tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post3628260405883471490..comments2023-06-13T19:06:50.965-07:00Comments on Oasis: Origin of Human Value & PurposeKarlahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-44938476431641344192009-06-23T14:39:19.538-07:002009-06-23T14:39:19.538-07:00I liked GCT's circle exercise, and my previous...I liked GCT's circle exercise, and my previous comments to Karla still stand. I think a large part of the problem between GCT and Karla here is semantic - 'degrees of perfection' is itself a paradoxical term - hence seems destined to confuse. As we can't go more north than the north pole, we can't go more perfect than perfect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-58386968663671304622009-06-23T11:46:58.830-07:002009-06-23T11:46:58.830-07:00I thought of a good way to explain why the followi...I thought of a good way to explain why the following statement of yours is wrong:<br /><br />"BTW, degrees of perfection are meaningless without the existence of perfection."<br /><br />Do you agree that we can imagine a perfectly round circle? We can develop a definition of a perfectly round circle - the locus of points that are equidistant from a single focal point.<br /><br />Now, imagine that I draw two circles, circle A and circle B. If we measure the distance from the center of circle A to every point on the line that forms circle A, and then do the same with circle B, I think we can decide which one is more "circular." Are you with me so far?<br /><br />In essence, what we have just done is established degrees of perfection, without the need of a perfect circle to measure against. In fact, we know of no perfect circles that exist in reality, and I doubt that you would say that a perfect circle does exist anywhere other than as an abstract idea in our minds (if you do hold that a perfect circle exists, then you also should hold that every shape has a corresponding perfect shape, as would everything else that we can judge, leading to an impossible absurdity of perfect things). IOW, we've just shown that we can have degrees of perfection without the existence of perfection.<br /><br />"Not quiet. The essence of it is that a real good exists and that morality is an attempt on the part of humans to conform to what is right and we all fail to accurately do that. Some get closer to what is right than others, but that standard is not based on my assumptions but on something external to me and to you."<br /><br />It's a circular argument without an evidentiary basis.<br /><br />"I'm waiting for a comment from you on my last post before I continue to answer some of the questions others are asking me."<br /><br />I'll look it over when I get a chance.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-6656549790436674002009-06-23T07:39:12.547-07:002009-06-23T07:39:12.547-07:00GCT "Your argument boils down to asserting th...GCT "Your argument boils down to asserting that some "really real" morality exists, and then claiming that all the morality that we develop as humans is somehow not really real and that unless it conforms to your assumption, then it's not right and therefore only your assumption is valid."<br /><br />Not quiet. The essence of it is that a real good exists and that morality is an attempt on the part of humans to conform to what is right and we all fail to accurately do that. Some get closer to what is right than others, but that standard is not based on my assumptions but on something external to me and to you. <br /><br />Further that good is rooted in the Being of God. I'm going to get into more explanation on that soon. <br /><br />I just wrote a new post trying to rehash this discussion without using the words we keep getting hung up over "objective" "subjective" and "absolute" lets abandon them for now and see if we can get some clarity on what we are discussion.<br /><br />I'm waiting for a comment from you on my last post before I continue to answer some of the questions others are asking me.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-46399855108090317542009-06-23T06:01:03.570-07:002009-06-23T06:01:03.570-07:00Karla,
"Something being in our genes or not d...Karla,<br />"Something being in our genes or not doesn’t make it a moral value."<br /><br />Never said that it did.<br /><br />"Survival of our humanity is something we may like, but it is not something more right than our extinction."<br /><br />To us it is.<br /><br />"We don’t like to die out, but we cannot say naturalistically that we ought not do things that would cause us to die out."<br /><br />I don't see why not.<br /><br />"But they are not true to a real standard of what is good, but only developed according to what we think best."<br /><br />Using reason and empirical knowledge, which BTW, is a real standard.<br /><br />"BTW, degrees of perfection are meaningless without the existence of perfection."<br /><br />Wrong again. There need not be an actual being or thing that is "perfect" for us to conceive of it.<br /><br />"That which truly is."<br /><br />What does that mean in terms of morality or the number "3"? You're asserting that these things actually exist as entities?<br /><br />"If they aren’t discovered we have the argument you or Cyber give and that doesn’t, in my estimation thus far, provide a framework for real morality."<br /><br />I'm going to wholesale reject your argument, and this is why:<br /><br />Your argument boils down to asserting that some "really real" morality exists, and then claiming that all the morality that we develop as humans is somehow not really real and that unless it conforms to your assumption, then it's not right and therefore only your assumption is valid.