Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Theism - The feel in your head

2456711

Comments

  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 2,263
    edited August 2018
    @Grond0

    So again, I think you’re misunderstanding me.

    There are various systems of so-called “morality” in the world. Some of them are objective and some are not. Some are universally applicable, some are not.

    To be clear, on the point of murder: as you pointed out. it is a Christian/Judeo standard was enshrined into law in Western societies. The law may reflect this, as they both mirror each other. But even if you disagree with this, “do not murder” is still a standard in Christian morality. According to the standard of Christian morality, they are not supposed to apply the standard of “Do not murder” to non-Christians but then go ahead and murder if they want to. (This has happened in the past, which is why I use this example: doing so was still against the standard, despite the hypocrisy.)

    To your point about war: this is an example of “discovering” new morality. We have learned that you can, in actuality, murder during war. Western society had never considered something like this in the mainstream before: I think this may have something to do with eastern influence of honor in war.

    To answer the framework questions:
    —in order for a system of so-called “morality” to actually be moral, yes, it must first meet the criteria of objectivity (measurability) and universality (applied across the board) as a minimum. It doesn’t necessarily have to be imposed (though it often is, which may be immoral in and of itself, ironically).
    —I haven’t spoken of the necessity of morality in society in this thread yet. There have been incredibly immoral systems of “morality” within societies, in the past and present, and they do indeed “function”. But the argument for successful society is not an argument for morality; that is a pragmatic/consequentialist argument, and I do not perscribe to that argument at all. In fact, I eschew myself far from that argument. The ends do not justify the means.
    —morality does not always supply the underpinnings of society, though sometimes it does. Societies are built on “what works”, which is not always universal or objective, and in such a case could not be moral. Morality doesn’t necessarily change, but our understanding of what is and isn’t moral does.

    The need for objectivity is from an observable standard of behavior. You cannot factually call someone immoral for what they think or feel, because you don’t know their history or why they feel or think that way. You cannot also call someone moral for what the think or feel, especially when they are doing great harm to others. However, you can derive such from their objective actions.

    Edit: accidentally called out the wrong person.

    ThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 6,997
    @mashedtaters I'm still unsure of the basis for your argument. You've said several times that for something to be moral it must both be objective and universal - but I don't think you've explained why you believe that.

    Your statement that:
    "The need for objectivity is from an observable standard of behavior. You cannot factually call someone immoral for what they think or feel, because you don’t know their history or why they feel or think that way. You cannot also call someone moral for what the think or feel, especially when they are doing great harm to others. However, you can derive such from their objective actions."

    relates to whether someone is acting morally. It says nothing about how moral principles are derived in the first place. I'm happy to debate whether particular actions are moral or not if you want, but I thought the discussion was about whether moral principles are subjective or objective rather than whether specific actions are moral or not.

    mashedtatersThacoBell
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 2,263
    I think I may be not communicating properly. I’ve had some questions from many people here that indicate I’m not doing a good job.

    I drew up this flowchart to show this particular view on determining whether something is universally, objectively moral:


    ThacoBell
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 2,263
    Using this chart, you could determine if something is moral by following the logic.

    Examples:

    Is prohibition of murder moral?
    If it is both universally applied and measured objectively, then the principal can move on to the next step of being determined as moral or immoral.

    Is prohibition of speech moral?
    It could not be moral if it was applied to only a certain group of people.
    It could not be moral if it was subjectively (not objectively) applied based on viewpoint or opinion. You must make the case that prohibition of speech would be objectively applied, which is incredibly controversial and difficult to do.
    If it is not universally applied or objective, then it cannot be moral to prohibit speech.
    (Even if you could apply it universally and be objective about it, you would still have to make the case that it was moral to prohibit speech, which is another thing entirely.)

    FinneousPJThacoBellGrond0
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 2,263
    @Grond0

    So I actually have answered why I believe morality must be both objective and universally applied in order for it to be considered moral.

    But where I think the disconnect here is the definition of morality. In more contemporary times, subjectivists have hijacked the word moral to mean a social agreement. Pragmatists have hijacked the word moral to mean what is best for advancing society.

