The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[warpspeedpetey]

I couldn’t agree more. Now, if only we could all agree on what matters pertain solely to objects and which rely partly on emotions.

if you allow emotion for evidence, then you open yourself to the counterclaims you might make against personal revelation. would you accept then the personal revelations, and emotional evidence of billions of theists? im happy to do so if you care to introduce your personal revelations/emotions as evidence.

I don’t see why human beings should have to learn from their mistakes. Heck, I don’t see why they should have to learn. Why not simply prevent them from making mistakes in the first place?

allow chesterton his moment.

“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” - Broadcast talk 6-11-35

 

[Oreoracle]

if you allow emotion for evidence…

When did I say that emotion counted as evidence of an ethical claim? This implies that ethics are propositions that are true or false. Again, “should” is an operation that in no way refers to any process or property in reality, so there is no way to verify if any should/ought statement is true or false.

As far as the world of objects is concerned, “should” is just babble that points at nothing. This doesn’t mean that ethics aren’t valuable, since value, too, is a matter of opinion, but it does mean that ethics aren’t propositions in that they don’t wholly refer to reality and thus cannot have a truth value.

allow chesterton his moment.

"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling.

And if the friends or parents of this man allowed him to ruin himself without saying a word, many would say they are blameworthy, or at least that they aren’t very good parents or friends. I’d be one of those who criticize them. The reason parents allow their sons and daughters to be free is because we are humans, and can’t simply snap our fingers to get rid of the problem, as God surely could (When a human attempts to reduce another’s freedoms, more problems are usually produced. That’s one of the few reasons we don’t completely snuff out each other’s freedom; it has nothing to do with “dignity,” as Christians claim.).

If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog." - Broadcast talk 6-11-35

And if we were the leaders of separate countries, Chesterton could have his society filled with miserable fools while mine is filled with happy slaves. (I used “slave” because you would surely use the word if I didn’t, though I feel it is overly emotional.) You’ll say, “Where’s the respect for human dignity?!” Bah, I say. “Dignity,” all things considered, is just a euphemism for “pride,” and, like almost everything, it has a price. We only cling to that pride because of the pleasure it provides, but we’d be more than willing to throw it away if we realized that a greater amount of pain will be forced on us if we contine clutching it.

 

[hatsoff]

That is a conclusion. I might give some credence to that conclusion except that moral sentences in a conditional statement look just like any other proposition. So should we also conclude that all other propositions are simply derived from human desires and habits? I guess I’m having trouble figuring out why the case of “morality” is treated any differently from other non-expressive statements.

Moral statements are no different from any other statements, except insofar as they use different words which have different definitions. But just like every other statement, we interpret them according to syntax and definition.

The problem here is that there is a word being employed which has a definition with which you don’t agree: “should.” You don’t seem to accept any definition which denies moral realism, as it has been called in this thread.

In any case, reality doesn’t conform to language. If you think moral language assumes moral “realism,” then the problem is the language, not the anti-realism.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

When did I say that emotion counted as evidence of an ethical claim?

i dont know that youu did, but rather that your feelings have zip to do with a rational debate.

And if the friends or parents of this man allowed him to ruin himself without saying a word, many would say they are blameworthy, or at least that they aren’t very good parents or friends. I’d be one of those who criticize them. The reason parents allow their sons and daughters to be free is because we are humans, and can’t simply snap our fingers to get rid of the problem, as God surely could (When a human attempts to reduce another’s freedoms, more problems are usually produced. That’s one of the few reasons we don’t completely snuff out each other’s freedom; it has nothing to do with “dignity,” as Christians claim.).

how would they be blame worthy? are they responsible for his actions? if he is free they are not responsible. it is only if he can be forced to conform to some standard that they can be held responsible, but then he wouldnt be free would he?

mine is filled with happy slaves.

yes, all those happy slaves we have all heard about. singing disney songs on the plantation! the mere phrase is an oxymoron. chattel slavery is not a happy condition at all.

