I'll tell you how I became the Prince of a town called Bel-Air.
To Slash, Nemesis, and anyone else who has ever coveted what is rightfully mine:
I'll tell you how I became the Prince of a town called Bel-Air.
To Slash, Nemesis, and anyone else who has ever coveted what is rightfully mine:
Originally posted by psmith81992No. Objectivity isn't the same as the most popular opinion or feeling. To go by Webster's definition of the word, to be objective is to be "based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings". Or "existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world."
But what if everybody lists 20 attributes, and they all have at least 1-2 in common. Does that break the notion of objectivity?
The feeling that something is immoral, evil, bad, etc. are just that. Feelings. Immaterial and produced in our minds. And what each means will change from person to person. Again, I can't ever say that something exists when it's most concrete evidence comes from our mouths.
Originally posted by psmith81992Universal moral truths, you mean? Only if you believe they're imposed from above or beyond (the god involvement), and exist within our ability to quantify/qualify.
I see evil people/groups use the word "evil" in a way that justifies their behavior, while others are using a more "acceptable" definition. But like I said. On a macro level you can argue that everything is relative, justifying any and all behavior. But when you start analyzing cases, you can find universals in some.
Originally posted by psmith81992That's better phrased as "simply having an opinion, doesn't make it factual." Someone can like your voice more than Axl's, but if he were to try and use his opinion as proof that your voice is mathematically more capable than Axl's, then he'd be incorrect. And unimaginably arrogant. It's for that reason I'm trying not to use the words "better" or "worse". In casual conversation, humans can easily interpret someone using those words as suggesting that something is objectively superior, instead of the subjective opinion they really mean. When I say chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla, I'm not suggesting that it's inherently, cosmically, irrefutably on a higher plane of existence. I'm suggesting that I prefer it, according to my subjective tastes--something that many people get twisted due to the words we use (I'm sure the hodgepodge nature of the English language plays a big role in that).
Again, suggesting something doesn't make an action subjective. Simply having an opinion that I am a better singer than axl rose doesn't make the entire argument subjective, it just makes you dumb or deaf or something else. I think people miscontrue the idea that simply having a different opinion than the overwhelming majority makes the issue subjective, I just don't agree.
In order to prove that one is superior to the other, you need to formulate a criteria for which each flavor must live up to, and use science to determine which one reaches it first (or at all). And that criteria, is entirely man-made.
Mathematics and science can prove with experiment that Axl can hit more notes, with greater range and variety, and hold them longer than you can. Personal opinion can prefer your objectively inferior voice over his objectively superior one. And for the sake of convenience in casual conversation, you can bet that this hypothetical fan of yours would use the word "better". His preferences don't align with majority opinion, and he's not "wrong" for liking yours' more. He's just outnumbered. Majority opinion doesn't make something true any more than minority opinion does. It just makes it popular.
What the determination of superior vocal chords has over the determination of moral truths, is that vocal chords and sound waves are physically real and can be measured. Morality can not. I hold morality to the same standard I hold deities. If they can't be measured or qualified, observed or proven, then I have no reason to believe they're real. I have every reason to believe that morals, like gods, were created by humans out of necessity, for the sake of survival and comfort. And we have an extremely difficult time letting go of either.
Originally posted by psmith81992Yup. How convenient it is that my god, who gave me my morality, just so happens to approve of what I think and do.
Yes, that is a huge failing of religion. But if you really look around you, I don't think that's the majority of truly religious people. They make their morals in accordance with their god. Actually, typing that sentence sounded a little ridiculous because the #1 human weakness is rationalization..Justifying your actions, etc.
No. Objectivity isn't the same as the most popular opinion or feeling. To go by Webster's definition of the word, to be objective is to be "based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings". Or "existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world."
Ok. So objectively, Axl Rose is a better singer than me. There, I proved not everything subjective.
Universal moral truths, you mean? Only if you believe they're imposed from above or beyond (the god involvement), and exist within our ability to quantify/qualify.
That's better phrased as "simply having an opinion, doesn't make it factual." Someone can like your voice more than Axl's, but if he were to try and use his opinion as proof that your voice is mathematically more capable than Axl's, then he'd be incorrect. And unimaginably arrogant. It's for that reason I'm trying not to use the words "better" or "worse". In casual conversation, humans can easily interpret someone using those words as suggesting that something is objectively superior, instead of the subjective opinion they really mean. When I say chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla, I'm not suggesting that it's inherently, cosmically, irrefutably on a higher plane of existence. I'm suggesting that I prefer it, according to my subjective tastes--something that many people get twisted due to the words we use (I'm sure the hodgepodge nature of the English language plays a big role in that).