    I am using the term moral in the traditional sense, as in virtuous, ethical, good, righteous/holy (minus the part about God). Something cannot be virtuous if you do it but not if I do it (universality). In order for it to be ethical, you must have a way to observe it and pass judgement as it being ethical (objectivity).

    What is moral=what humans should do. We can get into the details of this later, but we still aren’t quite past understanding the definitions yet.

    ThacoBell
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 2,263
    Grond0 said:

    It says nothing about how moral principles are derived in the first place. I'm happy to debate whether particular actions are moral or not if you want, but I thought the discussion was about whether moral principles are subjective or objective rather than whether specific actions are moral or not.

    I am deriving what a moral principle is by:

    1. Defining terms, i.e., what “moral” actually is

    2. Using the defintions, determining therefore what could not be moral by process of elimination.

    (There are more steps, fyi. For example, another step will be how to determine what is and is not moral)

  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 6,997
    edited August 2018

    @Grond0

    So I actually have answered why I believe morality must be both objective and universally applied in order for it to be considered moral.

    But where I think the disconnect here is the definition of morality. In more contemporary times, subjectivists have hijacked the word moral to mean a social agreement. Pragmatists have hijacked the word moral to mean what is best for advancing society.

    I am using the term moral in the traditional sense, as in virtuous, ethical, good, righteous/holy (minus the part about God). Something cannot be virtuous if you do it but not if I do it (universality). In order for it to be ethical, you must have a way to observe it and pass judgement as it being ethical (objectivity).

    What is moral=what humans should do. We can get into the details of this later, but we still aren’t quite past understanding the definitions yet.

    I'm afraid we're stuck right at the beginning if you still think it's necessary to agree a shared definition before going forwards ;).

    You're starting from the presumption that something can only be moral if it's universal and objective - but I don't agree with either of those.

    In relation to universality it's clear to me (and I'm sure to you) that the same action can be regarded by one person as right and another as wrong. In order therefore to regard universality as a necessary pre-condition for something virtuous, you require the existence of a set of moral principles that's independent of either person. That could be something imposed by a deity, but you've ruled that out. It could be the result of a developing shared understanding in society, but such an understanding would never be perfectly shared, so there will always be subjectivity about what is the 'true' morality (see my earlier posts for distinguishing between the subjectivity of morals and the objectivity of laws that derive from those morals). It could also be that morals are effectively success factors for a particular society and that might fit in with your view that moral principles have always existed and are gradually being discovered over time. I don't think though that there is a single measure of what makes a successful society.

    I think the question of objectivity essentially derives from the consideration of universality. Most people will have a sense of whether their actions are right or wrong without asking others, so objectivity is only relevant if you consider that there is a set of moral principles that exist independently of the beliefs of individuals.

    If you want to continue the discussion, then how about just setting out the framework you want to use and I'll try to argue within that?

    mashedtaters
  • DrHappyAngryDrHappyAngry Member Posts: 1,577
    About the only universally agreed upon crime is murdering a kinsperson without justification. That justification can really vary from group, to group, though. A huge amount of societies throughout history were totally cool with murdering somebody from outside your group, or even within to take control or for some minor slight. To some point, it might even be said apes even follow this rule. Of course you can wind up with killing for control of a tribe, but it's generally within the rules of the group. There are always exceptions or people willing to look the other way, however.

    I know it's subjective, but I do not believe all points of view are equal. A society that owns slaves, or sacrifices every third child so the sun will come up, or believes in the eradication of other races is not an equal view point to societies that allow free thinking, disallows slavery and human sacrifice. Today, most people might think of this as objective, but they're all rather common points of view throughout history that people were OK with.

    So some of you are probably aware, I'm an atheist. I just have the requirement of evidence before I believe in something. Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." and I really agree with that statement. I love the quote by Douglas Adams that goes

    "If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god – in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It’s easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously."