(I used “slave” because you would surely use the word if I didn’t, though I feel it is overly emotional.) You’ll say, “Where’s the respect for human dignity?!” Bah, I say. “Dignity,” all things considered, is just a euphemism for “pride,”

i wouldnt say that at all, id say if your willing to make slaves out of people to try to make them “happy” your willing to violate the most basic of human rights, liberty. ive never heard of a happy slave. the mere phrase turns my stomach.

and, like almost everything, it has a price. We only cling to that pride because of the pleasure it provides, but we’d be more than willing to throw it away if we realized that a greater amount of pain will be forced on us if we contine clutching it.

yeah, those darn slaves kept running away from happiness, you know, no food, safety thousands of miles away, being hunted like an animal, how dare they trade such suffering for those happy, happy fields of cotton!

your in a catch 22 here, slavery is ok, if it make a person happy? yeah right.

 

[grannymh]

I guess I’m having trouble figuring out why the case of “morality” is treated any differently from other non-expressive statements.

Because morality is different in that it is related to objective or universal truth.

 

[grannymh]

The catalyst for the ethic “Humans should not lie” is the displeasure of being deceived or acting on misinformation only to have the action backfire.

The catalyst for the ethic “Humans should not lie” is not displeasure at being deceived nor is the catalyst the pleasure of being considered noble, nor is the catalyst per se related to any feelings. However, feelings do come into play but feelings are not the prime catalyst which is – Truth is an independent, universal good.

 

[grannymh]

I couldn’t agree more. Now, if only we could all agree on what matters pertain solely to objects and which rely partly on emotions.

Could a problem to agreement be different definitions for subjective and objective? I ask because of your reference to objects and emotions…

 

[grannymh]

i dont know that you did, but rather that your feelings have zip to do with a rational debate.

I don’t know who said what. However, the above sentence reminds me of a debate on another thread. One needs to consider that some, who adhere to relativism in whatever form, see their own feelings as objective truth.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t know who said what. However, the above sentence reminds me of a debate on another thread. One needs to consider that some, who adhere to relativism in whatever form, see their own feelings as objective truth.

but…i…uhhh…he…uhhhhh…ummm…you see…and…and… there was…ummmmmm…ah darn it! :imsorry:…

 

[Oreoracle]

i dont know that youu did, but rather that your feelings have zip to do with a rational debate.

Not every topic can be subjected entirely to rational debate. Can we have a wholly rational debate about what the best color is? Of course not.

how would they be blame worthy? are they responsible for his actions? if he is free they are not responsible. it is only if he can be forced to conform to some standard that they can be held responsible, but then he wouldnt be free would he?

Is it wrong for a parent to force their children to look both ways before crossing the street? Is it too much to ask for the motorists to slow down when they see kids crossing the street without looking? Is it wrong for a parent to force their two bickering toddlers to share their toys?

If these things aren’t wrong, why is it wrong to force people to take precautions, and force others to be cautious when others aren’t taking precautions? Take a history class and you’ll learn that coercion in society is not always bad, and can sometimes expell disorder that would have led to suffering. Simply replace “children,” “toddlers,” and “kids” in the above paragraph with “adults” and you’re there. I don’t see any significant difference between reckless children and reckless adults; both wantonly cause suffering, and should be stopped by us if we are able.

yes, all those happy slaves we have all heard about. singing disney songs on the plantation! the mere phrase is an oxymoron. chattel slavery is not a happy condition at all.

Again, I said “slaves” because, to you, anyone who isn’t able to do absolutely everything they fancy is a slave. However, my limitations would likely be very moderate (the most major change, if I controlled the U.S., would be the switch from capitalism/socialism to full-blown communism). And I know Christians think communism is an evil ideology, but it’s no different than forcing stubborn toddlers to share their toys. Again, think of those power-mongering adults as reckless children and you’re there.

Could a problem to agreement be different definitions for subjective and objective? I ask because of your reference to objects and emotions…

“Objective” means “existing independently of perception” while “subjective” means “dependent on perception.” Think of it like this: In order for an ethic to be objective, it would have to be true even if every sentient being in existence (even God!) suddenly became unconscious (fell into a comatose state). In a world without awareness, does “Humans should not kill humans” hold true? Would any other ethic? It doesn’t seem that they would, since we generate these ethics in our mind as a response to our environment.

I don’t know who said what. However, the above sentence reminds me of a debate on another thread. One needs to consider that some, who adhere to relativism in whatever form, see their own feelings as objective truth.

I’m glad to say I’m not one of them.

but…i…uhhh…he…uhhhhh…ummm…you see…and…and… there was…ummmmmm…ah darn it! :imsorry:…

Oh jeez, you caught me! What was I thinking when I stated that my opinions didn’t exist as objects in reality? What could I have meant when I said that my preferences weren’t universal?

