What you are describing is not objectivity. All the terms you described, mass, weight, and even heaviness, can be defined in terms that do not depend on peoples’ opinions. They are all objective. You are confusing the need for a complete specification of all relevant facts with the idea of subjectivity. Weight is not subjective. Once you specify the mass and the gravitational field, you have an objective definition of weight.
Mass is described by one number. Weight is described by two numbers, the mass, and the gravitational field. Heaviness is described by three numbers… all getting further away from the object itself.
And heaviness? The point is that morality is NOT contingent upon some intrinsic value (unlike mass).
From that it does not follow that there is no overlap between the two systems. There are many parts of reality, where Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists all agree, despite their different foundations.
You are using some strange definition of “objective.” When we speak of morality being objective we mean that right and wrong exist independently of what individual people think they mean. If you doubt that fact, just consider what your response would be if I came to your house, broke in, and took all your silverware. You would not be very sympathetic to my explanation that my morality says theft is OK. I think you would very much want to assert your notion that theft is not OK onto me. I think you know that morality is objective.LeafByNiggle:
Mass is described by one number. Weight is described by two numbers, the mass, and the gravitational field. Heaviness is described by three numbers… all getting further away from the object itself.
And heaviness? The point is that morality is NOT contingent upon some intrinsic value (unlike mass).
OK. When in specialized contexts, though, try to use words according to their meaning in that concept. Otherwise, you’ll look silly.
Umm… the whole point is that everyone who is a proponent of an ethical system presents his system as the sole one that’s valid. No “freely asserted” here, my friend… just the implicit assertion in one’s comments.
Sorry. Nice try. You’re the one who’s making a positive assertion. So… prove it, or else admit that you cannot.
Quite right. So… quit trying to assert a negative that cannot be shown to be true.
Not in your words. You assert that your ethical system is absolute and objective. And you have no evidence for that. So it is “freely asserted, and therefore freely denied”.
Well, you did. And you are not “everyone”. Not even close. I, on the other hand assert that ethical systems are not absolute. Under certain conditions, action “A” is more useful than action “B”. Yes, ethics is utilitarian and consequentialist. Of course you would need to understand what these are…
Nonsense. You said that there is some objective epistemological method which will show that ethical system “A” is superior to ethical system “B”. Show me this method. At least be consistent in what you try to assert.
I would say: “each 'is own”. Of course the beauty of music is totally unmeasurable. Take something that can be measured… for example the amount of salt in a dish. The same amount of salt is “too salty for person ‘A’, while too bland for person ‘B’ and just right for person ‘C’…” No way to measure the “taste or saltiness” of a dish. It is subjective.
That’s not the definition of objective. Something can be objective even when someone disagrees with it. It simply means they are incorrect. (or correct, and others are incorrect.) It is more like two people disagreeing over the mass of the moon 4 billion years ago. There is an objective truth, even though people have different views of what that truth is.
What follows from my post is that people do not debate on what they agree. And where atheists and Catholics do not agree there is no point to debate morality. What areas of morality do you think discussion would be fruitful?
For instance, the moral object “pushing a domino over that completes an electrical circuit that electrocutes an innocent person” directly kills that innocent person and specifies an intrinsically evil act.
OK. Let’s see it. In my opinion, stealing something valuable is wrong, if it cannot be justified by using it for some more important purpose. But that is my opinion… someone else may not share it. This someone might say: “Hey, to own such silverware is immoral, when there are other people, who are starving.” And add: “So I will steal it, sell it, and give the money to the starving”.
No. There are millions of objective truths. Plural.
Sometimes people like to play the devil’s advocate, to polish their ideas or arguments.
But look what you have done! In order to find a way to justify that it might be OK for me to steal your silverware, you had to justify it by saying that perhaps I had a better use for it, such as using it for the poor. Then and only then would you agree that the morality of theft is subjective. But by so doing, you merely shifted the morality to the question of the “better purpose”. This assumes we have a common understanding of “better.” In other words, it assumes that “better” in this sense (the morality sense) is objective. You have undercut your position. This is most clearly illustrated by assuming that I did not steal your silverware to give it to the poor. I stole it for myself. And assume I am already richer than you. And more powerful. Now explain how the morality of my stealing you stuff is subjective.LeafByNiggle:
OK. Let’s see it. In my opinion, stealing something valuable is wrong, if it cannot be justified by using it for some more important purpose. But that is my opinion… someone else may not share it. This someone might say: “Hey, to own such silverware is immoral, when there are other people, who are starving.” And add: “So I will steal it, sell it, and give the money to the starving”.
Either they are consistent with each other or some of them are just false.
I presented my opinion, nothing more. You are free to disagree.
No. It is better in your opinion. Which may or may not be shared by others.
Since they reflect different aspects of reality, they are independent from each other.
Since I don’t know what set of truths you refer to, I cannot comment one way or the other.
It would NOT be wrong for you. And for your like-minded friends (if any). It would be wrong for me. But you still try to talk in generalities, disregarding the value of the goods being stolen, and disregarding the benefit which such a theft might bring.
It is more than that. I am quite certain that you would file a police report on me and if possible, force me to comply with your sense that theft is wrong and get restitution from me for the silverware I stole from you. If you are willing to force your sense of morality on me, how can you say morality is subjective?LeafByNiggle:
It would NOT be wrong for you. And for your like-minded friends (if any). It would be wrong for me.
I am talking in specifics, not generalities. The more specific the better. Less wiggle room. (I don’t need it.) Very specifically, say I came to your house at 2:00 PM and finding no one at home, broke the back window, climbed in, found your silverware and took it, and smashed your TV just for fun, and left. Further suppose I am much richer than you, and do not intend to use the silverware for anything other than funding my yacht that I use for my own enjoyment. Now tell me my morality is just as valid a representation of morality as yours.
I don’t need to. I just showed that you yourself believe there is an objective morality, based on what you would do with the police to force me to make restitution for the silverware I took (and now the smashed TV too.)
Laws have nothing to do with morality. Open marriage? Perfectly legal, and the eyes of some people it is immoral. By the way, the concept of private property is not eternal either.
Still dodging the question, I see. You are merely pointing out specific moral issues on which people disagree, and totally ignoring the ones on which people do agree. Please address the issue of my stealing your silverware.LeafByNiggle:
Laws have nothing to do with morality. Open marriage? Perfectly legal, and the eyes of some people it is immoral. By the way, the concept of private property is not eternal either.
If you would argue that morality is the commonly acceptable norms of behavior in a specific society at a certain period of time, then you would be closer to realty. You could call it objective, but definitely not absolute.
Oh, there it is again. You are working in the subtle insinuation that you have your finger on the pulse of what is or is not reality. As a rhetorical tactic it’s very good, but is there a reason we should cede that position to you?