<br /><br />"It is steeped in meaningless proposals because it is asserting one way is better than another without any reference point of perfect good."<br /><br />It's not meaningless simply because an absolute doesn't exist.<br /><br />"All you are really left with is liking one thing better than another based on subjective feelings and thoughts."<br /><br />And reason and empiricism.<br /><br />"Even if you want to call it objective because it is a set of rules regardless of how developed it is still not binding in any way on a person."<br /><br />That's what we actually see, sadly.<br /><br />"One can say all day long it is better not to murder, but that doesn’t mean the next person has any real moral reason to follow that rule."<br /><br />Well, they do, based on empiricism and reason. They may not follow it, and sadly people don't always follow it.<br /><br />"What is your explanation for that?"<br /><br />People don't always act rationally. I'll note that you don't have a good answer for it, so you might want to clean up your own house in this regard.<br /><br />"Maybe we need to introduce another term if we can’t agree on the correct use of the word “objective”."<br /><br />Or, maybe you should use it in the correct way.<br /><br />"Origin matters a great deal. Did the rules of the game have objective origin or subjective origin?"<br /><br />You are really confused now. You've said that card game rules can be objective, have you not? If that is the case, then you have to agree that even if I formulated the rules that they are objective to me as well as you. If the rules of a card game that I develop are subjective to me, does that mean they become objective to me if someone else writes them? The fact that I'm even having the write the clause "to me" means that you've reversed your stance that card game rules are objective, despite the erroneous rah-rahing from other commenters recently.<br /><br />"I am maintaining that the existence of morals rules/laws/values/principals/ethics are reflections sometimes more accurate sometimes less accurate of the ideal of God’s perfect goodness."<br /><br />Something that you have yet to fully explain or demonstrate. This is an appeal to absolutism, which you also deny. Also, what does "god's perfect goodness" mean?GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-47127337742812835822009-06-21T10:05:46.743-07:002009-06-21T10:05:46.743-07:00Karla: "GCT, I'm not arguing 1+1 equaling...Karla: "GCT, I'm not arguing 1+1 equaling 2 is subjective."<br /><br />GCT: "Yes, you are."<br /><br />Karla: "I am saying the one could argue argue that the signs were at one point subjectively chosen."<br /><br />GCT: "Hence, you are saying that 1+1=2 is subjective."<br /><br />I submit that Karla's correct in this particular sub-regard. Arguing that different symbols could have been used to represent said numbers does not entail that she's argued said arithmetic is subjective. If we use <i>Y</i> to designate a single instance of something, and <i>Z</i> to designate dual instances of something, the objective arithmetic would be the same: Y + Y would still = Z, just as 1=1 always = 2.<br /><br />I'm not sure where you guys are talking past each other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-3157349644868248602009-06-18T06:41:20.491-07:002009-06-18T06:41:20.491-07:00GTC “Again, it is inherent in our genetic makeup a...GTC “Again, it is inherent in our genetic makeup as social animals. Damaging the human species gene pool actually makes us less fit to propagate our species (as we can see from the problems that very inbred dogs experience, for one example).”<br /><br />Something being in our genes or not doesn’t make it a moral value. Survival of our humanity is something we may like, but it is not something more right than our extinction. We don’t like to die out, but we cannot say naturalistically that we ought not do things that would cause us to die out. <br /><br /><br /><br />”By the same processes that I've been outlining for some time. Geez. Using reason, we develop moral objectives (or objective morals).”<br /><br />But they are not true to a real standard of what is good, but only developed according to what we think best. BTW, degrees of perfection are meaningless without the existence of perfection. <br /><br />I had said "But I think there are those that we discover that are really real."<br /><br />GCT “What do you mean by "really real?" <br /><br />That which truly is. <br /><br />GCT “You throw that term around a lot without ever defining it.”<br /><br />Sorry. I’ll try to correct that. <br /><br />GCT “And, what evidence do you have that any moral rule was "discovered?"”<br /><br />If they aren’t discovered we have the argument you or Cyber give and that doesn’t, in my estimation thus far, provide a framework for real morality. It is steeped in meaningless proposals because it is asserting one way is better than another without any reference point of perfect good. All you are really left with is liking one thing better than another based on subjective feelings and thoughts. Even if you want to call it objective because it is a set of rules regardless of how developed it is still not binding in any way on a person. One can say all day long it is better not to murder, but that doesn’t mean the next person has any real moral reason to follow that rule. It may be in their own best interest at the time to ignore it regardless of what that will do to humanity at large. I see a world that doesn’t do what’s best for humanity all the time. Those people exist in all generations and each of us are those people who don’t do what we know we ought. What is your explanation for that? <br /><br /><br />GCT “Yes. I am using it in the correct sense, you are conflating it with "absolute."