Moral Objectivism versus Moral Subjectivism

[Touchstone]

Your writing style is now soooo much better! Thank you!

Not only do I see you invoking (indirectly the words of Christ) “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,”

This is a Christian conceit, a concept and practice that predated Christ by centuries and across continents and cultures. Jesus is, rather, relying on the wisdom of man in Golden Rule, aka the Ethic of Reciprocity. Not only the Jews long before him, but philosophers and cultures near and far. This is a pervasive social construct, and Jesus is learning from man rather than vice versa with that principle. Others he may have good claim to innovating, but not that one.

but I also detect that you are confirming (without using that dreadful word) an “objectively” immoral act on the part of the killer.

No, such is to misunderstand what’s being said here, thoroughly. My ending a sentence as a statement with a period, rather than as a question with question mark does NOT make my claim objective, or putatively objective.

-TS

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone
*
This is a Christian conceit, a concept and practice that predated Christ by centuries and across continents and cultures. Jesus is, rather, relying on the wisdom of man in Golden Rule, aka the Ethic of Reciprocity. Not only the Jews long before him, but philosophers and cultures near and far. This is a pervasive social construct, and Jesus is learning from man rather than vice versa with that principle. Others he may have good claim to innovating, but not that one.*

No, it’s not a Christian conceit. Theologians freely acknowledge that the principle is universal, as it is embedded in what you deny exists … the natural law. However, there is no other religion than the religion of Christ that has made this the central teaching of all morality, the other half of which you deny … Love God. But I’m pretty sure that you invoked the law because you heard it from Christ first (or his Sunday School delegate) rather than from someone else. How’s that for a conceit?

No, such is to misunderstand what’s being said here, thoroughly. My ending a sentence as a statement with a period, rather than as a question with question mark does NOT make my claim objective, or putatively objective.

Then what does it make it … subjective?

In ethics one may perform an act that is really moral or immoral. You said above that the murderer acted immorally. In other words, if the murderer saw some good to be achieved in his act, does he see some real good, or does he see only the illusion of good?
Is his view of his act subjectively wrong, while your view is objectively right? Are both of your views, though contradictory, objectively right? Or are both views subjectively right?

Please do come down on one side or the other.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rocinante

*ontological *

ARRGGGHHHH!!!

 

[tonyrey]

For the record, God’s will is not objective because God tells us it is! God’s will is objective whether you believe in God or not.

All your statements are correct except the last one - which is most evidently incorrect in the notion that evil is evil** because** it is the subjective expression of God’s will. God cannot will good to be evil or evil to be good. He cannot will rape or murder to be good - not because God’s power is limited but because God is subjectively and objectively good! These distinctions disappear - as one might expect with Supreme Reality - because Subject and Object converge…

Note here that that does not contradict what you’ve said, that God’s will is objective, that God’s will/mind exists independent of mind/will. Morality proceeds from that will, though, along with the whole of the physical universe, so all of that is a subjective reality, a reality and set of values that are utterly dependent on God’s will.

What you mean is that everything is **contingent **on God’s will but that does not make goodness subjective. You believe existence is valuable - and in that respect you are right - even though you don’t believe God exists. You believe the value of existence is subjective - and in that respect you are mistaken - because existence is necessarily good. It is good because it is the source of all opportunities, as opposed to non-existence - which offers precisely nothing.

The very fact that you appreciate life shows you believe it is good to exist. God’s will is both subjective and objective because He is the Supreme Subject, the Source of existence…

Being Supreme doesn’t change the subjectivity or objectivity of morality.

It doesn’t change it. It determines it! Without God existence would not be necessarily good but a neutral fact. It would happen to have some value because it offers opportunities but those opportunities would be accidental and inconsequential. They would not be inspired by joy and love. They would occur for no reason or purpose and lead to frustration and oblivion. Without God life would be a colossal misfortune because it would lead to nothing!

Being the source of existence, if it is from a will, makes that existence, by the definition of the term, subjective. Being “true” or “supreme” or “foundational” does not make God’s will or anyone else’s less subjective. If God is, per your term, the “Supreme Subject”, what flows from his will is subjective, regardless of his supremacy.

