Moral Objectivism versus Moral Subjectivism

[larkin31]

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 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.

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!

I will take this as a “Yes,” it is possible that you are wrong.

Thoughts are our foundation for everything else and far more real than things. Sometimes we imagine things but we never imagine our thoughts!

What a very subjective point of view! I love it! And I agree! Perfecto.

 

[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.

Being human I would be insane to think I couldn’t be wrong but I can see absolutely no reason to doubt the fact that we have been created by a Being infinitely wiser and more powerful than we are.

Thoughts are our foundation for everything else and far more real than things. Sometimes we imagine things but we never imagine our thoughts!

What a very subjective point of view! I love it! And I agree! Perfecto.

I’m delighted you agree. It means **we **are far more significant than material objects.

 

[PRmerger]

What a very subjective point of view! I love it! And I agree! Perfecto.

This is an old, and odd, argument, larkin. It’s already been put to rest threads ago.

Yes, some things are subjective.

No Believer is going to deny that.

The odd part about this “what a very subjective POV” exclamation is that it ends right there.

How does one then conclude that because there are some subjective POV (i.e. I don’t think brides should wear red) that* everything* is subjective?

 

[larkin31]

Being human I would be insane to think I couldn’t be wrong but I can see absolutely no reason to doubt the fact that we have been created by a Being infinitely wiser and more powerful than we are.

Well, I don’t see what’s so hard about simply saying, “I might be wrong” without adding all that qualification.

Here, I’ll say it for me again: “I could well be wrong.”

I’m delighted you agree. It means **we **are far more significant than material objects.

I don’t see why this conclusion is true. Perhaps you might explain how you reached it to make your thinking clear.

 

[The_Exodus]

Well, I don’t see what’s so hard about simply saying, “I might be wrong” without adding all that qualification.

One can always say “I might be wrong,” but saying so at least implies that some things are “right” and that you can discern, at some level, truth from falsity. If you could not do this, saying “I might be wrong” is meaningless.

What must inevitably follow, then, is that we can make meaningful and true statements. At the bottom of one’s philosophy must not be “I might be wrong,” but, “this, at least, is so.”

 

[larkin31]

One can always say “I might be wrong,” but saying so at least implies that some things are “right” and that you can discern, at some level, truth from falsity. If you could not do this, saying “I might be wrong” is meaningless.

What must inevitably follow, then, is that we can make meaningful and true statements. At the bottom of one’s philosophy must not be “I might be wrong,” but, “this, at least, is so.”

No.

It is functionally sufficient that we merely be able to say, “This is very very likely so.”

or

“I can count on this to a very high degree of certainty.”

There is no need for absolute certainty or truth. And a good thing, because they are not available to us. We simply take very high certainty as absolute certainty in our thinking, because we are only very rarely reminded of the error.

 

[The_Exodus]

larkin:

It is functionally sufficient that we merely be able to say, “This is very very likely so.”

I can count on this to a very high degree of certainty."

Every belief we have is not subject to the same degree of certainty, that is obvious. But even in order to say something has a varying degree of certainty, certainty must be admitted in the first place. You could not say “this is uncertain” unless you first had a criterion of certainty.

larkin:

There is no need for absolute certainty or truth. And a good thing, because they are not available to us.

And yet your second sentence cannot be certain on your own view.

 

[Betterave]

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?

I believe you mean “kaput” from the German “kaputt,” rather than “caput,” Latin for head.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I believe you mean “kaput” from the German “kaputt,” rather than “caput,” Latin for head.

Thanks for the correction!

 

[Betterave]

No.

It is functionally sufficient that we merely be able to say, “This is very very likely so.”

or

“I can count on this to a very high degree of certainty.”

No.

It is functionally sufficient that we sincerely say, “I believe this to be so. I do not doubt it.”

or

“I count on this.”

There is no need for absolute certainty or truth. And a good thing, because they are not available to us. We simply take very high certainty as absolute certainty in our thinking, because we are only very rarely reminded of the error.

What do you mean by absolute certainty or truth? One might well interpret such terms as names of God, then your claim seems to become that we are not God and that God is not available to us. Maybe your whole position boils down to this claim?

In any case, why not just talk about certainty and truth - do you think these are available to us? If you do, how? If you don’t, why not?

 

[larkin31]

No.

It is functionally sufficient that we sincerely say, “I believe this to be so. I do not doubt it.”

or

“I count on this.”

Precisely what I meant. Yes.

What do you mean by absolute certainty or truth? One might well interpret such terms as names of God, then your claim seems to become that we are not God and that God is not available to us. Maybe your whole position boils down to this claim?

I have never meant that absolute certainty means God. An agnostic, such as myself, would never state that!

In any case, why not just talk about certainty and truth - do you think these are available to us? If you do, how? If you don’t, why not?

