concede that some particular form of (say) positive, or negative utilitarianism is objective (in that it prescribes results for actions that everyone can agree are the results of the system, rather than results of a subjective interpretation or judgement) and I concede that this represents a moral system, what does that actually tell us? We can say that this is a morality that exists, and is objective (in some sense), but so what? If that's not how people actually make decisions in the real world, what is it we're actually saying?

Nothing, it seems.

This is, after all a property of both (to stick with the examples) positive utilitarianism and negative utilitarianism and yet those systems will prescribe differing courses of action for the same circumstances, we still need to make a subjective arbitration to choose between them (and thus the courses of action) anyway.

PensivePenny wrote:Is there a name for this philosophy? I could save us both some time doing a little personal reading.

Idealism, though the idea itself is not even alien to religion. For instance, Jesus is purported to have said the same thing.

THEN maybe we can have that argument

As long as you promise not to hit me.

So if we can't even agree on an objective definition of the word "objective" then how the fuck can anyone expect something as complex as morality (of ANY flavor) to be "objective? You're kinda making my point here... there really is no basis for objectivity... for pretty much anything anymore is there? We have entered an era where truth and reality are whatever we want it to be... and WE are to blame, especially those of us who consider ourselves rational, open-minded, liberal thinkers.

Truth is dead. We have killed it!

jamest wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:Is there a name for this philosophy? I could save us both some time doing a little personal reading.

Idealism, though the idea itself is not even alien to religion. For instance, Jesus is purported to have said the same thing.

THEN maybe we can have that argument

As long as you promise not to hit me.

LOL... I think you're safe if for no other reason than geographic location.

PensivePenny wrote:So if we can't even agree on an objective definition of the word "objective" then how the fuck can anyone expect something as complex as morality (of ANY flavor) to be "objective? You're kinda making my point here... there really is no basis for objectivity... for pretty much anything anymore is there? We have entered an era where truth and reality are whatever we want it to be... and WE are to blame, especially those of us who consider ourselves rational, open-minded, liberal thinkers.

Truth is dead. We have killed it!

You really lost me when you generalised from morality to truth (and everything).

I don't think the argument for morality (which is a description of which mores individual humans hold, and which might generalise to other things that are inherently about human thought, like preference for colour, taste and so on) generalises to truth.

The means by which I evaluate "is there a table in this dining room?" is completely unlike the means by which I evaluate "are there circumstances in which killing a human being is justified?". I'd suggest the implicit appeal to empiricism (or observable reality for those who are comfortable with such language) is one key distinction.

What I meant by "truth" as it pertains to the subject of moral objectivism is that if something is objective, it must therefore be true. The question isn't about how you evaluate "justifying the killing of a human being," but rather that it is objective, universal, self-evident. Of course, we can equivocate all manner of human imaginations (insert almost any philosophical school of thought) to dilute the meaning of objective, or morality, or even what it means to "kill", or "human" or the like. We can even create doubt about the very existence of reality itself so that no one has any answers to ANY question. This is the problem, especially in America where truth no longer has any meaning due to the dilution of it with any fanciful lie or wishful thinking. Truth is dead.

I'm still lost, I'm afraid. I don't see any connection between the antecedent and conclusion in "if something is objective, it must therefore be true", nor any connection between objectivity or universality and self-evidence (indeed, I'd happily say that the existence of atoms is objective, but I could not say whether it's universal, or even what that would mean, and it's certainly not self-evident).

Outside of a few edge cases that academic philosophers might worry about (and which like you I'm happy to ignore, with my own feeling being that they have little practical applicability or value) truth means the same as it always did: in accordance with fact or reality.

When Trump says that climate change is a hoax, he is wrong, he is untruthful. When Ted Cruz opposes evolution in favour of creationism, he is wrong, he is untruthful. There are those problems in the US (and elsewhere), but the problem is not that those people don't agree about what it means for something to be true, it's that they get away with being wrong or lying. It's evaluative, not conceptual*, so I don't see it as having any connection to this topic.

*And in the interests of political balance, and acknowledging that those issues on the right bother me more, this isn't strictly a left-right issue either, with an almost daily assault of left wing based individuals citing predictions and opinions as facts in reference to (for example) the economic consequences of Brexit or Trump's childish attempts to start a trade war.