God’s existence is not from a will. It is an objective reality. That is why the distinction between subjective and objective is meaningless where God is concerned. Divine reality transcends human distinctions. God does not will Himself to exist. He exists necessarily and His existence is necessarily good. He wills everything else to exist but the existence of everything else is also necessarily good because He sustains everything in existence. It doesn’t become good because He willed it to be good. He wouldn’t will something to exist that isn’t good. Everything that is created is good because “In Him we live, move and have our being…”

This is why it’s conceptually an error to say that morality that proceeds from God’s will is “objective morality”, rather than “subjective morality”.

It is a conceptual error to say morality that proceeds from God’s will is subjective - and not objective - because it is both! You cannot separate God from morality because God is infinitely good. Nor can you separate God’s will from His nature any more than you can separate a human will from the person who possesses it. The difference is that we are not necessarily good whereas God is perfect!

Do you deny it’s good to exist? If not please explain why it is good to exist…

It’s good to exist!

I take it that you cannot give a reason why… Why not consider the possibility that it is good to exist because the Source of existence is the most powerful force that exists - Love…

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone
*
This is a Christian conceit, a concept and practice that predated Christ by centuries and across continents and cultures. Jesus is, rather, relying on the wisdom of man in Golden Rule, aka the Ethic of Reciprocity. Not only the Jews long before him, but philosophers and cultures near and far. This is a pervasive social construct, and Jesus is learning from man rather than vice versa with that principle. Others he may have good claim to innovating, but not that one.*

No, it’s not a Christian conceit. Theologians freely acknowledge that the principle is universal, as it is embedded in what you deny exists … the natural law. However, there is no other religion than the religion of Christ that has made this the central teaching of all morality, the other half of which you deny … Love God. But I’m pretty sure that you invoked the law because you heard it from Christ first (or his Sunday School delegate) rather than from someone else. How’s that for a conceit?

Well, typical, unfortunately.

Look Confucius lived 500 years before Jesus was born, and he made the concept primary, not secondary to something like “Love the lord your God with all you heart, mind and soul”. It was more central to Confucius than Jesus.

I did of course learn the Golden Rule from my Baptist parents. And I think I was either taught that this idea was a Christian innovation or just allowed to assume that to be the case. But I was also taught the world was 6,000 years old by my Sunday School teachers. I’m over both misconceptions now, and if you go read some on Confucius you can add that one to your list, too.

No, such is to misunderstand what’s being said here, thoroughly. My ending a sentence as a statement with a period, rather than as a question with question mark does NOT make my claim objective, or putatively objective.

Then what does it make it … subjective?

Yes. Subjective. A productive of my mental choices and priorities. Thoroughly, perfectly subjective. Very similar to the position of nearly everyone else I know, who make similar subjective commitments, but subjective as can be. Clear?

In ethics one may perform an act that is really moral or immoral.

Don’t know what you mean by “really”, there. It would “really” be against my moral principles for that person to rob and kill someone without justification. The moral indignation is perfectly real, in that you could measure that activity in my head if you had the right fMRI or similar equipment hooked up to me. We could say it was “really” immoral as an act against the majority or consensus beliefs of the society and culture we live in. We could add that it is illegal under the laws of the state, maybe that’s a way we might say it is “really immoral”. But I suspect you have some other meaning in mind for “really”, what?

You said above that the murderer acted immorally. In other words, if the murderer saw some good to be achieved in his act, does he see some real good, or does he see only the illusion of good?

I think I called it vice, above – gain through at the gratuitous expense of others. Some cash in hand without, say, the long hours of work that might be required to earn it honestly.

Cash to spend is a good, a valuable resource. Having it is useful toward personal needs and desires. It the method of acquisition that’s the problem, not the value of the money taken.

Is his view of his act subjectively wrong, while your view is objectively right?

