Moral Objectivism versus Moral Subjectivism

[Rocinante]

Hardly a rational approach! Once you say there is no need to account for something you are taking refuge in obscurity…

You are putting words into my mouth. I did not say nor do I believe “one should not try to do good” nor “nothing matters now”. You have not refuted any of my statements - which do not cease to be true in the context of your view of life:

1. If you live in hope it is certainly not hope of an afterlife when death wipes out everything.
2. If you love others you are doomed to be separated from them forever.
3. If you fight against injustice you know you will never succeed because there is no answer to the bomb or the bullet.
4. Evil is bound to triumph in this world because those who are unscrupulous will do anything whereas those with principles prefer to die rather than degrade themselves.

If all meaning is invented the meaning of your statement is also invented! Truth disappears utterly…

Then you value something religion has “invented” even though it is false! You are trying to separate faith from meaning and value - which is a desperate enterprise. Either religion is true and life is ultimately valuable or religion is false and life is ultimately valueless.
Can you explain what you mean?

Once again you are putting words into my mouth! Obviously a criminal has values and understands rules but he breaks them if it is in his interest - not necessarily all of them. I’m afraid your questions are motivated by emotion rather than logic…

I did not say humanism is merely a matter of **cultural **preference. If every belief is a matter of cultural preference we do not choose any of our beliefs. Are you a humanist because of your cultural background? Are you compelled to believe what you believe? Of course not. It is a matter of **individual **preference

Cultures have made up their own **godless **societies too! Individuals are not just cogs in a machine but have reasons for what they believe. In the Old Testament God is described as “He Who Is” - a remarkable insight for a primitive people…

Their wisdom has been restricted to those in their own society - like those who are cannibalistic - and does not extend to the entire human race.

You value it but you cannot explain it because in your scheme of things we are biological machines. If you have convinced yourself you are free from the fetters of false faith it shows you regard yourself as infallible in your interpretation of reality. Could it not be that you are chained within the dark dungeon of your own opinion and material objects?

I don’t need to add anything! Shakespeare’s entire work is within the context of a struggle between good and evil, heaven and hell, which is not “invented” by human beings…

Incidentally Archdeacon Richard Davies, a 17th century Anglican cleric, wrote of Shakespeare: “He dyed a Papyst”. More evidence is given in The Catholicism of Shakespeare’s Plays by Peter Milward.

toneyrey and larkin,

why don’t you start a discussion on meaning and purpose in a new thread?

i suggest that in order to focus the discussion, the OP should include an exposition of the meaning of purpose, the purpose of meaning, the meaning of meaning, and the meaning of purpose.

anyone who can’t tell us about these things probably isn’t qualified to fault someone else with not properly understanding them and accounting for them in his philosophy.

rocinante

 

[Rocinante]

Is killing someone who is guilty of no crime a subjective or objective evil?

i assume we all agree that it is objectively wrong to kill an innocent for no good reason.

 

[Betterave]

this is an important point, larkin. nietzche pointed this out too. nihilism begins when one accepts the religious idea that the world is insufficient to sustain its own value–that for the world to have value it must be given this value from something outside the world. if so, nihilism is best avoided not by assenting to the existence of such an external power (trying to affirm meaning by denying meaning) but by never assenting to the notion that the universe is insufficient unto itself (affirming meaning by affirming meaning).

An important and confused point that bears clarifying. At the very least the question must be asked: IS ‘the world’ sufficient to sustain its own value - or is it not? But first we must ask: what is ‘the world’? Is ‘the world’ not good, the creation of a good God, at least according to “the religious idea”? (But then you might see some problems that arise with Nietzsche’s claim, I hope…)

What conditions make nihilism possible and its avoidance necessary/desirable? Why do you think it comes to pass that nihilism is something that must be avoided? How does one come to be assailed by nihilism in the first place? Finally, *must *nihilism be avoided? Why?

 

[tonyrey]

toneyrey and larkin,

why don’t you start a discussion on meaning and purpose in a new thread?

i suggest that in order to focus the discussion, the OP should include an exposition of the meaning of purpose, the purpose of meaning, the meaning of meaning, and the meaning of purpose.

anyone who can’t tell us about these things probably isn’t qualified to fault someone else with not properly understanding them and accounting for them in his philosophy.

rocinante

A good suggestion! In the meantime most of the questions in my last post can be answered without reference to meaning and purpose…

 

[larkin31]

You are putting words into my mouth. I did not say nor do I believe “one should not try to do good” nor “nothing matters now”. You have not refuted any of my statements - which do not cease to be true in the context of your view of life:

I am not interested in refuting you. Will you only listen to refutations? You can believe whatever you want; I don’t care.

