And I actually thought we were getting somewhere until the last section of your second post . . . ah well, let me walk through this whole thing.
IF morality is objective, it must be based on something concrete. It needn't be based on God. IF God set up an objective morality based on Himself, wouldn't it have made sense to also set up an objective means to READ the objective morality?
He has. If we can ever get past the ontological issues, we will address the epistemological ones. As far as this statement here goes, pray tell, what could an objective morality be based on other than God?
Are you saying governments cannot establish codes of conduct (aka "laws") for it's citizens?
No, I'm not.
Are you saying governments cannot punish those who violate laws?
No, I'm not.
Would it not be "wrong" from the government's perspective to violate one of its laws?
Yes, it would.
True, the law may or may not agree with objective morality (if OM even exists), but seeing as there is no way to "read" OM, does it even matter?
How do you know OM can't be read? You are making an epistemological claim. We haven't even discussed that yet.
Perhaps, but they sure undermine the accuracy of the reading.
How? When a scientist makes a subjective reading of some piece of data (being human, he can, of course, make such mistakes), does that undermine the accuracy of other scientists' objective readings of the data?
What "objective" readings?
The one we will get to if we ever get past the ontological question.
Basically, no.
Why not?
Governments do it all the time. The lack of a concrete moral benchmark means "right" and "wrong" tend to vary between cultures and over time - which is EXACTLY the situation that has existed right along.
Wayne, you are contradicting yourself. On one hand, you say that objective morality has to exist outside the mind. On the other side, you say here that governments can decide what is right and wrong. Government statements on right and wrong, though, are in the mind. You can't have it both ways. If morality is rooted in government statements, then, being rooted in the human mind, it is completely subjective and thus cannot be objective.
So, how can a government say something is wrong? If it declared giving to the poor wrong, would that make it wrong, Wayne?
Pretend I agree there is an objective morality. How is it read to determine right from wrong? Shouldn't the answer be the same regardless of who asks the question and when the question is asked?
I can't pretend you agree with it if you keep contradicting your own understanding of it, Wayne. I can't even get you to use the right terminology here. Our "reading" of morality doesn't DETERMINE it. It DISCOVERS it. You may think that is nitpicking, but that is just the kind of ontology/epistemology confusion that you won't acknowledge that has been happening since your first post in this thread (I mean that, you FIRST post here, back when you were complaining about God letting the world play out and not distinguishing between middle knowledge and actuality).
I've told you dozens of times that I am perfectly willing to discuss the epistemological aspects of objective morality. But we can't have that discussion until we have nailed down what objective morality is and what it is not. Your insistence that objective morality can be rooted in government tells me that we still have a deep disagreement over the basic meaning of this word.
What do I have to do to get you to move on to the issues I have? BTW I am refraining from participating in philosophical mind games as I do not wish to obfuscate the discussion.
I'm trying to talk about the issues you have. I can't give you a proper system of morality if we haven't agreed on what morality IS. I'm sorry if you don't want to talk about the philosophy behind this, but this is a philosophical question, Wayne. Perhaps you are only complaining about the vernacular. If so, we determine to defenestrate with all obfuscatory vocabulary so as to ensure perspicuity. But the philosophy is the philosophy. You can't put the cart before the horse. You want me to talk about how human beings read morality, and yet you don't want to talk seriously about what that morality is that they are reading?
Besides, if I recall correctly, this aspect of our conversation came up because you objected to my claim that morality cannot be objective outside of God's existence. You objected to a claim about what morality IS. Why, then, should we move on to another discussion? If you objected to a claim about what morality IS, then shouldn't we talk about our disagreement about what it IS before we move on to talk about how it is known?
Basic philosophy, Wayne. Ontology comes first. THEN comes epistemology. It is evident in the definition of epistemology itself: "The study of how we know." But what do we know? We know things. We know reality (or at least our interpretation of it). That means that it is the study of how we know THINGS, which means before we can discuss how we know "them" we must discuss what "them" is in the first place.
But it DOES impact the validity of the reading. IF an objective morality exists (and I'm assuming one does for argument's sake), it would lose its objective status if it must be "read" subjectively.
WRONG. It does not lose its objective status. Only the reading loses its objective status.
Let me give you an example I'm sure you can agree with. When a creationist looks at the Grand Canyon and uses it as evidence of Noah's Flood, wouldn't you agree he is being subjective in his interpretation of the data? Now, does my subjective reading affect in any way either your objective reading OR the fact that the data itself is still objective and waiting to be treated properly?