Argh. See above. I think you’ve just not bothered to read what I’ve written in response. I’m the one that claims “objective morality” is a “square circle”, remember? My claims are as perfectly subjective as yours or anyone else’s. They would not be claims or exist at all if it were not for the choices in my mind. Same goes for you.

Are both of your views, though contradictory, objectively right? Or are both views subjectively right?

Which views do you see as contradictory. I’ve consistently dismissed the idea of objective morality, and been clear on the subjective basis of my moral claims, just like anyone else’s.

Please do come down on one side or the other.

Done, way back at the start, and consistent throughout, if you read back through what I’ve posted.

-TS

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Touchstone, you said,

“Look Confucius lived 500 years before Jesus was born, and he made the concept primary, not secondary to something like “Love the lord your God with all you heart, mind and soul”. It was more central to Confucius than Jesus.”

…but to be fair, Charlemagne II said:

“However, there is no other religion than the religion of Christ that has made this the central teaching of all morality…”

…And Confucianism is not a religion but a philosophy.

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone, you said,

“Look Confucius lived 500 years before Jesus was born, and he made the concept primary, not secondary to something like “Love the lord your God with all you heart, mind and soul”. It was more central to Confucius than Jesus.”

…but to be fair, Charlemagne II said:

“However, there is no other religion than the religion of Christ that has made this the central teaching of all morality…”

…And Confucianism is not a religion but a philosophy.

That is a distinction without a difference. Religion is philosophy. Here’s the first paragraph from Wikipedia on Confucianism:

Confucianism is a Chinese ethical and philosophical system developed from the teachings of the Chinese philosopher Confucius (Kǒng Fūzǐ, or K’ung-fu-tzu, lit. “Master Kong”, 551–478 BC). It is a complex system of moral, social, political, philosophical, and quasi-religious thought that has had tremendous influence on the culture and history of East Asia. It might be considered a state religion of some East Asian countries, because of governmental promotion of Confucian philosophies.

Not just religion, but state religion in some places, apparently.

-TS

 

[Marc_Anthony]

It called it a quasi-religion that MIGHT be “considered” a state religion in some countries.

It’s not even a really big point. Just picking nits.

 

[Touchstone]

All your statements are correct except the last one - which is most evidently incorrect in the notion that evil is evil** because** it is the subjective expression of God’s will. God cannot will good to be evil or evil to be good.

Isn’t Numbers 31 a tale of God ordering the genocide of the Midianites? Or is that a part of the Bible the RCC denies? Or maybe this is Catholicism cast as Divine Command Theory after all – it can’t be evil if God wills it, by definition? No matter how extreme the atrocity?

As always, how would you know if what you said there was false? If it was a trite platitude, what would the world have to look like to make that evident?

He cannot will rape or murder to be good - not because God’s power is limited but because God is subjectively and objectively good! These distinctions disappear - as one might expect with Supreme Reality - because Subject and Object converge…

Think what you like, but you are telling me here that your squares do indeed become circles, and yet, they’re still squares!

What you mean is that everything is **contingent **on God’s will but that does not make goodness subjective.

Yes, that is entailed. Unavoidably.

You believe existence is valuable - and in that respect you are right - even though you don’t believe God exists. You believe the value of existence is subjective - and in that respect you are mistaken - because existence is necessarily good. It is good because it is the source of all opportunities, as opposed to non-existence - which offers precisely nothing.

“Good” doesn’t obtain without my mind, without God’s mind, without some mind. “Existence” can, and I think does. But this isn’t even successful magic thinking, that some “magical good” exists out there, even above and prior to God’s will, that even God cannot contravene. In the absence of God’s will, or mine, or yours, or anyone’s, it’s an incoherent concept. It’s like “valuable gold” in a universe with no minds whatsoever.

It doesn’t change it. It determines it!

You can’t even see it, but you are making my point, now in bold letters. “Determines it” is as subjective as subjective gets! There is no stronger language for subjective productions than “determines”, and you’ve just granted the very point you’ve been trying to deny and avoid confusion about all along. I realize it’s a slip, but I think it’s an authentic one, and gives the game away. God does determine it, just like I determine who my favorite rock band is. This is subjectivity. It’s only when God’s will doesn’t and can’t affect it at all, in any way whatsoever, that X objectively obtains.