PensivePenny wrote:So if we can't even agree on an objective definition of the word "objective" then how the fuck can anyone expect something as complex as morality (of ANY flavor) to be "objective? You're kinda making my point here... there really is no basis for objectivity... for pretty much anything anymore is there? We have entered an era where truth and reality are whatever we want it to be... and WE are to blame, especially those of us who consider ourselves rational, open-minded, liberal thinkers.

Truth is dead. We have killed it!

Following David Hume, who continued a line of reasoning started by Sextus Empiricus, Truth™ can only be provisional until perhaps something we do not know about now comes to light some time in the future, proving otherwise.

I don't think when Nietzche said "God is dead," he was actually suggesting it in the literal sense. He was suggesting the the notion of God was no long relevant, displaced by reason and enlightenment. In a similar vein I made the statement that "truth is dead," meaning that it is no longer relevant. Of course there are some big differences there. There's no evidence for one and libraries full of the other. But truth is no longer relevant in common society, rather only the version of truth people choose to believe. Now, truth may be very much alive and valued by you and me, just as people in Nietzche's time still found God relevant and deeply valued. Somewhere along the way I think people stopped valuing truth, and knowledge. Trump is merely a symptom of that, not the cause. For in a democracy, or a republic even, the collective voice chooses their leaders. Beyond trump is every official in congress, not just telling lies, but allowing non-truths to persist. You're right, it isn't a right or left thing. It's a systemic part of our society.

I won't engage in equivocation about the picayune meanings of a table or what is reality, not here. They are generally meaningless tripe only meant to stroke the egos of people impressed with the cleverness residing in their own navels. Of the liberals and conservatives, that type of behavior is most likely to belong to a liberal. I'm also guilty of it. When a conservative says, "I'm offended by what you said," the liberal responds with, "Well, I may see your point. I never saw it like that before." Whereas if the roles were reversed, the conservative is more likely to just simply respond, "Maybe you need to grow a pair, Snowflake?" That may seem irrelevant, but it isn't. The idea of skepticism and doubt in the pursuit of knowledge is not uncomfortable to us here on this site. But heartland America, if I may be indulged to continue a loose generalization, is more represented by certainty of what they know.... even if what they know can be proven false!

So tell me, how much does truth fucking matter if we can't reach a popular consensus on the facts pertaining to climate change? What good is being right equivocating about Ted Cruz lying, if that lie gets evolution banned from schools? The lie has more power than truth. Therefore, truth is dead. Let me know how clever you feel about being right about the truth of climate change when the last fish in the ocean dies because the fuckwits in DC relish in winning the war on the planet.

So fuck One. It's a fine mental exercise and even somewhat relevant to this thread, but if it's introduction is only meant to confuse and obfuscate, then the person doing so is guilty of blurring the lines of truth for some personal temporary victory. If a conversation isn't converging towards a consensus it is diverging from it. So let's be sure to scramble whatever little consensus we might hope and focus on sowing doubt. It's now the way of the world as a whole.

Peace.

PensivePenny wrote:I don't think when Nietzche said "God is dead," he was actually suggesting it in the literal sense. He was suggesting the the notion of God was no long relevant, displaced by reason and enlightenment. In a similar vein I made the statement that "truth is dead," meaning that it is no longer relevant.

Live a day with that philosophy and you'll die.

It actually matters if there's a car coming when you look both ways before crossing the street. It does not matter whether you pray five times a day to Mecca. And it doesn't just matter to you or me, it matters to everyone and this is the distinction I'm making. There are people who say that they can live without eating. They are lying. They eat. That's where the rubber meets the road.

It doesn't do that with moral disagreements. You can live your life eating meat or not eating it. You can live your life eating Halal meat or not eating it. You can eat pork or not eat pork. You can have sex before marriage or not. And so on. Truth and morality are fundamentally different.

Some things are true. Sometimes there is a car coming. The reason that the notion of God can "die" is because it was never true in the first place.

PensivePenny wrote:So tell me, how much does truth fucking matter if we can't reach a popular consensus on the facts pertaining to climate change? What good is being right equivocating about Ted Cruz lying, if that lie gets evolution banned from schools? The lie has more power than truth. Therefore, truth is dead. Let me know how clever you feel about being right about the truth of climate change when the last fish in the ocean dies because the fuckwits in DC relish in winning the war on the planet.

I'm not really sure what your point is here either. Yes, just being right doesn't always win a political dispute. But if all the fish die it would still matter. It still would be true.