1. If you live in hope it is certainly not hope of an afterlife when death wipes out everything

Correct.

1. If you love others you are doomed to be separated from them forever.

Yes, but “forever” is meaningless to the dead, who no longer exist so do not experience time.

1. If you fight against injustice you know you will never succeed because there is no answer to the bomb or the bullet

What does this mean? This looks to be a metaphor, but I can’t really tell, since you say nothing else about it. What are you saying when you claim that “there is no answer to a bomb or a bullit”?

1. Evil is bound to triumph in this world because those who are unscrupulous will do anything whereas those with principles prefer to die rather than degrade themselves

Fighting evil is not a form of degradation. Many many principled people have fought evil. I have no idea why you are making this claim when so much of history shows the contrary.

If all meaning is invented the meaning of your statement is also invented! Truth disappears utterly…

No, truth does not “disappear utterly.”

Then you value something religion has “invented” even though it is false! You are trying to separate faith from meaning and value - which is a desperate enterprise. Either religion is true and life is ultimately valuable or religion is false and life is ultimately valueless.
Can you explain what you mean?

Sure, this is what I mean: You are wrong. Life has whatever value the conscious person ascribes to it. Life’s value is not dependent on God, which is a dubious proposition to begin with.

Once again you are putting words into my mouth! Obviously a criminal has values and understands rules but he breaks them if it is in his interest - not necessarily all of them. I’m afraid your questions are motivated by emotion rather than logic…

Huh? I have virtually no emotional involvement in this at all. I find the discussion rather flat, actually.

I did not say humanism is merely a matter of **cultural **preference. If every belief is a matter of cultural preference we do not choose any of our beliefs. Are you a humanist because of your cultural background? Are you compelled to believe what you believe? Of course not. It is a matter of **individual **preference

I agree–although our choices are limited by what we are exposed to, and are highly influenced by the cultural and family histories that we are raised in.

Cultures have made up their own **godless **societies too! Individuals are not just cogs in a machine but have reasons for what they believe. In the Old Testament God is described as “He Who Is” - a remarkable insight for a primitive people…

Indeed.

Their wisdom has been restricted to those in their own society - like those who are cannibalistic - and does not extend to the entire human race

Indeed.

You value it but you cannot explain it because in your scheme of things we are biological machines. If you have convinced yourself you are free from the fetters of false faith it shows you regard yourself as infallible in your interpretation of reality.

I have NEVER claimed or thought myself to be infallible. Where does this come from?

Could it not be that you are chained within the dark dungeon of your own opinion and material objects?

Of course this is possible. How about you?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rocinante

I asked:

*Is killing someone who is guilty of no crime a subjective or objective evil? *

You answered:

*i assume we all agree that it is objectively wrong to kill an innocent for no good reason. *

I did not ask if there could be a good reason for killing an innocent person. Are you arguing there might be a good reason for killing an innocent person? If so, can you give me a good reason for killing an innocent person?

 

[tonyrey]

You are putting words into my mouth. I did not say nor do I believe “one should not try to do good” nor “nothing matters now”. You have not refuted any of my statements - which do not cease to be true in the context of your view of life:
I am not interested in refuting you. Will you only listen to refutations? You can believe whatever you want; I don’t care.

When you ignore the other person’s statements the discussion becomes unbalanced and pointless.

1. If you love others you are doomed to be separated from them forever.
   Yes, but “forever” is meaningless to the dead, who no longer exist so do not experience time.

It is far from meaningless for those who are **anticipating **what will happen to them and those they love.

1. If you fight against injustice you know you will never succeed because there is no answer to the bomb or the bullet

What does this mean? This looks to be a metaphor, but I can’t really tell, since you say nothing else about it. What are you saying when you claim that “there is no answer to a bomb or a bullit”?

You cannot defeat adversaries who are prepared to kill by any means at their disposal - as we know from all the examples of men and women assassinated because they were fighting against injustice.

1. Evil is bound to triumph in this world because those who are unscrupulous will do anything whereas those with principles prefer to die rather than degrade themselves

Fighting evil is not a form of degradation. Many many principled people have fought evil. I have no idea why you are making this claim when so much of history shows the contrary.