Without God existence would not be necessarily good but a neutral fact.

Even with God it’s a neutral fact. It just is, even if it is god-willed. It’s not a value, it’s a fact.

It would happen to have some value because it offers opportunities but those opportunities would be accidental and inconsequential.

The existence of a nugget of gold can be a fact, a physical object extended in space time, and also be valued economically. But that valuation doesn’t change the fact of its existence. Valuation is added on top of its existence, and is assigned by a mind. On Catholicism, the gold’s physical structure and existence is assigned by a mind as well – God’s, which is why we say that not just morality is subjective on Catholicism, but the whole of reality is subjective. Have you ever talked to a philosophoical muslim about this, per chance? They have a good understanding of this concept, a clear recognition of the Allah as the Supreme Subject, determining all of reality in supreme subjectivity. Maybe I can go find the old forum thread I’m remembering on this…

They would not be inspired by joy and love. They would occur for no reason or purpose and lead to frustration and oblivion. Without God life would be a colossal misfortune because it would lead to nothing!

Well, my life has lead to six cool kids, among many other things. I don’t confuse that with Cosmic Hubris, but to me it’s not nothing. It’s quite something, in my view.

God’s existence is not from a will. It is an objective reality. That is why the distinction between subjective and objective is meaningless where God is concerned.

Note that you just made a distinction and then said it was meaningless. I think you were right in the first case. On Catholicism, God’s will obtains objecitvely. But everything that proceeds from it, everything it determines obtains subjectively.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

tonyrey:

Divine reality transcends human distinctions.

Ahh yes, the fluff. If that’s true, you would necessarily have no way to know it. Your sentence can never possibly be knowledge. It is a self-refuting sentence. The only way to know what is need to know to say what you said is to know what you can’t know!

Beautiful.

God does not will Himself to exist. He exists necessarily and His existence is necessarily good. He wills everything else to exist but the existence of everything else is also necessarily good because He sustains everything in existence.

It maybe good (whatever that means in this context), but that doesn’t make it any less subjective in its “goodness”.

It doesn’t become good because He willed it to be good. He wouldn’t will something to exist that isn’t good. Everything that is created is good because “In Him we live, move and have our being…”

Just ask yourself whether any of that would or could obtain if there was no God, or God had no will. If your answer is no, those things you are considering obtain subjectively.

It is a conceptual error to say morality that proceeds from God’s will is subjective - and not objective - because it is both! You cannot separate God from morality because God is infinitely good.

None of that diminishes the subjectivity of any “goodness” that obtains. Neither does any of that make the case for its objectivity. On your own terms above, objectivity is denied.

Nor can you separate God’s will from His nature any more than you can separate a human will from the person who possesses it. The difference is that we are not necessarily good whereas God is perfect!

It’s pretty clear now that you are confusing “good” and “perfect” with “subjective” and “objective”.

I take it that you cannot give a reason why… Why not consider the possibility that it is good to exist because the Source of existence is the most powerful force that exists - Love…

I’ve given you reasons why, time and again. I can’t fathom why you’d say such a thing based on all that I’ve posted directly to you on this question. God doesn’t make the reason any better or worse, even if he does exist. He’s a non-object on the valuation curve for life, even if I suppose he does exist.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

It called it a quasi-religion that MIGHT be “considered” a state religion in some countries.

It’s not even a really big point. Just picking nits.

OK, you have have picked my nits with skill and style, I hereby declare.

-TS

 

[tonyrey]

Divine reality transcends human distinctions.

Ahh yes, the dust! Do you know material reality transcends human distinctions?

Your sentence can never possibly be knowledge. It is a self-refuting sentence. The only way to know what is need to know to say what you said is to know what you can’t know!

Your sentences can never reflect knowledge because they are based on the self-refuting belief that knowledge is merely a collocation of atomic particles which just happen to exist…

God does not will Himself to exist. He exists necessarily and His existence is necessarily good. He wills everything else to exist but the existence of everything else is also necessarily good because He sustains everything in existence.