The problem here is that people don't always reach true conclusions where the evidence is complicated or against personal short term interests. That is a problem, I agree, but it's not the same problem as either truth being dead or morality being subjective.

I would reiterate though that there's a blurred line here between what would be and what is that I alluded to in my footnote before. Cruz (or Trump, or whoever) is lying if they say that there's no connection between carbon dioxide and global mean temperature (or some dumbed down equivalent). They are not lying if they say that fish are doing just fine*, because the future hasn't happened yet.

*Or as one US president would have it: "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully".

Thommo wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:I don't think when Nietzche said "God is dead," he was actually suggesting it in the literal sense. He was suggesting the the notion of God was no long relevant, displaced by reason and enlightenment. In a similar vein I made the statement that "truth is dead," meaning that it is no longer relevant.

Live a day with that philosophy and you'll die.

It actually matters if there's a car coming when you look both ways before crossing the street. It does not matter whether you pray five times a day to Mecca. And it doesn't just matter to you or me, it matters to everyone and this is the distinction I'm making. There are people who say that they can live without eating. They are lying. They eat. That's where the rubber meets the road.

It doesn't do that with moral disagreements. You can live your life eating meat or not eating it. You can live your life eating Halal meat or not eating it. You can eat pork or not eat pork. You can have sex before marriage or not. And so on. Truth and morality are fundamentally different.

Some things are true. Sometimes there is a car coming. The reason that the notion of God can "die" is because it was never true in the first place.

PensivePenny wrote:So tell me, how much does truth fucking matter if we can't reach a popular consensus on the facts pertaining to climate change? What good is being right equivocating about Ted Cruz lying, if that lie gets evolution banned from schools? The lie has more power than truth. Therefore, truth is dead. Let me know how clever you feel about being right about the truth of climate change when the last fish in the ocean dies because the fuckwits in DC relish in winning the war on the planet.

I'm not really sure what your point is here either. Yes, just being right doesn't always win a political dispute. But if all the fish die it would still matter. It still would be true.

The problem here is that people don't always reach true conclusions where the evidence is complicated or against personal short term interests. That is a problem, I agree, but it's not the same problem as either truth being dead or morality being subjective.

I would reiterate though that there's a blurred line here between what would be and what is that I alluded to in my footnote before. Cruz (or Trump, or whoever) is lying if they say that there's no connection between carbon dioxide and global mean temperature (or some dumbed down equivalent). They are not lying if they say that fish are doing just fine*, because the future hasn't happened yet.

*Or as one US president would have it: "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully".

You know best. Like I said... not really interested in equivocation.

That's not what equivocation means. There's neither use of a word to hide meaning or to encapsulate multiple meanings while pretending they are the same, nor a failure to commit (indeed, I've explicitly said that truth and moral objectivity are unconnected and that truth is about as objective as we can get - unlike morality).

I'm not sure why you've adopted such a hostile stance to be honest. I don't even disagree with your central point that objective morality is a stretch. But I genuinely don't think you connected the points that I said you lost me on. Maybe you have reasons for the connection you drew, but I can't see them in your posts, even on a second and third rereading, I'm afraid.

If you don't want to elaborate, fair enough, I'm not here to press you on the point or spoil your day.

There's no need to allege equivocation to get out though, just ignore my post or express disinterest, that's perfectly ok. If you do wish to press the point, I'd appreciate it if you could pinpoint what it is you find equivocal though, ideally with a quote of the exact text that you view as problematic.

Have a nice day!

Sounds an awful lot like "Postmodernism killed truth". It hasn't. Our susceptibility to "fake news" and deluding ourselves has not changed over the years. We have always chosen our sources of information according to fit our mindset. How many liberals get their facts from The Daily Caller? How many deplorables get theirs from The Guardian? As if that were not enough, we are really good at arguing facts that penetrate our filters despite not fitting our preconceptions out of existence. The tools for doing so are numerous and we all do it to some extent or another. Those of us Richard Dawkins would like to be known as "The Brights" are no less susceptible to doing that than everybody else. I have seen more instances of it in this very forum than I could poke a stick at, but I won't provide a list. Putting up with the inevitably ensuing bickering is just too tedious. The tedium is why I rarely indulge in prolonged debates any more.

Edit: Reply to post #72

Thommo wrote:That's not what equivocation means. There's neither use of a word to hide meaning or to encapsulate multiple meanings while pretending they are the same, nor a failure to commit (indeed, I've explicitly said that truth and moral objectivity are unconnected and that truth is about as objective as we can get - unlike morality).