We get very close in a few overwhelmingly documented empirical cases. Otherwise, we don’t know what is “absolutely certain”.

 

[larkin31]

Every belief we have is not subject to the same degree of certainty, that is obvious. But even in order to say something has a varying degree of certainty, certainty must be admitted in the first place. You could not say “this is uncertain” unless you first had a criterion of certainty.

We are all well aware of the idea or concept of certainty. That is not under question. But because we think that something is certain does not mean that that thought reflects external, empirical reality.

And yet your second sentence cannot be certain on your own view.

I don’t claim to be absolutely certain of anything. But, for example I am rather certain about many things. Please note that I use qualifying modifiers to indicate that I recognize a continuum along an axis of "certainty,’ with many gradations from “uncertain” to “absolutely certain.”

 

[Betterave]

Precisely what I meant. Yes.

good.

I have never meant that absolute certainty means God. An agnostic, such as myself, would never state that!

That’s a non sequitur. An agnostic does not know whether God exists. That does not imply that he doesn’t know what ‘God’ means. Anyway you didn’t answer my question and actually completely ignored it:

We get very close in a few overwhelmingly documented empirical cases. Otherwise, we don’t know what is “absolutely certain”.

You go right back to talking about “absolutely certain” without saying what you mean by it (or by “absolutely true”). Merely telling us that you *don’t *mean to imply a reference to God doesn’t help much.

 

[Betterave]

We are all well aware of the idea or concept of certainty.

I would caution against taking our common grasp of ‘certainty’ for granted. It’s not necessarily so straightforward. Wittgenstein wrote a whole book of notes, though a small one, “On Certainty.”

 

[larkin31]

That’s a non sequitur. An agnostic does not know whether God exists. That does not imply that he doesn’t know what ‘God’ means. Anyway you didn’t answer my question and actually completely ignored it:

I no longer have interest in the question because it assumed a premise that I have no interest in nor understand the definition of.

You go right back to talking about “absolutely certain” without saying what you mean by it (or by “absolutely true”). Merely telling us that you *don’t *mean to imply a reference to God doesn’t help much.

Here’s a big surprise: “absolutely certain” means the greatest certainty of total completeness, with no possibility, however remote, of error or further change or refinement or doubt or lack of clarity.

Or something like that. I am mostly certain that that is what I think, at this moment, of typing this while also distracted by Notre Dame’s touchdown pass. I am very certain that Notre Dame is leading now 20-12…but already I am thinking that I ought to change a word or two…

nah

 

[larkin31]

I would caution against taking our common grasp of ‘certainty’ for granted. It’s not necessarily so straightforward. Wittgenstein wrote a whole book, though a small one, “On Certainty.”

HAHAHA

no kidding

thanks for pointing out how uncertain that can be

indeed

I am even more convinced, but still not absolutely so, of the correctness of my position. But as I say, I may be wrong!

 

[Betterave]

I no longer have interest in the question because it assumed a premise that I have no interest in nor understand the definition of.

I meant the first question. As for the second, you are committing yourself to wilful ignorance if you don’t even want to understand the premise it was based on. Wilful ignorance is not a good basis for answering or discussing questions such as the one in this thread.

Here’s a big surprise: “absolutely certain” means the greatest certainty of total completeness, with no possibility, however remote, of error or further change or refinement or doubt or lack of clarity.

Thus you do indeed seem to be referring to an attribute of God, even if you are ignorant of and not interested in facing and trying to understand that fact.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

*Here’s a big surprise: “absolutely certain” means the greatest certainty of total completeness, with no possibility, however remote, of error or further change or refinement or doubt or lack of clarity. *

Can you be absolutely certain that you exist?

Cogito; ergo sum." Descartes

 

[Betterave]

HAHAHA

no kidding

thanks for pointing out how uncertain that can be

indeed

I am even more convinced, but still not absolutely so, of the correctness of my position. But as I say, I may be wrong!

As far as certainty goes, we (thinking human beings) tend to think that while glibness may correlate positively with *subjective *certainty (conviction), it is likely to correlate inversely with objective certainty (a *reasonable *construal of the the truth).

 

[larkin31]

I meant the first question. As for the second, you are committing yourself to wilful ignorance if you don’t even want to understand the premise it was based on. Wilful ignorance is not a good basis for answering or discussing questions such as the one in this thread.

Lack of belief in God is now “willful ignorance” in a discussion about the validity of God-based argument? Are you aware of the sophistry in your position?

Thus you do indeed seem to be referring to an attribute of God, even if you are ignorant of and not interested in facing and trying to understand that fact.

Which “attribute”? And what is your point, other than to call me willfully ignorant?

I just answered your question in a lengthy sentence. And now you call me not interested in the discussion? All I am doing is disagreeing with you. Don’t be so smug. If you want to argue that there is some form of “absolute certainty” out there in the world, then simply state where you think that “absolute certainty” is. And I will then respond.