It may be good (whatever that means in this context), but that doesn’t make it any less subjective in its “goodness”.

It does because it exists for a purpose.

It doesn’t become good because He willed it to be good. He wouldn’t will something to exist that isn’t good. Everything that is created is good because “In Him we live, move and have our being…”

Just ask yourself whether any of that would or could obtain if there was no God, or God had no will.

Do you, a non-believer in God, believe existence is intrinsically good? If so you need to explain why it is good regardless of what people think… If not, goodness is subjective and an illusion.
It is a conceptual error to say morality that proceeds from God’s will is subjective - and not objective - because it is both! You cannot separate God from morality because God is infinitely good.

None of that diminishes the subjectivity of any “goodness” that obtains. Neither does any of that make the case for its objectivity. On your own terms above, objectivity is denied.

You wrongly identify subjectivity with that which proceeds from God. Nothing would exist without God, yet persons and things exist objectively. Nor would God exist without God! That is why Ultimate Reality is both Subjective and Objective. All subjects and objects have the same origin but you believe subjects have emerged from objects. That is why you cannot accept the ultimate convergence of the two. You opt for the lower, rejecting the personal in favour of the impersonal, degrading the value of existence and demoting purpose to a byproduct.

Nor can you separate God’s will from His nature any more than you can separate a human will from the person who possesses it. The difference is that we are not necessarily good whereas God is perfect!

It’s pretty clear now that you are confusing “good” and “perfect” with “subjective” and “objective”.

If that is the case you are denying the objective value of anything and in effect dismissing goodness as a matter of taste by discarding its rational basis. That is to be expected because you regard rationality as ultimately absurd, i…e. a product of non-rational events.

I take it that you cannot give a reason why… Why not consider the possibility that it is good to exist because the Source of existence is the most powerful force that exists - Love…

I’ve given you reasons why, time and again. I can’t fathom why you’d say such a thing based on all that I’ve posted directly to you on this question. God doesn’t make the reason any better or worse, even if he does exist. He’s a non-object on the valuation curve for life, even if I suppose he does exist.

Then please explain what makes atomic particles valuable if they** just** exist and serve no purpose. That which is purposeless is valueless. Atomic particles are valuable because they serve a purpose and that purpose does not emerge from nowhere or nothing. They are valuable because they are the basis of a rich, intelligible and beautiful universe which sustains living organisms and rational beings. And the Source of that universe is what you have neglected to mention - and probably dismiss as an insignificant accretion. Love…

 

[inocente]

What I am trying to get out of you is whether there are objectively good and bad morals, or whether all morality is only governed by the subjective whim of the individual?

Neither, it’s somewhere in the middle - see post #48.

Is there any circumstance in which the killing of an innocent person that you know to be innocent is morally acceptable?

The bosses of bomb disposal experts face that question daily in Afghanistan.

For example, if you were the victim of a hold up, and the perpetrator, after taking your money, killled you, would he be guilty of two objectively immoral acts?

Depends. Suppose you’re a latter-day Robin Hood and hold up a gang-land hit-man who is wanted dead or alive and is carrying money stolen from the poor, he pulls a gun and you kill him in self-defense. That’s the problem with rule books set in stone, it’s hard to allow for there but for the grace of God, let him who is without sin cast the first stone, Matt 7:1.

 

[Rocinante]

Rocinante

morals are ontologically subjective in the sense that they do not exist independently of conscious experience.

Again, this is not the issue of this thread, and I don’t understand why you keep insisting that it is. Nobody on the Catholic side is disputing that morals would not exist if humans didn’t exist. However, humans do exist. Morality also exists. What I am trying to get out of you is whether there are objectively good and bad morals, or whether all morality is only governed by the subjective whim of the individual?

