Kenny wrote:I’ve never made such a claim. I have always said morals must be DEMONSTRABLE to be objective.
You are saying you haven't made the claim that people must agree on morals? Seriously?
Morals are demonstrable.
Can gravity be demonstrated? Of course!
But what about those in space and on the moon? I guess gravity is subjective. Pardon my snarkiness, but I'm trying to
demonstrate that our subjective experience of gravity doesn't change objective reality.
I will use the example I used with you last time:
If I were thirsty and were about to drink water from a puddle, and you told me the water was poisonous, that is a demonstrable truth because I can get a sample of the water, do a chemical analysis, and let’s say I find the water contains traces of “Ethylene glycol”. this chemical is poisonous to mammals and because humans are mammals, it is poisonous to me.
I don't ever recall this example, but it's a non sequitur and quite frankly odd. It doesn't prove your point in the least. If chemical analysis didn't exist or hadn't been discovered yet, the puddle would still be poisoned. It wouldn't be poisoned only if it were demonstrable.
If I choose a different interpretation of this truth and decide it is safe, I will get sick and die anyway. And it doesn’t only apply to humans, it applies to any mammal; if a dog , cat, or any mammal drinks of the water, they will die as well. This is an example of “objective truth” because it can be demonstrated, it applies to everything; not just humans; and there is no debating involved.
Again, this doesn't follow. Whether something can be demonstrated has nothing to do with its existence. Humans discovered radio waves, but did this suddenly become objective parts of reality only when they were demonstrated? Uh, no. Radio waves always existed. Even if humans (or any being with the capacity) never existed, they would still exist.
Is Killing wrong? Yes! How about if I kill an intruder who entered my house armed with a knife and I shoot him because I felt my life was in danger? How about if he didn’t have a knife but he was bigger than me and I was afraid he would kill me with his bare hands? How about if he didn’t enter my house but he was on my property?
Okay so we say murder is wrong. Murder is malicious killing of an innocent human. So who decides guilty or not? The killer just before he pulls the trigger?
Murder is wrong. The dilemmas you present only affirm OM. If there is no OM, then there is no dilemma. Kill whoever you want, when you want. After all, there is nothing objectively wrong with killing someone. Every dilemma you present is appealing to another moral absolute.
You mentioned “rape”. Rape is defined as “non consensual sex. Does this apply to animals? Animals cannot consent so how do they reproduce? Okay so we only apply it to humans. The age of consent in the state of California is 18; next door in Nevada is 16, so if a 17 yr old has sex in California it is rape, but if he goes next door to Nevada, it is okay!
No, it doesn't appeal to animals. I've never heard anyone argue such. OM would only apply to moral creatures. Are you now saying that rape (human rape, just in case you need clarity) is morally justified as a reason to propagate the species? If you are rejecting OM, then you'd have to consent that this is the case.
Regarding the age of consent. Again, you blow up your own position. The age of consent is a subjective interpretation. But of what? It is an interpretation that says there is a way humans OUGHT to act regarding sexuality. The age is irrelevant as is the ability to agree on what age.
These are all interpretations. How can you call something with that many interpretations objective?
How can you say something with that many interpretation is subjective? You are saying someTHING is being interpreted. What THING? You are smuggling in an objective notion in an attempt to shoot it down. An interpretation requires a THING to be interpreted.
I recently purchased my daughter a series on math solutions. It applies unconventional methods to arrive at the correct answers. Although the method is different it arrives at the correct answer. You couldn't do this unless there was an objectively correct answer. You could say it's an interpretation.
Math is demonstrable. Why? Because everybody agrees math is to be based on the number 10. If some people interpret math to be based on 12, 15, or some other number, then you couldn't call it objective
Sure, somethings in math are demonstrable. Some things in morality are demonstrable.
Can the same be said for morality? Truth? Good/Bad? What base are you going to use? Your God? Problem is the next guy is going to use HIS God as the moral base, then someone like me will use no God at all; which results in nobody agreeing on good/bad, right/wrong.
I'm not using my God. Either objective moral values and duties exist or they don't. There are even atheists, such as Sam Harris, who believe in OM. The source is another issue all together. Again, you claim to understand the ontological and epistemological distinctions, but your comments betray a different story. Sure, The existence of OM gives us sound reason to infer a moral law giver. The fact that you don't like that conclusion doesn't change anything. That's all you've really said here. You don't like where it points. That is an emotional objection.
If you could get everybody to agree on a single moral base, and this moral base gave everybody the same information; you would have a case for morality to be objective. But as long as there is as much interpretation as we have concerning truth and morally; it has to be called subjective.
Wait a minute? You just said,
"I’ve never made such a claim (agreement). I have always said morals must be DEMONSTRABLE to be objective."
Note; I am not saying objective morality means everyone will agree, (there will always be some nut-job who will deny the obvious) I’m saying the fact that so many people disagree should be a hint that maybe it isn’t objective.
Sure you've said it, and you've done it multiple times. But no, I've already given you an example. If the class gets the math problem wrong, it doesn't mean that the correct answer isn't objective. What it might hint at is that our methods are faulty, or perhaps our reasoning is faulty. Just like a faulty receiver or antennae may cause us to wrongly interpret those radio waves. If you knew of a society that advocated the torture of puppies as a form of pleasure, would you think that something was wrong with their reasoning? If you are going to be consistent with your position, you'd have to say, no.
Getting back on subject; the OP implied an uncertainty concerning truth. I think this type of uncertainty is the result of trying to believe truth is objective; yet nobody seems to know what it is! I believe to acknowledging truth as subjective will clear up a lot of that confusion and uncertainty.
Ken
Really? Is that objectively the case?
It's not a matter of trying. You do believe OM. You're examples undermine your own position. You made contradictory statements and then try to back peddle out. You pout because you don't like where OM points. Sorry. The arguments for OM are natural theology arguments. It's not a circular argument. Your comments indicate that this is how you see the argument.
Objective moral values exist, therefore the Bible is true.
That isn't the argument.
-“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