I'm not sure why you've adopted such a hostile stance to be honest. I don't even disagree with your central point that objective morality is a stretch. But I genuinely don't think you connected the points that I said you lost me on. Maybe you have reasons for the connection you drew, but I can't see them in your posts, even on a second and third rereading, I'm afraid.

If you don't want to elaborate, fair enough, I'm not here to press you on the point or spoil your day.

There's no need to allege equivocation to get out though, just ignore my post or express disinterest, that's perfectly ok.

Have a nice day!

I'm hostile? If you say so.

I assure you, you've not "spoiled my day." Where did you conjure that from?? I recant the equivocation remark if that pleases you. Didn't mean any offense by it.

You have a nice day too.

Fair enough, although for the record a hostile stance is no reference to "you" or a person, it means to reject, oppose, challenge or be unreceptive to.

I was saying that I don't understand why you were saying things like:
"So tell me, how much does truth fucking matter...",
"You know best. Like I said... not really interested in equivocation." or
"So fuck One. It's a fine mental exercise and even somewhat relevant to this thread, but if it's introduction is only meant to confuse and obfuscate, then the person doing so is guilty of blurring the lines of truth for some personal temporary victory."
in response to what I said.

I'm genuinely not seeing the connection between lack of moral objectivity (which if its the case, has always been the case) and a lack of respect for truth in current US politics. They seem unconnected issues to me, albeit I'm not averse to the idea that moral objectivity is a fiction or that there is a lack of respect for truth in current US politics.

Hermit wrote:Sounds an awful lot like "Postmodernism killed truth". It hasn't. Our susceptibility to "fake news" and deluding ourselves has not changed over the years. We have always chosen our sources of information according to fit our mindset. How many liberals get their facts from The Daily Caller? How many deplorables get theirs from The Guardian? As if that were not enough, we are really good at arguing facts that penetrate our filters despite not fitting our preconceptions out of existence. The tools for doing so are numerous and we all do it to some extent or another. Those of us Richard Dawkins would like to be known as "The Brights" are no less susceptible to doing that than everybody else. I have seen more instances of it in this very forum than I could poke a stick at, but I won't provide a list. Putting up with the inevitably ensuing bickering is just too tedious. The tedium is why I rarely indulge in prolonged debates any more.

Edit: Reply to post #72

<emphasis above> BINGO!

However, I guess it depends on where you mark the beginning of the postmodern era. Seems ambiguous, historically.

I remember a time when Walter Cronkite was respected and trusted by just about everyone for delivering the news. Sure, most cities that could support two newspapers had one liberal and one conservative. But, not weaponized like today. It wasn't until about 1990 that things tipped away from "unbiased" news in this country. Cable television probably played a role. Up until about 1990, all televised news here was broadcast over the air on airwaves owned by the US government. Part of the license agreement to the networks was that they would have to have a dedicate percentage of their air time devoted to public service and the news, though the government, mindful of the first amendment more or less let the networks define "news." That system worked fine. Then Ted Turner started CNN in 1980. That was the beginning of the end, imo. Many people laughed. How could he make money with NEWS? And what on Earth would they report for 24/7? I think he began to turn a profit fairly quickly. Still, CNN wasn't huge until he sold his company to AOL. That's when the big changes started. The on air talent started disappearing, being replaced by more attractive younger people. 1991 it was Iraq war. I for one was glued to CNN and images of tracer fire criss crossing the night sky running 24 hours a day for the duration of the war. Maybe we were tired of serious news after that and AOL gave us feel good bull shit and found that it sold more advertising, making the News business a lucrative market. The networks copied CNN. No real content, flashy sets and pretty people in lieu of news. 1996 Murdoch and Fox news happens. News is now a competition for ad dollars. News consumers had whatever pablum their palettes desired. The public wanted it. The public got it... It's not the media's fault. They did what they were designed to do... make money. This also began the decline of print media until some newspapers figured out how to adapt to the internet. Now, news is very biased effectively serving as pep rally squads for the respective sides. I have BBC as my primary news feed on my phone because nothing here in the US is so biased.

So, depending on how you define postmodernism, I can agree with your statement. Postmodernism, internet and cable tv, in this country at least, facilitated the decline in a desire for important facts... truth. That's just how I see it from a perspective that is probably sure to draw fire from somewhere. It's just an opinion folks.