I don’t know how to make it any plainer than that. If I see the word “ontological” in this thread again, you are very likely to hear me screaming at the other end!

you keep saying you understand this distinction but then you keep conflating these different ways of being objective. you want to use the subjective/objective distinction as a way of criticizing people (atheists in particular) but you don’t show any indication that you understand what these words mean.

for example, you just said,

"In ethics one may perform an act that is really moral or immoral. You said above that the murderer acted immorally. In other words, if the murderer saw some good to be achieved in his act, does he see some real good, or does he see only the illusion of good?
Is his view of his act subjectively wrong, while your view is objectively right? Are both of your views, though contradictory, objectively right? Or are both views subjectively right?

the issue here is not whether the act is subjectively or objectively moral. the issue is whether or not it is true that the act is moral. the subjective/objective distinction (once we dispense with the notion of ontological objectivity as you say you have) is a matter of epistemology.

in terms of epistemology, subjectivity versus objectivity is not then a matter of whether or not something really is immoral. that is a basic question of fact rather than knowledge of that fact. it is a matter or how we can hope to get agreement with other inquirers into the question of the truth or falsity of the proposed fact. the claim that something is immoral or moral is epistemically objective if there is a way of getting agreement on the matter. it is subjective if there is no way of getting agreement. it is objective if one can point to evidence such as a rational argument and subjective if it is claimed as a personal preference or based on some special revelation that not everyone has access to.

rocinante

 

[Betterave]

The “objectively” in “X obtains objectively” is not a metaphysical modifier. Neither is “subjective” in “X obtains subjectively”. These are descriptive adjectives, locating attributes and qualities. If I take away all the minds in the universe, “value” for the $20 bill lying on the ground becomes meaningless, incoherent. We descriptively locate value by observing its origins, its assignment, by minds. If I take away all the minds in the universe, the $20 bill on the ground still has “mass”. Mass obtains apart from minds, it obtains objectively (setting aside Catholic subjectivization of even mass for the time being).

These are descriptive terms that are useful in philosophy, and often crucial in discussions about aesthetics and ethics. But it doesn’t depend on anything more metaphysical than any natural description – we can look at a proposition and see how it applies with assigning minds involved, or without. That’s why saying that God’s goodness is subjective from our offering of the proposition as well as God’s willing of the good is not dependent on any state of being. It’s descriptive of the basis for the distinction itself, from mind/will or not from mind/will.

-TS

You really start to look like a troll, TS, when you make confused assertions in one thread (“Life’s ‘ultimate meaning’, and the value of money”), then when those assertions are criticized you make excuses and run off to another thread (this one) to make the very same confused assertions.

 

[Betterave]

Warning to Charlemagne: the following will anger you.

a lot of this goes back to the distinction i tried to make before between ontological subjectivity versus objectivity and epistemological subjectivity versus objectivity.

I’ve also tried to make this point to TS. Thanks for trying.

morals are ontologically subjective in the sense that they do not exist independently of conscious experience. better and worse experiences of conscious beings is what morals are about. the fact that morals are subjective in the ontological sense does not mean that they aren’t important.

It also doesn’t mean they aren’t objective in the ontological sense. There is no such mutual exclusion between subjective and objective. Anything that is ontologically subjective is also ontologically objective, but not everything that is ontologically objective is ontologically subjective. Does that make sense? This is actually what grounds the possibility of what you write next:

what could we possibly care more important than the conscious experience of human beings?

nevertheless, a subjective experience such as morals can be inquired about in the spirit of scientific objectivity (epistemological objectivity). a hypothetical (or real) god’s eye view is completely objective in this sense of not being biased by personal preferences, not lying to itself, not deceived by appearances, etc.

Make sense?

once one understands what these terms mean and the difference between epistemology and ontology, i think it becomes clear that what charlemagne wants to do with objective/subjective in distinguishing people’s approaches (catholic/atheist) to morality just doesn’t work.

morality is not an objective thing (ontologically objective) for either the catholic or the atheist. it is epistemologically objective for anyone who thinks that there can be such a thing as moral knowledge–justified true or false beliefs about what really is or is not moral.

rocinante

So morality is an objective thing, if you follow my explanation above. The question then is about morals, specific moral propositions which can possibly be determined to be true or false. But we necessarily look at the ontologically objective reality of morality to try to determine whether there is such a thing as moral knowledge. Make sense?