    I do like to say, if I were a Christian, I'd be a gnostic. It's one of the more interesting heresies, a fusion of Greek philosophy and Judeo-Christain beliefs. Some of them believed that the creator god, sometimes Yahweh, was either blind/malevolent/irrational. Gnosis, the soul or sacred knowledge is actually the bit of the real supreme deity leaking goodness/rationality/sacred knowledge into our universe. This is a gross over simplification of a theology, but not a terrible way to condense it to a few sentences.

    Grond0
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,175
    "But the most remarkable thing is this. whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking on to him he will be complaining 'It's not fair' before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there iis no such ting as Right and Wrong--in other words, if there is no Law of Nature--what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?" -C.S. Lewis

    Someone can tell me they believe that morals are subjective. But if I were to punch them in the face, or do something that put them in the hospital, they would view it as a wrong upon themselves. Any explanation I could try to give would not convince them that my harming them was good for them.

    BelgarathMTHGrond0mashedtaters
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,175
    “I only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of doublecrossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might as well imagine a country in where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired.” C.S. Lewis

    BelgarathMTHGrond0mashedtaters
  • BelgarathMTHBelgarathMTH Member Posts: 5,639
    edited August 2018
    Isn't what C.S. Lewis means by "the Law of Nature" in the two quotes above almost the same thing @mashedtaters is trying to get at with his model of analyzing morality by asking whether a principle is both "universally applicable" and "objectively verifiable" as a starting point for making moral decisions?

    Also, do I smell a whiff of Kant's "Categorical Imperative" in some of these arguments? I've always found the good old Categorical Imperative to be very helpful in practical application during "on the ground" daily decision making, although I think it starts to break down and become less helpful during very complicated decision making, as it asks us to imagine a world where our own actions are universally applied, and then to ask ourselves whether we want to live in that world; sometimes, issues and situations which require us to make a decision and take action are so complicated in their potential consequences, we cannot in fact imagine the outcome as Kant asks us to do.

    ThacoBellmashedtaters
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 6,997
    ThacoBell said:

    Someone can tell me they believe that morals are subjective. But if I were to punch them in the face, or do something that put them in the hospital, they would view it as a wrong upon themselves. Any explanation I could try to give would not convince them that my harming them was good for them.

    I think what CS Lewis got right is that people generally have a sense of right and wrong. That does not mean though that everyone shares the same opinion about what is right and wrong. I'm sure it's the case that, if someone hit you, most of the time you would consider that to be unfair - but that won't always be so. If you had been acting unreasonably then, at least once emotions had cooled, you might well agree you needed to be stopped. Those on the receiving end of 'tough love' will typically resent that at the time, but not always in the longer term.

    As for selfishness never having been admired, that's a rather 19th century British, elitist, viewpoint. Selfishness is the base for a large part of economic theory and has come in for its share of admiration - think of the 80s and 'greed is good'. Thankfully that sentiment had largely gone out of fashion in recent years, but I think it's now staging something of a comeback. I remember in the early days of the Trump administration, he was commenting on the latest casualty of his reshuffles and said something along the lines of 'he did a good job and I hope he makes a tremendous amount of money'. I find that really grates on me, even in retrospect, but I can't imagine Trump arguing that selfishness is wrong.

    Balrog99ThacoBellBelgarathMTHmashedtaters
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,160
    edited August 2018
    Wow, this thread is really interesting. We seem to have an abundance of philosophers in this forum. I'll throw out a moral conundrum I've never been able to figure out myself ( I can't help playing Devil's advocate). >:)

    A defense attorney is obligated to do his very best to represent his client. He/she accepts a client accused of murder. The client is presumed innocent initially but somewhere along the line the lawyer discovers that the client is guilty. In fact, evidence that the prosecuter hasn't discovered prove the client's guilt. What do you do as that defense attorney?

    Grond0ThacoBellFinneousPJmashedtaters
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,833
    @Balrog99: That's an ugly one. The traditional operating procedure for a lawyer is to represent their client as best they can, knowing that the lawyer on the other side will do the same.