 

[tdgesq]

I don’t know such a person.

A.J. Ayer is the philosopher who first proposed emotivism (sometimes called expressivism) as a non-realist explanation of moral statements. You can read about his system of ethics here: plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayer/#7

Intended, yes, but they aren’t. A child could be perfectly honest when saying that he believes blue is the best color of all, but it’s still just an opinion based on preference, no matter how much certainty accompanies it.

I agree, but my point wasn’t to show that just because most people use normative statements everyday that moral realism is correct. It was to show that such statements are so commonplace that the non-realist has to give some rational account of them, at least if he wants anyone to believe him.

We can cover this up with collegiate logical terms all day, but in the end I’ll ask: why does the person presenting this argument claim that lying is wrong? Did some imaginary law of the universe force him to, or was it his emotions rebelling when he discovered that he was deceived? The catalyst for the ethic “Humans should not lie” is the displeasure of being deceived or acting on misinformation only to have the action backfire.

I was just trying to be precise. Some people feel more comfortable using the philosophical terminology. I will try to use colloquial language from now on when I can. And normally the way this works is that I ask a question, you answer. Then you ask a question and I answer. I don’t have a problem answering this question though.

For purposes of examining your arguments, I accept that the utterance “humans should not lie” is simply an emotional act that expresses displeasure. It has no moral content. What I am trying to make sense of is how exactly conditional statements (if-then statements) are in anyway expressive. I used the example of “(1’) If X lies to Y, then X has performed an action he should not have.” X isn’t actually lying to anybody in this example. In fact, it may very well be the case that X doesn’t lie to anybody. I don’t see how this statement can be said to express emotion.

Here is an even more compelling example. (1’’) “If murder is wrong, then getting your brother to murder someone is wrong.” In this statement, there isn’t even an assertion that murder is wrong. It simply asks a hypothetical about the rightness or wrongness of murder. Since this isn’t an expressive statement, emotivism gives no explanation for what this statement means.

Really? What does the term “should” point to? Is it like addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division in that it can be applied to objects? Does it point to chemical properties? How does “should” describe the nature of things in reality?

Again, the only reason why I am using the words “ought” and “should” here is because you’ve claimed to give an explanation for what they mean. Yet it is clear that conditional statements do not have the emotive content that you are claiming. I am merely asking what they do mean then since they appear to look like any other proposition.

So as not to dodge your question though, moral laws can be applied to reality and often are. Whether or not we should have bombed Hiroshima or not can be determined by applying moral principles. As a practical discipline though, ethics are meant to guide future conduct. To what end? Happiness. Since you brought it up, can you tell me what laws of thought like mathematical laws are? You can’t reach out and touch the number one. Neither is there such a thing as a “negative number” of squashes in the world. Simply because something is not material doesn’t mean it lacks existence.

I’ll be the first to step forward and say that it’s just my opinion, though I feel that my opinion should count for a lot (such is human nature).

Correct. It’s just an emotive assertion on your part that lacks any truth value. One wonders why you would make such statements in the first place. If you feel that your opinion should count for a lot, then perhaps you should look to some systems of ethics that might account for that rather than just chalking it up to an illusion. As demonstrated above, your current system of ethics is not doing a very good job of describing reality.

Whatever you want it to be. It’s like asking what the meaning of life is.

You can’t expect me to feel that my feelings are worthless because they’re feelings, can you?

I’m not expecting that you feel any particular way. I am just wondering why you are expressing your feelings here about the nature of morality. I mean, under your construct there isn’t any reason why people here “should” believe in your ethical system. In my view emotivism is a self-defeating philosophy of ethics. There are systems out there that do a much better job describing reality. Utilitarianism, although it is a philosophy of moral realism, is much better equipped in my opinion. You don’t have to be a theist either.

The problem here is that there is a word being employed which has a definition with which you don’t agree: “should.” You don’t seem to accept any definition which denies moral realism, as it has been called in this thread.

While it’s true that I do believe in moral realism, I’m not arbitrarily rejecting the definition that Oreoracle proposes and that you seem to adhere. I’m pointing out that a definition as an emotive statement of preference does not explain conditional propositions (if-then statements). If those types of statements do not express some type of emotional desire, then what do they mean? It appears that the theory that all moral statements are simply expressions of emotional desire is false.