<br /><br />Maybe we need to introduce another term if we can’t agree on the correct use of the word “objective”. <br /><br />"I am still maintaining that objective is that which does not originate in the human mind whereas you are arguing that even when it does it can be objective to others."<br /><br />GCT “ If I create a rule for a card game, it's objective to me as well, even though I created it. Again, origin does not matter.”<br /><br />Origin matters a great deal. Did the rules of the game have objective origin or subjective origin? <br /><br />GCT “How is this different from your definition of objective? Secondly, that is not what "absolute" necessarily means. "Absolute" in this sense would mean true for all at all times in all conditions. If you claim that murder is wrong, no matter who is doing it, when it is done, and to whom, that would be an absolute, not an objective claim (it could also be objective, but we would need to know more about it in order to know for sure).”<br /><br />I am maintaining that the existence of morals rules/laws/values/principals/ethics are reflections sometimes more accurate sometimes less accurate of the ideal of God’s perfect goodness. Some we discover, some we are given divinely, some intuitively, and some we create falsely.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-27261808643057282062009-06-15T07:36:58.254-07:002009-06-15T07:36:58.254-07:00"You are assuming all human survival is a goo..."You are assuming all human survival is a good thing that ought to be desired."<br /><br />No, I'm not assuming anything.<br /><br />"If one race murders another, humans still survive, just not those humans. What really stops someone morally from annihilating what they perceive as an inferior or troublesome race or people of a certain culture or belief?"<br /><br />Again, it is inherent in our genetic makeup as social animals. Damaging the human species gene pool actually makes us less fit to propagate our species (as we can see from the problems that very inbred dogs experience, for one example).<br /><br />"So your saying I ought not do what I know doesn't feel good to me to another. How do you get to that as a moral objective/imperative?"<br /><br />By the same processes that I've been outlining for some time. Geez. Using reason, we develop moral objectives (or objective morals).<br /><br />"I agree we do create some rules, for instance traffic laws and cultural rules that come and go."<br /><br />I would hope you could agree to something that is empirically true.<br /><br />"But I think there are those that we discover that are really real."<br /><br />What do you mean by "really real?" You throw that term around a lot without ever defining it. And, what evidence do you have that any moral rule was "discovered?"<br /><br />"I think we are still equating different meanings to the term objective."<br /><br />Yes. I am using it in the correct sense, you are conflating it with "absolute."<br /><br />"I am still maintaining that objective is that which does not originate in the human mind whereas you are arguing that even when it does it can be objective to others."<br /><br />You've already conceded on this point by agreeing with me that math and card games have objective rules, even though they originated in a human mind. And, no, I'm not saying "it can be objective to others." I'm saying that, "it can be objective period." If I create a rule for a card game, it's objective to me as well, even though I created it. Again, origin does not matter.<br /><br />"Cyber, I believe, is arguing that morals can only originate in the human mind and can only be subjective."<br /><br />I think CK and I are very close on this, she just happens to also be confused about what the actual definitions of the words mean.<br /><br />"GCT I think you see the way I am using the word "objective" as what you term "absolute.""<br /><br />Well, yes. That's because you are confating the two.<br /><br />"I see absolute as something being self-existing without relation to another outside of itself and by that definition I cannot term morals as that."<br /><br />How is this different from your definition of objective? Secondly, that is not what "absolute" necessarily means. "Absolute" in this sense would mean true for all at all times in all conditions. If you claim that murder is wrong, no matter who is doing it, when it is done, and to whom, that would be an absolute, not an objective claim (it could also be objective, but we would need to know more about it in order to know for sure).GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-87554315635675644122009-06-15T07:03:31.622-07:002009-06-15T07:03:31.622-07:00"Both. We have evolutionarily evolved to find..."Both. We have evolutionarily evolved to find murder to be wrong (again, species that don't do this don't tend to survive). In this sense, it is wrong irrespective of human acceptance."<br /><br />You are assuming all human survival is a good thing that ought to be desired. If one race murders another, humans still survive, just not those humans. What really stops someone morally from annihilating what they perceive as an inferior or troublesome race or people of a certain culture or belief? <br /><br /><br /> "We also practice empathy and reason which also lead to the conclusion that murder would be wrong. We also create rules to follow."