    I'm inclined to agree. On average, it's just as likely that the prosecutor secretly has evidence that the client is innocent. The defense attorney defends his client whether s/he is innocent or guilty just as the prosecutor attacks the defendant whether s/he is innocent or guilty. The very premise of this legal system is that both prosecution and defense play their roles as best as they can.

    Put it another way: if the trial isn't even over yet, what gives the defense attorney the authority to decide that his client is definitely guilty and deserves no defense? The defense attorney can believe their client is innocent or guilty--there's nothing wrong with that--but deliberately failing to defend their client would be equivalent to giving oneself the power of judge and jury.

    My answer: The defense attorney doesn't have complete information, which means s/he could be wrong about the client's guilt. Since the client might be innocent, it would be unwise to sabotage the client's defense. Instead, s/he should trust the judge and jury, with their superior collective brainpower and access to information from both sides, to make a more informed decision.

    The rule: Don't assume you know better than everyone else, even if you think you know something they don't.

    Grond0ThacoBellmashedtaters
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 6,997
    edited August 2018
    @{Edit - I see @semiticgod got in first, but I'll leave my answer as it has a slightly different angle}.

    The legal position is that a lawyer is entitled to represent someone who he knows is guilty and the lawyer should do his best to get them acquitted. The presumption is that the lawyer never really knows whether someone is guilty (even if they say they are they might just be trying to protect someone else) and should therefore do their best and leave questions of guilt to the judge and jury. The argument is that's the only way to ensure fair treatment for everyone. However, the lawyer should not lie as part of his defense - for instance putting forward an alibi he knows to be untrue. Defense counsel is not required to provide information to the prosecution, but if the defendant asks the lawyer to lie, he should resign.

    The legal position of course may be different from the moral one. Like so many moral questions it's difficult to give a simple answer as so much depends on the individual case. I can see some force in the argument that a lawyer should not let his personal beliefs impact on his job, but I wouldn't be comfortable myself with trying to get an acquittal for someone I believed to be guilty.

    This dilemma is of course another instance of subjectivity rearing its ugly head. There is a moral principle involved in ensuring the judicial process applies equally to all people - whether or not you believe them to be guilty. That will sometimes conflict with the moral principle that guilty people should be punished. Different people will have different views about which principle should be dominant in any particular case ...

    semiticgoddessThacoBellBelgarathMTHmashedtaters
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,175
    @Grond0 "I think what CS Lewis got right is that people generally have a sense of right and wrong. That does not mean though that everyone shares the same opinion about what is right and wrong. I'm sure it's the case that, if someone hit you, most of the time you would consider that to be unfair - but that won't always be so."

    That's mixing different situations though. My example was specifically a case me punching someone in the face unprovoked, at random. Any person in that situation would immediately feel wronged.

    mashedtaters
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 6,997
    edited August 2018
    ThacoBell said:

    That's mixing different situations though. My example was specifically a case me punching someone in the face unprovoked, at random. Any person in that situation would immediately feel wronged.

    @ThacoBell I don't disagree. I think there is significant overlap between people's appreciation of what is right and wrong and there will be situations where you get almost unanimous agreement. However, there are also many situations where you won't get agreement, which is why I struggle with the idea of morals as objective. If you're religious and believe that morals are god-given that's fair enough, but I don't believe that. Apart from that it's necessary to fall back on variations of the theme that some people have a better understanding of morals than others - which itself I find morally problematic and potentially in conflict with the sort of example you posed of everyone agreeing about the morality (or lack thereof of certain actions).

    BelgarathMTHmashedtaters
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    Balrog99 said:

    Wow, this thread is really interesting. We seem to have an abundance of philosophers in this forum. I'll throw out a moral conundrum I've never been able to figure out myself ( I can't help playing Devil's advocate). >:)

    A defense attorney is obligated to do his very best to represent his client. He/she accepts a client accused of murder. The client is presumed innocent initially but somewhere along the line the lawyer discovers that the client is guilty. In fact, evidence that the prosecuter hasn't discovered prove the client's guilt. What do you do as that defense attorney?