In any case, reality doesn’t conform to language. If you think moral language assumes moral “realism,” then the problem is the language, not the anti-realism.

I do think language assumes moral realism. Most philosophers also realize this. As you point out though, it could be that language reflects something other than reality. Then again, how much “reality” are you offering when your explanation of moral sentences as emotional desires does not square with an entire category of statements – conditional propositions?

Because morality is different in that it is related to objective or universal truth.

Respectfully, I disagree. The laws of logic are objective and universal. There are some differences between moral propositions and other propositions, but that isn’t one of them.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I don’t see why human beings should have to learn from their mistakes. Heck, I don’t see why they should have to learn. Why not simply prevent them from making mistakes in the first place?

It will not lead to the greatest good, since it does not allow freewill. This would contradict the act of perfect love.

But I know you’ll just say, “We can’t be perfectly happy without free will.” but that would be downright absurd.

Saying that it is absurd does not change the necessity and value of human freedom.

Firstly, if thinking about committing a sin is as bad as committing one, God could simply prevent the sin from being committed and still know if that person loves him enough to “keep his Word.”

One may commit a mortal sin just by thinking about and intending to do an evil in their hearts; but that both committing an evil and thinking an evil is just as evil as each other is something that i am not aware of. Some mortal sins are greater then others. As for preventing evil all together, perhaps love has the power to do that, but that doesn’t mean that the greater good would be achieved through those ends. It may be the case that such a reality might benefit you personally, but some people learn to love only because they experience the opposite. Some human beings learn to value the reality of love and life and develop apathy because they have experienced pain and the fragility of life and the misfortunes of chance. Some people are evil for most of their lives, but then suddenly they make an honest act to change for the greatest good and thus gain salvation, and perhaps they would never of had that chance if they were not allowed to fulfill their will or have the experience and freedom that they have. I think that we must at least admit that if there is a God then such a God must be wiser then you, given that such a being is the creator of all things. In any case freewill means having the freedom to act against the will of love. God does act to bring love in the world, but God acts for the salvation of all creatures and loves them equally and thus God acts for humanity as a whole in light of their ultimate end which is heaven. It may be impossible to bring about the greatest good with out permitting the possibility of great evils. If God is love and freewill is a necessary production of Love then Human Beings cannot exist under any other circumstance.

(I think the “you only love me if you obey me” dogma is ridiculous, though. It suggests that we don’t love our parents or our peers if we disobey them even occasionally.)

God is love. If we disobey love, we do not love God. Few of us love our parents or neighbors or children with a consistent perfection, if at all. We are all selfish to varying degrees.

Or God could simply alter our psyches so that we could be perfectly happy without free will. I could be controlled by a god as we speak and never know it.

What you are speaking of here is slavery. A greater happiness and dignity and good comes from a good that allows freewill. Love does not force itself on its creation. You merely value the idea of pleasure, but you do really understand nor value the principles of love and thus do not understand why human beings must be free.

You can’t expect me to feel that my feelings are worthless because they’re feelings, can you?

Are you saying that your feelings define Objective Truth? If something is truly wrong, then God exists.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Not every topic can be subjected entirely to rational debate. Can we have a wholly rational debate about what the best color is? Of course not.

indeed it should, if you dont have a rational reason for your position then you only have an emotive postion, which frankly doesnt carry any weight with me.

Is it wrong for a parent to force their children to look both ways before crossing the street? Is it too much to ask for the motorists to slow down when they see kids crossing the street without looking? Is it wrong for a parent to force their two bickering toddlers to share their toys?

a child is not free to act as he wishes, for a man to be free he must.

If these things aren’t wrong, why is it wrong to force people to take precautions, and force others to be cautious when others aren’t taking precautions?

apples and oranges again, children are not free, nor should they be until they are capable of acting rationally.

Take a history class and you’ll learn that coercion in society is not always bad, and can sometimes expell disorder that would have led to suffering. Simply replace “children,” “toddlers,” and “kids” in the above paragraph with “adults” and you’re there. I don’t see any significant difference between reckless children and reckless adults; both wantonly cause suffering, and should be stopped by us if we are able.

as i said, children are not free adults should be.

now whi exactly decides whats right and wrong? its been tried before, and an utter failure every time. and yes ive had more than a few history classes.