 

[4Horsemen]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II
What I am trying to get out of you is whether there are objectively good and bad morals, or whether all morality is only governed by the subjective whim of the individual?

Even subjective actions, based upon relativistic thought and/or utilitarianism, depend in finality on an objective/absolute system of being in which there is good/evil, right/wrong. First of all, each of our choices, though subjective, are based upon a value system, which is mostly relative to one’s lifestyle and habits. Some people don’t even think about defining their set of valutes and why they make one choice over another. Usually, it’s because of personal (subjective) reasons. Non-theists (at least those I’ve dialogued with on this forum and elsewhere), when confronted to define their moral code, are unable to put forth a definitive system or code of laws. They fall back on the idea that rules/laws should be the desire of the majority or pertinent to their own situation, which, of course, is relativistic.

Going back to post 48 with the situational ethics problem of the trolley, the engineer of the train could decide to run over only 1 person tied up on a particular track or 5 people tied up on another. The scenario was changed as you read down the page. My point is that no matter what the engineer decides in a utilitarian way, it still boils down to either a right or wrong decision, good or evil. Most people would say it is morally better to choose to run over the single person in an effort to save 5 lives. This is a moral decision that is both subjective and, yet, based on an objective truth–that murder is a great evil against each and every person. (The story gets more complex morally further down the page.)

(Not all ethicists agree with that thinking. A current example would be the issue causing division in the pro-life movement whether or not to allow a law that saves around 98% of unborn babies or to insist on “total protection/no exception” philosophy and not allow the law to save most to pass because all are not saved).

To get to the understanding of what absolute truth is we can look at the desires within all human beings that can only be satisfied by what philosophers call the transcendentals. These are the desire for ULTIMATE Home, Truth, Love, Goodness and Beauty. Anything that restricts our satisfaction of these ultimate desires will result in unfulfillment or dissatisfaction or frustration. Only God can fulfill these ultimate desires. So, therefore, God is a Person with a great interest in us as His creation/children, so all absolutes resolve in Him and His presence in the universe and in us individually. It is “through Him, with Him and in Him, that we live and move and have our being.”

(I know the poster initiated the idea of keeping God out of the picture, but I just couldn’t resist!

 

[Touchstone]

You really start to look like a troll, TS, when you make confused assertions in one thread (“Life’s ‘ultimate meaning’, and the value of money”), then when those assertions are criticized you make excuses and run off to another thread (this one) to make the very same confused assertions.

This is the same concept at issue, here and there. I’ve not run off anywhere, from or to. My definitions have been clear and consistent. I don’t suppose “objective” and “subjective”… “converge” when it’s apologetically convenient. I’m not confused about what originates from mind and will, and what does not. You are trying to pass off criticism, consistent criticism as confusion when it’s problematic for your dogma.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Ahh yes, the dust! Do you know material reality transcends human distinctions?

No, and haven’t saidI do. What we do know is material. The models that are most productive, successful and efficient are materialist ones. We don’t have warrant or need for any claims of “transcendent supernatural knowledge”. We can’t even provide coherent semantics in formulating such claims.

Your sentences can never reflect knowledge because they are based on the self-refuting belief that knowledge is merely a collocation of atomic particles which just happen to exist…

Even if that were the case, that’s not self-refuting, or problematic. On materialism, knowledge is a natural phenomena. It’s not a problem, you’re not even provisionally setting aside your superstitions to consider the ramifications of materialism.

It does because it exists for a purpose.

Oy. Being purposeful from a mind or will is as subjective as it gets.

Do you, a non-believer in God, believe existence is intrinsically good?

No, because ‘intrinsically good’ is incoherent. Existence is. It’s not a value, it’s a state of nature, a configuration of space/time/energy/matter. As a natural being with a natural mind, I find existence valuable, in part because I’m physiologically wired to do so, but also because I find it gratifying and rewarding, even at points of difficulty and suffering. But that’s my own subjective take on my existence. It’s confused to say existence is “intrinsically good”, and signals confusion over both “intrinsically” and “good”.