    Well given the choice of the word "prove" I would have to refuse representing the client. If you said the lawyer had evidence not quite as strong as to prove guilt (which probably isn't even possible IRL) then I agree the lawyer should do his best to represent the case and let the system work.

    Btw @semiticgod the legal system does not address innocence, only guilt. You are found guilty or not guilty. Innocence is a separate issue.

    Grond0mashedtaters
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,175
    @Grond0 Are you saying that someone will accept a random assault on their person as good for them?

    mashedtaters
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,833
    @ThacoBell: I think that's one of those questions that answers itself. :wink:

    mashedtaters
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 6,997
    ThacoBell said:

    @Grond0 Are you saying that someone will accept a random assault on their person as good for them?

    Well, I said almost unanimous above. I think you always need to reserve a small possibility to allow for the fact that people feel so differently about things. For instance think about how a masochist might feel, or someone with very low self-esteem, or someone who's been a slave all their life and regards that as their natural condition. In all those cases I still think it's likely that they would regard an unprovoked assault as wrong, but I can see the possibility they might not (then of course you get into how a 3rd party impartial observer would regard an action ...).

    That's really splitting hairs though - as I said above I agree with your point about the assault. Do you agree with my point that there are moral dilemmas where there will never be unanimity about whether something is right or wrong because there are competing moral principles and there will not be common agreement about how to balance these?

    semiticgoddessThacoBellmashedtaters
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,175
    @Grond0 "For instance think about how a masochist might feel, or someone with very low self-esteem, or someone who's been a slave all their life and regards that as their natural condition"

    Two of those three examples are unhealthy mental states, one of which is brought about by physical and mental abuse. I don't really have an answer for the masochist. Maybe they would view it as non-consensual? I dunno.

    "Do you agree with my point that there are moral dilemmas where there will never be unanimity about whether something is right or wrong because there are competing moral principles and there will not be common agreement about how to balance these?"

    Lack of common agreement does not mean something is potentially good. Would you argue that Nazism is potentially good because some people think it is? (Way to go Thaco, you've just followed interent law and went straight to Nazis :s )

    mashedtaters
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    @BelgarathMTH Quite. I was expecting @mashedtaters to offer a theistic argument for morality, or indeed the moral argument for god, but he kind of sidestepped it. Still an interesting conversation! Thanks for bringing that up, though. Obviously as a nonbeliever I find all the classical arguments weak. Do you (or other posters) disagree? Is there a good argument for theism?

    ThacoBellmashedtatersBelgarathMTH
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,175
    edited August 2018
    @FinneousPJ Would you count an argument against naturalism as an argument for Theism?

    Naturalism states that nothing exists outside of the physical world. That without reasoned inferences derived from observed facts, it simply cannot be. So reason must be an absolute.

    The problem is that this is self contradicting. If we are to accept this worldview, we must also accept that reason is just the accidental byproduct of what was, at first, thoughtless matter. It is accepting a conclusion that contradicts the only reasoning on which the conclusion is based on.

    So if naturalism is false, then the metaphysical exists. So denouncing theism on the lack of physicallity is also similarly false.

    Grond0FinneousPJ
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 6,997
    ThacoBell said:

    Lack of common agreement does not mean something is potentially good. Would you argue that Nazism is potentially good because some people think it is? (Way to go Thaco, you've just followed interent law and went straight to Nazis :s )

    @ThacoBell I think this is the same issue that cropped up earlier in the thread. When I'm talking about moral principles I'm referring to how people distinguish right from wrong - not whether some action is right in itself. If people weight moral principles differently that can lead to some people saying a particular action is right and others wrong.

    In your earlier post I admitted that nearly all people would consider making an unprovoked assault wrong. The same would be true about views on Nazism (though there are plenty of people who support some elements of that ideology). That doesn't change the fact though that there are many situations in which there will be no consensus at all about what's right and wrong. Some of those have been referred to in the past in the politics thread, like stealing to feed a hungry child. Do you accept that there is not always a consensus as to what is right and what is wrong?