Again, I said “slaves” because, to you, anyone who isn’t able to do absolutely everything they fancy is a slave.

indeed if a man is restricted from making a mistake he is not free.

However, my limitations would likely be very moderate (the most major change, if I controlled the U.S., would be the switch from capitalism/socialism to full-blown communism). And I know Christians think communism is an evil ideology, but it’s no different than forcing stubborn toddlers to share their toys. Again, think of those power-mongering adults as reckless children and you’re there.

this is the most ******** statement i have ever seen short of a communist poli sci prof in college, who said something similar to me as the soviet union was crashing down. one of my degrees is in poli sci, i never mention my education but on this point i must speak as one who lived in the era of communism and know many people who lived under it and have an appropriate education to speak on it.

that is utterly false, a command economy is the least effecient way to distribute goods and services, it has utterly failed in every state which it has been practiced. even the chinese had to open capitalist free economic zones in order to survive, those same regimes are the worst human rights violators and murdered more than a 100 million people in just the last century. if you doubt me take a trip to cuba. communism in practice results in a society where everyone but the politicians is poor and there are few oppurtunities to change their situation.

the proof is in the pudding, capitalist countries become wealthy, communist countries become poor until they literally fall apart. its in the history books, i lived through part of it and many here remember much more of it than me. maybe you should talk to some east germans about that wall. or visit the mass graves of chinese, russian, vietnamese, cambodian, peasants were buried in collectivisation drives. the gulags of siberia where political/religious prisoners were kept

this statement shows that you are extremely uneducated in history or the practical effects of communism. stop listening to some prof, safe in his office with tenure, and pay attention to what actually happened when communism was practiced. its already been disproved, the utopia does not exist.

i am poor, but at least i am free.

 

[grannymh]

“Objective” means “existing independently of perception” while “subjective” means “dependent on perception.” Think of it like this: In order for an ethic to be objective, it would have to be true even if every sentient being in existence (even God!) suddenly became unconscious (fell into a comatose state). In a world without awareness, does “Humans should not kill humans” hold true? Would any other ethic? It doesn’t seem that they would, since we generate these ethics in our mind as a response to our environment.

What you are saying about objective and subject is barely relative to the deep meaning of both. Can you expand?

As to the hypothetical world with every sentient being unconscious, the answer to your question is contingent on whether or not the people will continue to live in a comatose state or simply die. If they die, no point to the question. If they continue to live, albeit non-sentient, then the catalyst for ethical behavior remains valid. Because these people are alive, the catalyst or basic truth – human life is sacred-- remains viable.

I’m glad to say I’m not one of them.

:clapping:

 

[MindOverMatter]

Some human beings learn to value the reality of love and life and develop apathy because they have experienced pain and the fragility of life and the misfortunes of chance.

Unfortunately i didn’t have a chance to edit my mistake.
What I really meant to say was empathy, as in a free act of caring for some other person who experiences misfortune, because one is able to place themselves in another persons shoes. Apathy is a downside to negative experiences; however a great good comes for the reality of empathy, and thus i can see God actualizing a world where empathy was possible.

 

[Oreoracle]

A.J. Ayer is the philosopher who first proposed emotivism (sometimes called expressivism) as a non-realist explanation of moral statements. You can read about his system of ethics here: plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayer/#7

Thanks.

I agree, but my point wasn’t to show that just because most people use normative statements everyday that moral realism is correct. It was to show that such statements are so commonplace that the non-realist has to give some rational account of them, at least if he wants anyone to believe him.

True. It’s very difficult, for example, to dissuade others from using the phrase “doesn’t he/she know right from wrong?”

For purposes of examining your arguments, I accept that the utterance “humans should not lie” is simply an emotional act that expresses displeasure. It has no **moral **content.

What do you mean by “moral?”

Here is an even more compelling example. (1’’) “If murder is wrong, then getting your brother to murder someone is wrong.” In this statement, there isn’t even an assertion that murder is wrong. It simply asks a hypothetical about the rightness or wrongness of murder.

I think (1) can be rephrased as such: “If the world is made worse by killings, then the world would be made worse if my brother killed.”

Assuming that you agree with this new phrasing, you’ll see that we run into a subjective term even after “should,” “ought,” “right,” “wrong,” “good,” and “bad” have been removed: that term is “worse.”

