Kenny wrote:
As you said; math interprets reality. The equation 2+2=4 is made up of representative tokens. It is those tokens that represent Objective reality.
Yes, and law, justice, good, evil, etc., are tokens (for lack of a better word) that represent objective reality.
Not sure what you are saying here; are you saying objective morality does exist even though mankind may not be able to understand it?
Objective reality exists even if there are no living beings to understand it. This is an odd thing to conceptualize, but let's assume that tomorrow humans ceased to exist. Would the murders, genocide, and crime committed by people still be wrong? Yes.
I would say interpret instead of understand. I would say all people in all times and places recognize right and wrong and that there is a way things ought to be. I would also say that these interpretations can be perverted and distorted. That is consistent with the biblical concept of sin and that the human mind can twist and pervert the truth.
I never said objective truth claims don’t exist; I said objective morality doesn’t exist.
Are you confusing me with someone else? Haven’t I made it clear that I believe right & wrong, morality & immorality are subjective; not objective? Why would I claim that it can be objective for some but not others? Perhaps you should read again what you thought I said; I think we have a misunderstanding here.
No. I quoted you in previous reply.
Give me a pencil and paper and I can demonstrate why 2+2 = 4; not 5. Can you demonstrate to a person who does not share your moral values that human sacrifice is wrong?
Of course I could. It is wrong. That is why you can educate a culture to recognize this and cease the practice. But that isn't the point. There are plenty of things regarding math that you could not demonstrate. Your inability to demonstrate them doesn't change whether they are. When you speak of math, you are right to mention tokens. These tokens don't actually exist at all. They correspond to physical reality. In the case of morality we are dealing with metaphysical concepts. You are arguing a point by attempting to use logic. Where does logic exist? Perhaps I live in a place where logic is rejected as well as morality. And since we disagree, I just choose to end your life with violence. Are you saying that this culture is no less credible, morally speaking? Are you really saying it's only a matter of opinion? Are you really saying, you could not recognize that this culture is wrong (objectively).I doubt you live your life like that. If someone broke into your home today and raped and beat your family, I doubt you are going to say, "Well, they have their moral preferences and I have mine."
Ken
Really? Suppose I like to watch other men have sex with my wife? Does that mean I should have sex with someone else’s wife?
Easy. Your desire is not in line with what is objectively good and right. Are you trying to prove my point here? This desire is depraved. We can measure that it is such, and know that the GR isn't applicable. You cannot divest the GR from OM and then apply it to behaviors that are diametrically opposed to OM. Like i said the GR isn't OM, but a rule that points toward the source of OM. But you actually proved a wonderful point as there are many atheist who appeal to the GR as some type of moral symmetry in and of itself. You scratch my back, i'll scratch yours. your example blows up their position, because there is nothing to ground the GR and no way to exclude sadistic examples such as the one you provided. So, you are actually tearing down a growing version of atheistic objective morality. Congrats!
I disagree! Better means superior to, or preferred. It is not a means of measurement. And too often better is just a matter of opinion. Are apples better than oranges? Which system of measurement would you use to justify this claim?
No, you are conflating terms. And I wouldn't make the claim that apples are objectively better than oranges. Even if the overwhelming majority of people preferred apples. Superior and Better are essentially interchangeable adjectives. When I say vanilla is better than chocolate I am not making a truth claim. Context, context, context. I'm saying I like vanilla more than chocolate. This isn't the case with moral truth claims and I think you know that. You are making a category error here and using fallacious reasoning to defend your line of thinking.
How do you measure behaviour?
How we measure can very well be subjective. For example, speed limits. Driving on the right side of the road as opposed to the left. But they all flow out of the reality that order is better than chaos. Law is better than anarchy. Not simply preferred, but that these are objectively superior.
Whether or not the US adopts the metric system or not doesn’t matter! Mankind agrees on the distance of an inch, a meter, a mile, a foot or a kilometer. The same cannot be said for morality.
I would say that mankind does agree on many things regarding morality. Show me a culture that thinks it is good to have others steal from you. Again you are confusing the ontological and epistemological questions. Agreement does not change reality. Even if humans never existed, reality would still be measurable.
Ken
I was only making the point that humans only matter to humans. That makes the claim "humans matter" subjective.
Then I challenge you to live that way, because you aren't. You are here arguing a point because you think it REALLY matters. You think that your opinion about reality is objectively true, even though you deny it. You claim to reject objective moral values and in the same breath tell us that moral values are subjective, all the time, in all places, regardless of opinion. That is an objective truth claim about morality. It is self-defeating and contradictory. So, your entire position is rooted in fallacy and contradiction. If it's all subjective then why even post here? What is the point? My opinion that OM exists and that there is a God and a heaven and hell has every bit as much subjective value as your own. On one hand, you are saying that no moral position is intrinsically better than any other. So why try to convince us that your moral position is the RIGHT one and ours is the wrong one? Either you really believe that moral values are subjective or you don't. If you really believed that, you wouldn't be here. You simply wouldn't care what others thought, since it is only a matter of preference and opinion.
Nobody in this conversation said truth claims cannot be objective
Now you are doing exactly what you denied doing earlier. How are you defining objective truth claim?
Now that is absurd! I said nothing of the sort. I am saying I am unable to prove/demonstrate to someone who does not share my moral values that torturing puppies is bad. Can you demonstrate to such a person why torturing puppies is bad?
It is absurd Ken. You just denied this because you are appalled and then in the same breath say that I can't demonstrate it to be the case. You just demonstrated it for me and then denied it. You are simply unwilling to follow your position to its logical conclusions. You are the one shooting holes in your position, not me.
This is insane. By your logic you should not try to convince a man who is about to commit mass murder to change his mind. "well, I can't demonstrate to someone who does not share my moral values that murder is wrong." Of course you can demonstrate it, and I seriously doubt you would do what I just stated if placed in that situation.
That’s what YOU say. Suppose they say torturing puppies for pleasure is objectively right regardless of your minority opinion? Now it’s your words against theirs! You’re in the same boat I would be in my friend!
Suppose they do say that? It's not my word against theirs. It is objectively wrong, which is exactly why I should speak out against the majority opinion. Just like abolitionists were RIGHT to speak out against Chattel slavery. Just like nations were to speak out and war against Nazi Germany. Their actions were wrong. Objectively wrong.
Of course the Bible predicts exactly what you are saying. It says, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight!"
This is exactly what you are doing. It warns against your kind of thinking. I don't know why you are here. Perhaps you like to argue. Perhaps you are trying to prove something to yourself. Perhaps, something within you has drawn you to this forum. Well, I'd say this is the reason why. Because God is working. I'd listen.
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord
"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