We are entitled to fight evil but not to use any means at our disposal. If we are prepared to enslave, torture and massacre men, women and children we are no better than those who are totally unscrupulous because we too will do **anything **to achieve our goal. For principled people death is preferable to dishonour and moral turpitude.

If all meaning is invented the meaning of your statement is also invented! Truth disappears utterly…

No, truth does not “disappear utterly.”

If all meaning is invented, i.e. does not correspond to reality, then the meaning of your statement is invented, i.e. does not correspond to reality, i.e. it is not true.

Then you value something religion has “invented” even though it is false! You are trying to separate faith from meaning and value - which is a desperate enterprise. Either religion is true and life is ultimately valuable or religion is false and life is ultimately valueless.

You are wrong. Life has whatever value the conscious person ascribes to it. Life’s value is not dependent on God, which is a dubious proposition to begin with.

If Life has whatever value the conscious person ascribes to it life is valuable for some people but not others. If life is valuable for some how can life be valueless for others? If they disagree they can’t all be right. It is like believing that life is purposeful and purposeless at the same time - or that something exists and doesn’t exist.

Obviously a criminal has values and understands rules but he breaks them if it is in his interest - not necessarily all of them. I’m afraid your questions are motivated by emotion rather than logic…

Huh? I have virtually no emotional involvement in this at all. I find the discussion rather flat, actually.

Your questions suggest otherwise:

Do you think that atheists are all beating their wives, raping their children, and robbing and murdering their neighbors? Are you claiming that all atheists are anarchist monsters?

I did not say humanism is merely a matter of cultural preference. If every belief is a matter of cultural preference we do not choose any of our beliefs. Are you a humanist because of your cultural background? Are you compelled to believe what you believe? Of course not. It is a matter of individual preference

I agree–although our choices are limited by what we are exposed to, and are highly influenced by the cultural and family histories that we are raised in.

Limited but not completely determined by cultural background, whether it be secular or religious.

Cultures have made up their own godless societies too! Individuals are not just cogs in a machine but have reasons for what they believe. In the Old Testament God is described as “He Who Is” - a remarkable insight for a primitive people…

Indeed.

I’m glad you agree.

Their wisdom has been restricted to those in their own society - like those who are cannibalistic - and does not extend to the entire human race

Indeed.

That is what distinguishes Christianity.

You value it but you cannot explain it because in your scheme of things we are biological machines. If you have convinced yourself you are free from the fetters of false faith it shows you regard yourself as infallible in your interpretation of reality.

I have NEVER claimed or thought myself to be infallible. Where does this come from?

“the fetters of false faith” is dogmatic enough to allow no room for doubt!

Could it not be that you are chained within the dark dungeon of your own opinion and material objects?

Of course this is possible. How about you?

I haven’t referred to the fetters of false disbelief… and I don’t believe we are in a closed physical system…

 

[larkin31]

You say my view of the world makes it meaningless

I say of your view of the world that I see how you give it meaning



maybe you’re right. Do you ever admit that maybe atheists are right? Or is that not possible for you?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin
*
Do you ever admit that maybe atheists are right? Or is that not possible for you? *

I think many atheists believe in their hearts that maybe theists are right.

I don’t think Christians think that maybe atheists are right. You’ve heard the expression, “Keep the faith.” You never hear Christians say “Keep the doubts.”

 

[Rocinante]

Rocinante

I asked:

*Is killing someone who is guilty of no crime a subjective or objective evil? *

You answered:

*i assume we all agree that it is objectively wrong to kill an innocent for no good reason. *

I did not ask if there could be a good reason for killing an innocent person. Are you arguing there might be a good reason for killing an innocent person? If so, can you give me a good reason for killing an innocent person?

i can’t think of a single reason why killing an innocent person could be justified. perhaos others can. why do you ask?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rocinante

*i can’t think of a single reason why killing an innocent person could be justified. perhaos others can. why do you ask? *

Glad to hear we agree that killing an innocent person would be an objective evil. Then I take it you agree that killing the unborn, who are innocent, would be an objective evil?

 

[Rocinante]

Rocinante

*i can’t think of a single reason why killing an innocent person could be justified. perhaos others can. why do you ask? *

Glad to hear we agree that killing an innocent person would be an objective evil. Then I take it you agree that killing the unborn, who are innocent, would be an objective evil?

yes, i agree. what are you getting at? was that it? sure, we agree that abortion is immoral.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rocinante

*yes, i agree. what are you getting at? was that it? sure, we agree that abortion is immoral. *

Whew! I’m so glad you agree. Is this a first for us?