It is the presence of the "object" that allows for objectivity. Declaring something "objective" does not prove existence of the related "object".
So long as the object is external to the mind.
Would you agree that a subjective reading reading of an objective entity is no better than a reading of a subjective entity? If not, why not?
For the READING, of course? A subjective reading is a subjective reading no matter what type of object it is. But this is why I am convinced that you do not understand my argument.
My argument is rooted in the nature of morality, not in the nature of our reading of it. I said that if morality is objective, God must exist. I did not say that if our reading of morality is objective, then God must exist. THIS is why we can't move on to discuss the epistemological question until we have settled the ontological one. If you keep interpreting my arguments in light of epistemology, you will miss the entire point.
Do you understand that the subjectivity or objectivity of our epistemology has NO BEARING on my claim that morality itself cannot be objective if God does not exist?
Are you saying governments can't define a code of conduct?
Are you saying governments don't have the right to establish laws to enforce their code of conduct?
Are you saying governments shouldn't punish law-breakers for violating their laws?
I answered these above already. Did you just copy/paste your own response?
If the laws don't define the society's view of "right" and "wrong", what do they do?
Good heavens, how many times have we gone over this? No, society does not DEFINE right and wrong. They DISCOVER it. Look at the words you are using, Wayne.
If society says "X is wrong" then they are saying that it ought not be practiced by ANYONE. They are saying that if someone else says that it is not wrong, then they are MISTAKEN. Thus, it is impossible for society to define morality. They make their laws
based on morality. Do you not understand that the words "right" and "wrong" presuppose objective reality? If there is no objective reality, it is impossible for something to be right or wrong in the first place. Can't you see that?
Or are you just saying that each society's laws may differ from those of other societies? (which they DO, of course),
And that each society's laws may change over time? (which they DO, of course)
Of course they differ, and of course they do. But morality doesn't differ. I've proved this how many times now? Let's use something I've ALREADY said:
- They thought it was right --- They were incorrect. It was wrong
We think it was wrong --- We are right. It was wrong.
Do you see that what we THINK is what changed? What did not change was the fact that it was wrong. Again, you are confusing epistemology (which deals with what we know) and ontology (which deals with what a thing is).
It is as clear as it can possibly be, Wayne. Morality doesn't change. Society's understanding of how to apply it may, but morality does not.
So where is your "objective morality"?
Present in every society since the beginning of time. Every society thinks that honesty and courage are good, that you should not steal or murder. What they disagree on is how to apply those. Who should I be honest to and in what cases? When should I be courageous? Who is it wrong to steal from, and is it really murder if I kill that person rather than this one? Societies may differ on
those questions, but they agree on the fundamental aspects on what is right and wrong.
But we are getting ahead of ourselves, because if our terms are not properly defined, this will be taken as an
ad populum argument. Just because everyone knows murder is wrong (however they may choose to apply that standard) doesn't make it wrong. That would be a SUBJECTIVE statement which can be accounted for by mere evolutionary principles. The question is whether it is REALLY right or REALLY wrong apart from what any society thinks of it. Is it
intrinsically right or wrong? That cannot be the case if there is no God.
If we can objectively know right from wrong, why do right and wrong seem so subjective? (varying between cultures, over time, etc.)
If science is objective, why have scientific ideas varied over time and culture? Because we have to learn.
I really object to the idea that "right" and "wrong" are ONLY meaningful if God exists.
Then you don't believe that there can be right or wrong in any meaningful sense, because it CANNOT BE objective or intrinsic without God. If morality is rooted only in the human mind, it is purely subjective and therefore not real. For the love of God, that is definitional. Didn't you read Byblos' post?
Societies can, should, and do define codes of conduct (aka "laws"). True, these codes of conduct would tend to vary between cultures and across time. And they DO just that!
A code of conduct based on an objective morality, read objectively, should be universal and constant over time. If this is not right, why not? Where is such a code?
[/quote]
You have got to get past this idea that epistemology can affect ontology. You are just wrong. Philosophically wrong. This is just a factually wrong statement. It is incorrect and objectively WRONG. Mistaken. Say that to your philosophy prof and he will mark a big red X over that answer.
Physics is a simple counter example. Have people ALWAYS believed the same things about physics? Do they today? There are some people who still believe in string theory and others who don't. Some who believe in gravitons and some who don't. Some who believe in punctuated equilibrium and some who don't. Are you saying that physics is not objective?
Epistemology does not determine ontology. It is circular and thus
irrational to say that it does.