<br /><br />So your saying I ought not do what I know doesn't feel good to me to another. How do you get to that as a moral objective/imperative? <br /><br />I agree we do create some rules, for instance traffic laws and cultural rules that come and go. <br /><br />But I think there are those that we discover that are really real. <br /><br />I think we are still equating different meanings to the term objective. I am still maintaining that objective is that which does not originate in the human mind whereas you are arguing that even when it does it can be objective to others. Cyber, I believe, is arguing that morals can only originate in the human mind and can only be subjective. <br /><br />GCT I think you see the way I am using the word "objective" as what you term "absolute." I see absolute as something being self-existing without relation to another outside of itself and by that definition I cannot term morals as that.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-3892436524531226742009-06-13T14:07:28.568-07:002009-06-13T14:07:28.568-07:00"GCT, I'm not arguing 1+1 equaling 2 is s..."GCT, I'm not arguing 1+1 equaling 2 is subjective."<br /><br />Yes, you are.<br /><br />"I am saying the one could argue argue that the signs were at one point subjectively chosen."<br /><br />Hence, you are saying that 1+1=2 is subjective.<br /><br />"However, I agree that if you want to be taken seriously in math you use the accepted digits to do math and you aren't subjectively choosing them now, they are what they are, thus objective in that context."<br /><br />And, thus you've just contradicted yourself. Congrats.<br /><br />"Same with a card game. To the players now using those rules they are objective. But they originated subjectively. "<br /><br />Same comment as above. Congrats for contradicting yourself.<br /><br />"Is murder really wrong irrespective of human acceptance of that fact, or is it only wrong because humans have set forth that as a rule?"<br /><br />Both. We have evolutionarily evolved to find murder to be wrong (again, species that don't do this don't tend to survive). In this sense, it is wrong irrespective of human acceptance. We also practice empathy and reason which also lead to the conclusion that murder would be wrong. We also create rules to follow.<br /><br />This is a side question, however, as to whether morality can be objective or subjective or absolute. Until you can clear up your own contradictions and realize that they arise because the arguments I've made are correct, we'll continue to go in circles.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-59388771660005012832009-06-13T10:54:02.751-07:002009-06-13T10:54:02.751-07:00GCT, I'm not arguing 1+1 equaling 2 is subject...GCT, I'm not arguing 1+1 equaling 2 is subjective. I am saying the one could argue argue that the signs were at one point subjectively chosen. Using the digit 1 to signify a singular thing rather than using a different mark to do so like using roman numerals or some other sign. The signified the real remains the same, but what we use to represent it may vary. <br /><br />However, I agree that if you want to be taken seriously in math you use the accepted digits to do math and you aren't subjectively choosing them now, they are what they are, thus objective in that context. <br /><br />Same with a card game. To the players now using those rules they are objective. But they originated subjectively. <br /><br />What I am getting at with morality, is there a real that we are representing such as the real of 1+1 = 2 or is it something we simply have decided upon? Is murder really wrong irrespective of human acceptance of that fact, or is it only wrong because humans have set forth that as a rule? I think Cyber is taking the latter position and I the former. I'm not quiet sure yet which you are taking, you seem to have a third response.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-89479955985276146282009-06-12T16:53:33.686-07:002009-06-12T16:53:33.686-07:00No. The numbers are objective. I ask you as well...No. The numbers are objective. I ask you as well as CK to demonstrate how one can interpret 1+1=2 in a subjective way. How can personal bias or feelings sway the statement 1+1=2? You can say all you want that math is subjective, but it doesn't make it so. Simply because it was human made doesn't make it subjective! I am as baffled by your inability to grasp this as anything else that you've said.<br /><br />"Someone designed the game of poker and decided what the rules would be. That person didn't discover the rules that really govern poker for poker was an invented game with invented rules."<br /><br />Am I talking to myself here? Once again, it has nothing to do with origins! It doesn't matter whether the rules were made up or discovered (BTW, hands win on the basis of statistical improbability of patterns, where the more improbable hand wins). The fact is that the rules are objective to players who deal a hand of poker. There is no interpretation. There is no personal bias. There is no feeling. Please tell me how one can play a subjective hand of poker if you are going to insist on this inanity.<br /><br />"Morality either falls into this category of subjectively being created by what man feels or thinks the rules should be or it is objectively real and man ought not murder because murder is really wrong and not decided by man to be wrong."<br /><br />False dichotomy.