 

[Betterave]

Originally Posted by Rocinante

Remark to self: “These are good questions.” - Reply to self: “Thank you, I agree.”

Since the erstwhile spokesmen of the Nietzschean point of view have declined to answer, I’ll offer some more thoughts.

It seems that nihilism is an attitude towards propositions, the attitude that any proposition is permissible. Now any moral proposition is permissible where there are no real unchosen constraints upon the particular moral propositions to which it is possible for assent to be given. It seems that if God does not exist, there are no such real unchosen constraints. In this case an objective empirical study of the nominally designated phenomenon of ‘morality’ is possible, but the possibility of deriving the real (objective) normative force that is proper to genuinely moral propositions seems to be problematic.

 

[Rocinante]

Remark to self: “These are good questions.” - Reply to self: “Thank you, I agree.”

Since the erstwhile spokesmen of the Nietzschean point of view have declined to answer, I’ll offer some more thoughts.

It seems that nihilism is an attitude towards propositions, the attitude that any proposition is permissible. Now any moral proposition is permissible where there are no real unchosen constraints upon the particular moral propositions to which it is possible for assent to be given. It seems that if God does not exist, there are no such real unchosen constraints. In this case an objective empirical study of the nominally designated phenomenon of ‘morality’ is possible, but the possibility of deriving the real normative force that is proper to genuinely moral propositions seems to be problematic.

it is only the religious idea of free will that raises this dichotomy between chosen and unchosen. i don’t see human beings as having the ability to will choices independently of facts about the world and facts about the person. i don’t recognize any extra something here that stands outside of culture, history, biology, physics, and every other facet of life that is really responsible for choices.

 

[Betterave]

it is only the religious idea of free will that raises this dichotomy between chosen and unchosen.

No, sorry, but that’s not right. Just as we apprehend that “some things are better than others” (see your post 90), the dichotomy between chosen and unchosen is an undeniable basic phenomenological datum. It does not depend on any particular “religious” idea of free will. That said…

i don’t see human beings as having the ability to will choices independently of facts about the world and facts about the person.

Neither do I - who in their right mind could? What is your point supposed to be here?

i don’t recognize any extra something here that stands outside of culture, history, biology, physics, and every other facet of life that is really responsible for choices.

Again, neither do I. Who in their right mind could? And what is your point supposed to be here?

 

[larkin31]

You say my view of the world makes it meaningless

I say of your view of the world that I see how you give it meaning



maybe you’re right. Do you ever admit that maybe atheists are right? Or is that not possible for you?

This is to Tonrey.

 

[tonyrey]

You say my view of the world makes it meaningless.

I don’t say your view of the world makes it entirely meaningless but that its meaning for you is limited to this life.

I say of your view of the world that I see how you give it meaning.

I also see how you give your view of the world meaning. You discover its meaning but think it is just your opinion and not necessarily true.

maybe you’re right. Do you ever admit that maybe atheists are right? Or is that not possible for you?

I don’t claim to be infallible! It is logically possible that God does not exist but I believe it is as improbable as the possibility that we don’t exist or the possibility that we have created ourselves! When all is said and done if we’re not certain we’re thinking we may as well give up trying to prove anything. Thoughts are our foundation for everything else and far more real than things. Sometimes we imagine things but we never imagine our thoughts!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

I don’t say your view of the world makes it entirely meaningless but that its meaning for you is limited to this life.

There cannot be any intention of the universe to produce man in the atheist view. Man is therefore an accident of the universe. Not only are his days numbered, the life of the planet on which he lives is brief in astronomical terms. When he dies, he is finished. Caput! So where is his meaning?

To live and think and eat and fight and procreate do not and cannot have meaning attached to them. They are mere facts in our lives. What pleasure we get in the atheist view is at best only of a higher order than that which is got by the lower animals, and in fact beasts may in the end be better off than we are since they seem not bent on destroying their own environment and making bombs sufficient to annihilate life throughout the world. Without God and a life beyond this one we are pitiful creatures who snatch what moments of pleasure we can in the present and struggle uselessly at the grim reaper’s approach. There is no hope in atheism, only the smug satisfaction that “I did it my way!”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Here are Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig debating the meaning of life.

youtube.com/watch?v=x9NlRKJBKt4&NR=1