If so you need to explain why it is good regardless of what people think… If not, goodness is subjective and an illusion.

It’s subjective, but in no way an illusion. It appears good to me and so it is, subjectively. It’s no more an illusion than something blue I’m looking at “appearing blue” to me.

It is a conceptual error to say morality that proceeds from God’s will is subjective - and not objective - because it is both! You cannot separate God from morality because God is infinitely good.

Ad nauseum now… “infinitely good” doesn’t change the principle of subjectivity or objectivity. Even a little bit.

You wrongly identify subjectivity with that which proceeds from God.

Is God personal? Does he have a will? If yes, then it’s not wrong, by definition, to understand that which proceeds from God’s will to be subjective.

Nothing would exist without God, yet persons and things exist objectively.

On Catholicism, no they don’t. On materialism, our universe, and things in it can obtain objectively, they can exist independent of mind or will, completely independent of any and all mind or will. On Catholicism, all God need to is will the things to exist to cease existing, and poof! Gone. That is the apex of subjective reality. The theoretical maximum
in subjectivity for our reality. If you believe in a God that created the universe by his will, you have embraced a view that necessarily denies the objectivity of that universe.

Nor would God exist without God!

In that case, and I’ve said this more than once previously in this thread now, God himself would obtain objectively. It’s all of that which proceeds from his mind that obtains subjectively.

That is why Ultimate Reality is both Subjective and Objective.

If it’s objective, then it obtains independently of mind or will. Does it?

All subjects and objects have the same origin but you believe subjects have emerged from objects. That is why you cannot accept the ultimate convergence of the two. You opt for the lower, rejecting the personal in favour of the impersonal, degrading the value of existence and demoting purpose to a byproduct.

Oy. The personal is not being rejected, here. The personal is the basis for classification. The universe obtains subjectively because it proceeds from the (personal!) mind/will of God.

If that is the case you are denying the objective value of anything and in effect dismissing goodness as a matter of taste by discarding its rational basis.

“Objective value” is as incoherent as “square circle” if we understand “value” to be assigned by a mind or will. That is the rational basis for those terms – dependency on mind/will, or not. Value has a perfectly rational basis – see my example in the “value of money” thread; the basis of value is our decisions that some element or currency should be value, subjectively. It’s perfectly reasonable, and enormously useful for just that reason – if we can agree, subjectively, on the value of some material, commodity or currency, we can transact using that, and that furthers our goals and satisfied practical needs.

That is to be expected because you regard rationality as ultimately absurd, i…e. a product of non-rational events.

No, not hardly. Rationality is the basis for all of the concepts I’m advancing. It’s not dogma, it’s not superstition, it’s just rational applications of concepts and principles. I think “does not accord with my supersitions” is the best description of your use of “irrational” based on all I’ve read from you now. Clearly, there’s a discrepancy between us in what that word means and how it should be used.

Then please explain what makes atomic particles valuable if they** just** exist and serve no purpose.

What makes them value is the decision by natural beings with natural minds to value them, to assign them priority or importance in pursuit of goals, in enabling transactions, for keeping records, etc. Those are practical, pervasive, every day purposes that provide the basis for valuation for minds that can assign value and prioritize things.

-TS

 

[Betterave]

This is the same concept at issue, here and there. I’ve not run off anywhere, from or to. My definitions have been clear and consistent. I don’t suppose “objective” and “subjective”… “converge” when it’s apologetically convenient. I’m not confused about what originates from mind and will, and what does not. You are trying to pass off criticism, consistent criticism as confusion when it’s problematic for your dogma.

-TS

It’s the same issue here and there: You THINK your definitions are clear and consistent, you THINK you’re not confused about what originates from where, but when your views are criticized *you don’t respond *to those criticisms, you just reiterate your prior assertions and insist that your view makes sense. I’m not the only one who has noticed that you do this (see Exodus’ post 54). Why don’t you try responding to Rocinante’s post 57 in this thread, where he tries to clear up some of your confusion?