<br /><br />"GCT, you seem to be taking the view that while their is not a real behind morals that they are still objective because their are man made created rules that we all ought to follow. It seems you are arguing the same as Cyber but using objective instead of subjective to define your position."<br /><br />No, and the fact that I've explained my position multiple times and you still won't accurately represent it is rather disappointing. It's one thing to disagree, but to be at the point where you won't even acknowledge what the other person is arguing is something else entirely.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-68595718618814702122009-06-12T15:02:35.129-07:002009-06-12T15:02:35.129-07:00Math is objective in that if you have one item and...Math is objective in that if you have one item and add it to another item it is really two items. But the numbers used to represent that reality may be subjectively chosen. The signs that refer to the signified may be subjectively representative of the real, but the real remains objective. <br /><br /><br />Card game rules and sports rules are created subjectively based on the rules the creator thought best. Someone designed the game of poker and decided what the rules would be. That person didn't discover the rules that really govern poker for poker was an invented game with invented rules. <br /><br />Morality either falls into this category of subjectively being created by what man feels or thinks the rules should be or it is objectively real and man ought not murder because murder is really wrong and not decided by man to be wrong. <br /><br />Cyber is taking the view that we create morals and thus they are subjective, there isn't a real they are representatives of, they just are what we decide they are. <br /><br />GCT, you seem to be taking the view that while their is not a real behind morals that they are still objective because their are man made created rules that we all ought to follow. It seems you are arguing the same as Cyber but using objective instead of subjective to define your position.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-26221192673576466162009-06-12T12:43:05.212-07:002009-06-12T12:43:05.212-07:00Maybe this will help:
You are placing too much em...Maybe this will help:<br /><br />You are placing too much emphasis on origin. In effect, you are both claiming that only subjectivity can come from humans. So, any statement that I make will necessarily be subjective. Is this the case?<br /><br />"The time is 3:39 EDT."<br /><br />Is that a subjective or objective statement?<br /><br />"Roger is 6 feet tall."<br /><br />Is that a subjective or objective statement?<br /><br />"I'm feel hungry."<br /><br />Is that a subjective or objective statement?<br /><br />According to both of you, those are all subjective statements. Yet, the third one is obviously so, while the other two are measurable and can be verified in objective ways. IOW, the first two are actually objective statements even though according to your re-definition of the words used they would be classified (again, according to you) as subjective.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-9905373421921068232009-06-12T11:36:03.728-07:002009-06-12T11:36:03.728-07:00"{laughs] We are *obviously* misunderstanding..."{laughs] We are *obviously* misunderstanding each other."<br /><br />Indeed. You have re-defined subjective to mean anything and everything that has anything to do with humans. This is an incorrect usage.<br /><br />Let's take the example of math. 1+1=2 is objective, no matter what you say. It is not open to interpretation. It is not open to human bias or feelings. It is simply not subjective. Depending on your mood of the day, 1 and 1 are still 2. It is literally boggling my mind that you can claim that math is subjective. Descriptions of the natural world are also not subjective by default.<br /><br />Game rules are not subjective either. A king beats a queen because the rule says it does, not because you feel like it does or you interpret on a certain day that it does. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the rule or not, the objective rules laid out for poker state that a pair of kings beats a pair of queens. Nevermind that one hand may be just as statistically probable as the other, the rules are objective. They do not rely on human interpretation, nor do they rely on human bias or feelings. They are not subjective.<br /><br />"The rules are not objective because outside of the context of the game they are meaningless."<br /><br />This matters not one bit. Once again you can not differentiate between objective and absolute. I suggest that you look up the terms and how they are actually used. Rules that hold for all contexts, etc. are absolute. This is NOT a prerequisite for being objective.<br /><br />"Rules of the game are arbitrary and subjective - just like the rules of morality where this conversation started."<br /><br />Arbitrary is not the same as subjective, nor does it necessarily lead to subjectivity. Again, you are not using the terms in question properly.<br /><br />"Everything inside human culture is subjective and arbitrary. If objective reality exists (which it probably does) that is where you will find objectivity."<br /><br />And, this is just plain wrong. Please tell me how I can subjectively interpret math or the rules to draw poker. Please tell me how they change based on my feelings or bias.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-73298320192108164592009-06-12T11:01:16.854-07:002009-06-12T11:01:16.854-07:00GCT said: Math is in no way subjective. I'm so...GCT said: Math is in no way subjective. I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about.