Indeed, this argument is valid, since it has the correct form. However, there’s no way to verify if something is “better” or “worse” than anything else, since the concepts of “best” and “worst” are opinions. The argument, then, cannot be said to be sound. No matter how many iterations of (1) we create, we will always run into subjective terms that attempt to replace “wrong.”

Since this isn’t an expressive statement, emotivism gives no explanation for what this statement means.

I didn’t think emotivism had as much to do with explaining the meanings of ethical statements as it does explaining why the statements are uttered.

So as not to dodge your question though, moral laws can be applied to reality and often are.

What do you mean by “moral law?” Are moral laws anything like mathematical, scientific, or philosophical laws?

Whether or not we should have bombed Hiroshima or not can be determined by applying moral principles.

Indeed, but no moral principles have been proven to share the status of laws. Many claim to, but the is-ought gap is an argument that has yet to be breached.

Simply because something is not material doesn’t mean it lacks existence.

I mean to say that they don’t exist as objects. Numbers are concepts that represent objects, from what I can tell.

Correct. It’s just an emotive assertion on your part that lacks any truth value. One wonders why you would make such statements in the first place.

Isn’t it obvious? I eat chocolate because it tastes good. I make the statements and attempt to obey them because it feels good.

It seems that instructors try to drill it into the heads of children that the human brain is driven toward truth. This is nonsense. The human brain is concerned only with surviving so that it can feel more pleasure. This myth of the “truth-oriented brain” is what makes emotivism so difficult for people to grasp. I’m not criticizing you, I’m just saying that cultural influences don’t tend to make these discussions any easier.

If you feel that your opinion should count for a lot, then perhaps you should look to some systems of ethics that might account for that rather than just chalking it up to an illusion.

The second that I see a system that defeats the is-ought gap, I’ll be impressed. Until then, good luck with that.

As demonstrated above, your current system of ethics is not doing a very good job of describing reality.

Two different worlds, my friend. It’s like me saying that your cookbook doesn’t do a very good job at describing the basics of calculus.

Utilitarianism, although it is a philosophy of moral realism, is much better equipped in my opinion. You don’t have to be a theist either.

Utilitarianism is based on moral realism? I hope that was a typo. If not, I have to say that I’m surprised by this, and I’m a utilitarian! From what I’ve read of Bentham, Mill, and Singer, all have conceded that the greatest happiness principle is derived from emotion (they would rather say “preferences” but it’s the same idea). I know Peter Singer explicitly states in the introduction of Practical Ethics that all ethical systems are subjective, even utilitarianism.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Utilitarianism is based on moral realism? I hope that was a typo. If not, I have to say that I’m surprised by this, and I’m a utilitarian! From what I’ve read of Bentham, Mill, and Singer, all have conceded that the greatest happiness principle is derived from emotion (they would rather say “preferences” but it’s the same idea). I know Peter Singer explicitly states in the introduction of Practical Ethics that all ethical systems are subjective, even utilitarianism.

Are you saying that everything which is subjectively experienced is not real?

 

[grannymh]

Are you saying that everything which is subjectively experienced is not real?

Seeing reality subjectively is one way. Seeing reality objectively is another way. They are not mutually exclusive ways. One sees reality both subjectively and objectively.

 

[grannymh]

It seems that instructors try to drill it into the heads of children that the human brain is driven toward truth. This is nonsense. The human brain is concerned only with surviving so that it can feel more pleasure. This myth of the “truth-oriented brain” is what makes emotivism so difficult for people to grasp. I’m not criticizing you, I’m just saying that cultural influences don’t tend to make these discussions any easier.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Seeing reality subjectively is one way. Seeing reality objectively is another way. They are not mutually exclusive ways. One sees reality both subjectively and objectively.

We see what appears to be objective. I was asking the question because people accept what they perceive or come to experience, but then pick and choose what is a real and what is not for various reasons; some are legitimate and some are not . We experience right and wrong. We experience shame and guilt when we understand that something is wrong. So what is the bases for believing that morality does not reflect objective truth, or does not have a real connection with personal actions? In my opinion there is no sufficient basis for not believing in right and wrong accept to avoid the consequences of what follows necessarily from the truth of objective morality. There is as much reason to believe in the reality of right and wrong as there is to believe that there is an objective reality.