    FinneousPJThacoBell
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    ThacoBell said:

    @FinneousPJ Would you count an argument against naturalism as an argument for Theism?

    Naturalism states that nothing exists outside of the physical world. That without reasoned inferences derived from observed facts, it simply cannot be. So reason must be an absolute.

    The problem is that this is self contradicting. If we are to accept this worldview, we must also accept that reason is just the accidental byproduct of what was, at first, thoughtless matter. It is accepting a conclusion that contradicts the only reasoning on which the conclusion is based on.

    So if naturalism is false, then the metaphysical exists. So denouncing theism on the lack of physicallity is also similarly false.

    Well no. An argument for X should be an argument for X, not an argument against Y. An argument for X can be an argument against not X, but that's not what you did.

    Just to humour you, I also don't accept your argument against naturalism. There is no evidence that suggests our reasoning is not a natural thing.

    ThacoBellBelgarathMTH
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,175
    @Grond0 I'm saying that consensus is not evidence for something being right or wrong. How would you weigh consensus? I'm sure white supremacists have consensus that they all other skin colors are inherently inferior. Likewise, non-white supremacist people have consesnsus that white supremacist people are full of crap. What makes one consensus weighted more than the other? If "Right" and "Wrong" are truely subjective, then it would not only be possible, but reasonable for someone to argue why Nazism is "Good".

    @FinneousPJ "Just to humour you, I also don't accept your argument against naturalism. There is no evidence that suggests our reasoning is not a natural thing."

    There is also no evidence to suggest that our reasoning is a natural thing. We just kind of... have it. That's the main point of my argument.

    FinneousPJ
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    edited August 2018
    ThacoBell said:

    @Grond0 I'm saying that consensus is not evidence for something being right or wrong. How would you weigh consensus? I'm sure white supremacists have consensus that they all other skin colors are inherently inferior. Likewise, non-white supremacist people have consesnsus that white supremacist people are full of crap. What makes one consensus weighted more than the other? If "Right" and "Wrong" are truely subjective, then it would not only be possible, but reasonable for someone to argue why Nazism is "Good".

    @FinneousPJ "Just to humour you, I also don't accept your argument against naturalism. There is no evidence that suggests our reasoning is not a natural thing."

    There is also no evidence to suggest that our reasoning is a natural thing. We just kind of... have it. That's the main point of my argument.

    So if you concede we have no evidence either way why are you drawing a conclusion that it is not natural? That doesn't make any sense. At best you can say we have no idea, and therefore the premise of your theistic argument is not sound.

    EDIT: Also isn't the whole argument trivial. You're basically saying

    If X isn't natural, then the supernatural exists. Well, obviously. Now all that's left is to show X isn't natural!

    EDIT2: Sloppy language let's try again

    If X exists and isn't natural, then something not natural exists. Let's call it the supernatural. Still seems trivial to me.

    BelgarathMTH
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 6,997
    ThacoBell said:

    @Grond0 I'm saying that consensus is not evidence for something being right or wrong. How would you weigh consensus? I'm sure white supremacists have consensus that they all other skin colors are inherently inferior. Likewise, non-white supremacist people have consesnsus that white supremacist people are full of crap. What makes one consensus weighted more than the other? If "Right" and "Wrong" are truely subjective, then it would not only be possible, but reasonable for someone to argue why Nazism is "Good".

    @ThacoBell if you don't accept people's views about right and wrong, then do you think democracy is a poor system given that depends on people's views?

    I don't really think it's meaningful to talk about morality being truly objective and existing outside people's consciousness. That's because there is no evidence for any particular set of objective moral principles and I don't see how there ever could be (some groups of people may accept one particular set, e.g. as part of a religious belief, but that is done without evidence). In the absence of evidence those objective moral principles can only be interpreted subjectively - either by people deducing them for themselves or listening to others telling them what they are. The moral principles people are actually using will thus in any case be subjective, not objective, so it really doesn't matter whether or not there is some meta-physical set of genuinely objective principles.

    FinneousPJmashedtatersThacoBell
This discussion has been closed.