<br /><br />{laughs] We are *obviously* misunderstanding each other. Amongst other things Maths attempts to model an objective reality. This does not mean that Maths needs to be objective to do it. Firstly, as I said earlier, Maths is like a language used to describe things in a certain way. Like all languages it has a history which is arbitrary and subjective. Would you say that French or Spanish were objective? I think not. The way we use Maths to explain things - or even the fact that we use Maths rather than something else - is also cultural and historical. If we re-ran human culture from the beginning again its pretty certain that we'd get a different type of maths or maybe none at all. Whatever we used to model reality would still be attempting to do so... but it might not be any kind of maths we recognise.<br /><br />Science attempts to understand objective reality - but again it doesn't make the method (which is all science is really) objective. Science certaining *aims* at objectivity but it doesn't always attain it. It is difficult to say, for example, that cosmology and psychology are equally objective - because quite simply they're not. Unless you want to say that psychology isn't a *real* science.<br /><br />The point you made about the rules of any game is instructive. Rules are not objective. What they are is agreed upon between the participants. A king beats a queen because we *say* that a king beats a queen. Such a rule has no meaning outside of the context of the game. Other people can play the game once they have learnt the rules but again this does not make them objective - just agreed upon. In some games aces are high - in others they're low. Rules of the game are arbitrary and subjective - just like the rules of morality where this conversation started. The rules are not objective because outside of the context of the game they are meaningless. Just as morals taken out of context lose all meaning. <br /><br />GCT said: Using your definition there is NOTHING that is not subjective.<br /><br />Everything inside human culture is subjective and arbitrary. If objective reality exists (which it probably does) that is where you will find objectivity.CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-20006211422658997242009-06-12T09:11:58.519-07:002009-06-12T09:11:58.519-07:00"Well, maths is just a notational form (like ..."Well, maths is just a notational form (like a language) that is used to reflect reality. The reality it models is objective (unless you take the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM to its logical conclusion) but maths itself is a subjective construct just like all other languages."<br /><br />No no no no no. Math is in no way subjective. I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about.<br /><br />Using your interpretations, all card game rules are subjective. All sports rules are subjective. All board game rules are subjective. This is simply wrong. If I'm holding a pair of kings and you are holding a pair of queens, my hand beats your hand, no matter and it is not open to interpretation or feelings. Yet, those rules were made by humans, hence you would claim that they are subjective and open to interpretation or feelings? Rubbish.<br /><br />Math is objective even though humans created it to describe the natural world. It's every bit as objective as science (which you would also have to say is subjective now!) rules for games, and rules for morality that are designed to be objective. Using your definition there is NOTHING that is not subjective.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-58833951187344856392009-06-12T07:16:23.510-07:002009-06-12T07:16:23.510-07:00GCT said: Once you understand why math is objectiv...GCT said: Once you understand why math is objective, you will understand why you are not getting the definition right.<br /><br />Well, maths is just a notational form (like a language) that is used to reflect reality. The reality it models is objective (unless you take the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM to its logical conclusion) but maths itself is a subjective construct just like all other languages.CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-44766509643175238762009-06-12T06:26:55.076-07:002009-06-12T06:26:55.076-07:00Karla and CK,
You are both still confused as to th...Karla and CK,<br />You are both still confused as to the definitions. If we used your interpretations, then we would have to conclude that math is subjective. It's good that you actually looked up the words, but I can only lead you to water, I can't make you drink it. I'll try though.<br /><br />When it says not based on our thoughts or feelings, it's describing the actual act or thought or what-have-you. It does not mean that we can't set down rules that are objective that one can follow without having to interpret or use their own feelings.<br /><br />If we went by what you both are saying, then 1+1=2 is a completely subjective thing, since it came from our minds. It's how we describe the world around us, but I bet neither of you is willing to claim that it is indeed subjective. Why not? It came from our thoughts. Before we dreamed up the number 1 to describe a single object, there was no such thing as the number 1. Therefore, math is subjective.<br /><br />Once you understand why math is objective, you will understand why you are not getting the definition right.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-4894227129476568042009-06-11T22:54:51.312-07:002009-06-11T22:54:51.312-07:00karla said: It would seem that the word "obje...karla said: It would seem that the word "objective" describes that which is not contingent upon our feelings or thoughts, but that which is really real independent of the observer. "Having actual existence or reality." (American Heritage Dictionary) <br /><br />Objective morals, if they exist, would need to be outside of what we create with our minds, but what we discover existing externally from us. So they would need to be rooted in reality we don't create but is really real. <br /><br />Thank you Karla. That is *exactly* the point I've been trying to make.CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-47716308341162456552009-06-11T17:43:24.663-07:002009-06-11T17:43:24.663-07:00absolute something that is not dependent upon ext...<b> absolute </b> something that is not dependent upon external conditions for existence or for its specific nature, size, etc. (opposed to relative ).<br />15. the absolute,<br />a. something that is free from any restriction or condition.<br />b. something that is independent of some or all relations.<br />c. something that is perfect or complete." www.dictionary.com <br /><br /><br />See I don't think morals exists independently and completely on their own. So this is why I don't use the term absolute to refer to morals. I once did, but now I don't think it accurate. <br /><br />God, if He exists, is the only one who can fit this definition. He is the only self-existing being. <br /><br />Now for <b> objective</b> not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.<br />6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.<br />7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).<br />8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.<br /><br /><br />It would seem that the word "objective" describes that which is not contingent upon our feelings or thoughts, but that which is really real independent of the observer. "Having actual existence or reality." (American Heritage Dictionary) <br /><br />Objective morals, if they exist, would need to be outside of what we create with our minds, but what we discover existing externally from us. So they would need to be rooted in reality we don't create but is really real. <br /><br />Or they are subjective -- that which is created by our own way of thinking but not rooted in an external real. <br /><br />Murder being wrong is what we think it should be for our own reasons, rather than it really being wrong because life is really valuable and we ought not to take it.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-7922202514513182222009-06-11T14:20:49.143-07:002009-06-11T14:20:49.143-07:00"Where did that come from? Why ought I to fol..."Where did that come from? Why ought I to follow it? Why is it wrong to murder?"<br /><br />It came from lots of sources. You should follow it because you are a rational entity that is capable of observing empathy and reciprocation and also because you have a genetic predisposition to do so. Both of these are reasons why we would consider it wrong as well.<br /><br />The point, however, that you seem to be missing is even if there's no good reason to follow it, etc. it's still objective.<br /><br />"Also, aliens would be beings, most likely finite, and not external to the natural world."<br /><br />It doesn't matter, they would be external to us. That's the criteria that you are setting forth. Oh yeah, I forgot that you are conflating absolute with objective.<br /><br />Please stop doing that. Absolute is not the same as objective and you are causing us to go round and round in circles because you either can not comprehend that fact or are willfully ignoring it.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-85870627261047072442009-06-11T07:04:22.185-07:002009-06-11T07:04:22.185-07:00GTC "Objective moral law: don't murder.&q...GTC "Objective moral law: don't murder."<br /><br />Where did that come from? Why ought I to follow it? Why is it wrong to murder? <br /><br />Also, aliens would be beings, most likely finite, and not external to the natural world. So this would be different than what I am positing with "good" being rooted in an uncreated, eternal Being.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-33358546191343787112009-06-11T06:22:45.819-07:002009-06-11T06:22:45.819-07:00CK,
"Morality only exists because we called i...CK,<br />"Morality only exists because we called it into existence. When humanity goes extinct at some point morality will vanish with us. It does not have an independent existence and, therefore, is subjective rather than objective."<br /><br />By this logic, math is also subjective. I doubt you would agree with that, however.<br /><br />"I actually think that cultural and economic factors are vital in understanding *any* morality."<br /><br />I don't disagree with that at all, but it's immaterial to whether the codification of morals is objective or not.<br /><br />"Erm... How exactly do you *measure* morality? What SI Units would you use?"<br /><br />By the rules that are set up. Just as I can measure the color of light by rules set up via wavelength, I would measure morality by the rules set up to judge it.<br /><br />"Can you give me an example of an objective moral so we know what you're talking about?"<br /><br />Murder is defined as X. Objective moral law: don't murder. Objective measure - did someone cause an action that fits the definition of X? If yes, then murder has occurred and a violation of the moral has occurred. Now, we just need to carefully define X in order to leave out interpretation. That could be done by laying down very specific clauses, like:<br /><br />Murder is:<br />The taking of a human life (if the person does not die, it is not murder, and human is defined by an entity that has human consciousness, is outside the womb, etc. - sorry but I'm not going to be exhaustive right here...) when the following conditions apply:<br />1 - No threat to the person is present<br />2 - etc. etc. etc.<br /><br />It's not an easy process, but it's not impossible either.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-36885721867379050152009-06-11T05:31:17.526-07:002009-06-11T05:31:17.526-07:00"It's not special pleading. If we create ..."It's not special pleading. If we create something we do it subjectively. It may become a standard we set, but it not set from somewhere outside of us, unless we are discovering something objective standard outside ourselves."<br /><br />It is special pleading. According to this, if aliens present us with a moral code, would it be subjective or objective? You would have to say objective. But, if some group of other humans gives me a code then it's subjective and not objective?<br /><br />I contend that you still don't understand the terms being used.<br /><br />"Why do humans kill and do things destructive to themselves and to others from your point of view then?"<br /><br />Because we are human and have evolved certain characteristics.<br /><br />"And why do people think we ought not to destroy human life, or do certain things?"<br /><br />Because we have empathy. We can apply the golden rule. It also actually hurts the potential survival of our species to go on genocidal pogroms.<br /><br />"Please I have yet to understand your position."<br /><br />I suggest that you study some evolution.<br /><br />"I understand Cyber's more, because it seems to be to be more congruent with her naturalistic worldview than yours does."<br /><br />"Naturalistic?" My view is completely naturalistic, as is CK's.<br /><br />"You seem to be arguing for an objective moral standard, but where did that come from?"<br /><br />No. I've quite plainly stated that objective morals can be developed. You are continually confusing "objective" with "absolute" which is leading you to your confusion.<br /><br />"Are you speaking merely of the laws that govern our societies and enforced by police etc.?"<br /><br />The laws of society are objective to some degree, yes. If you steal a car, you face a specific sentence structure, etc.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-21426592185376737732009-06-10T13:39:16.494-07:002009-06-10T13:39:16.494-07:00GCT said: Of course it is possible. It's been ...GCT said: Of course it is possible. It's been done multiple times.<br /><br />I disagree - probably because we disagree with what we mean by objective. As far as I am concerned something is objective if it exists independently of us. Therefore the speed of light or the vibration rate of a cesium atom are objective events that can be measured. Morality only exists because we called it into existence. When humanity goes extinct at some point morality will vanish with us. It does not have an independent existence and, therefore, is subjective rather than objective.<br /><br />GCT said: This doesn't matter in terms of formulating objective principles or rules and codifying them.<br /><br />I actually think that cultural and economic factors are vital in understanding *any* morality. Without a decent understanding of where a form of morality comes from it is very difficult to understand the detail of what it means. Context is everything.<br /><br />GCT said: I am saying that we can use reality and the real world as objective measures in forming objective rules, and that we can form objective rules based on objective measures. That's all.<br /><br />Erm... How exactly do you *measure* morality? What SI Units would you use?<br /><br />GCT said: Not everyone has to agree that something is right or best or anything like that in order for something to be objective.<br /><br />Can you give me an example of an objective moral so we know what you're talking about? <br /><br />karla said: We are always judging actions as good or bad or better or worse.<br /><br />Of course. We judge the actions of others against our standards - as they judge ours.<br /><br />karla said: Why do we feel guilt when we can just make the good action whatever best suits us at the time?<br /><br />We feel guilt because we have been *taught* to feel guilt. A classic example is masturbation. Those who have been taught that its wrong will feel guilt whilst or after doing it. While those who have not had such teaching will not feel guilty. Like so much else feelings of guilt are cultural events.<br /><br />karla said: If we create something we do it subjectively. It may become a standard we set, but it not set from somewhere outside of us, unless we are discovering something objective standard outside ourselves. <br /><br />Except that there *is* nowhere 'outside' of us. Morality is a human cultural construct. There is nowhere 'outside' in which to stand.<br /><br />karla said: Why do humans kill and do things destructive to themselves and to others from your point of view then? <br /><br />For probably as many reasons as you can think of.<br /><br />karla said: And why do people think we ought not to destroy human life, or do certain things? <br /><br />Mostly cultural reasons with a bit of genetics thrown in.CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.com