Mathematics and science can prove with experiment that Axl can hit more notes, with greater range and variety, and hold them longer than you can. Personal opinion can prefer your objectively inferior voice over his objectively superior one. And for the sake of convenience in casual conversation, you can bet that this hypothetical fan of yours would use the word "better". His preferences don't align with majority opinion, and he's not "wrong" for liking yours' more. He's just outnumbered. Majority opinion doesn't make something true any more than minority opinion does. It just makes it popular.
What the determination of superior vocal chords has over the determination of moral truths, is that vocal chords and sound waves are physically real and can be measured. Morality can not. I hold morality to the same standard I hold deities. If they can't be measured or qualified, observed or proven, then I have no reason to believe they're real. I have every reason to believe than morals, like gods, were created by humans out of necessity, for the sake of survival and comfort. And we have an extremely difficult time letting go of either.
Yup. How convenient it is that my god, who gave me my morality, just so happens to approve of what I think and do.
Originally posted by psmith81992I don't think I would ever argue that subjectivity is omnipresent. The tree outside is there regardless of my opinions or attitude toward it. It's those opinions and attitudes that are subjective. Some people have the worldview that human perception determines what's real. I call that the height of anthropocentric arrogance. I'd sooner say that what's real (objective) determines what/how we perceive (subjectivity).
Ok. So objectively, Axl Rose is a better singer than me. There, I proved not everything subjective.
Originally posted by psmith81992Yeah. Gravity, for example. But we can prove gravity's existence. Moral facts are frustratingly difficult to locate. Like the gods that so many think they originate from.
I do but that's a subject for another time. I need to find Lucius's argument regarding this and the ability for it to exist without a deity. But yea, I believe in universal moral truths and at the same time, I don't think they can exist without a higher being. On the other hand, as I've stated previously, we can find universal truths in specific cases.
Originally posted by psmith81992When it comes to morality? No, never. My universal moral truth may be someone else's universal immoral truth. Mine can no more be proven "true" or "correct" than there's can. When that happens, the absence of evidence tends to gives way to rule by majority--most people consider it "true" so it must be true. And they've only come to that consideration based on their subjective beliefs, since there's no objective evidence. And since there's no evidence, there tends to give way to a rule by popular sentiment.
While I understand this point, do you believe that there are universal truths in specific cases?
My tautology aside, you see the vicious circle?
No. Preferential interpretations mustn't be used in place of evidence. In determining what it is real and true, subjectivity cannot freely reign.
Originally posted by psmith81992No, there's nothing wrong with that, if that's your preference.
A lot of people do this and I find them as insufferable as certain secularists/atheists, etc. However, there's nothing wrong with living by divine standards, rather than using them to justify your existence.
I don't think I would ever argue that subjectivity is omnipresent. The tree outside is there regardless of my opinions or attitude toward it. It's those opinions and attitudes that are subjective. Some people have the worldview that human perception determines what's real. I call that the height of anthropocentric arrogance. I'd sooner say that what's real (objective) determines what/how we perceive (subjectivity).
Yeah. Gravity, for example. But we can prove gravity's existence. Moral facts are frustratingly difficult to locate. Like the gods that so many think they originate from.
Dave
But can't we conclusively prove what ISIS is doing is objectively evil?
Once again, we attempt to "prove" a given thing within a prescribed set of parameters. By virtually every technical consideration applicable, Axl Rose is probably the superior singer, but there's little accounting for taste there. A proper quantification of the respective states of emotional arousal elicited by your performances might be taken as an objective measure of taste. If you accepted that, literally one aberrant result — your wife, your mom, me, a great-grandson eleven generations removed raised in a vastly different musical climate — would conclusively prove that, under the constraint of a set of conditions you signed off on, Axl Rose is not definitively better than you.
Common ground is often convenient, but it isn't absolute.
Dave
That argument will never die. I can't prove to you God exists, and you can't prove he doesn't. Since you mention your disdain for arrogance, isn't it arrogant to assume we made "god" up
If you assume the universe exists (which we all do), than there is no reason not to assume that human happiness is better than human suffering. Sure it's an assumption, but the princess is always going to spot the inductive assumptions, now matter how many deductive mattress you pile on top.
In short, moral relativists are the smarmy mouthed pedants barely through Philo 101.
Originally posted by psmith81992Only if you define evil in this case as "something the majority don't like." That's easy. I don't use the term evil due to the implication that it involves a moral fact. I prefer to call them "awful". Or more accurately, "unwanted."
Good, there is hope for you yet. But can't we conclusively prove what ISIS is doing is objectively evil?
Originally posted by psmith81992Only if you assume that a god exists and you have hubris to think that you literally created a deity. More humbler to realize that god doesn't exist and the humans have been pathetically pretending he does to bring themselves comfort when faced with things they can't explain.
That argument will never die. I can't prove to you God exists, and you can't prove he doesn't. Since you mention your disdain for arrogance, isn't it arrogant to assume we made "god" up and are masters of our own domain?
By virtually every technical consideration applicable, Axl Rose is probably the superior singer, but there's little accounting for taste there. A proper quantification of the respective states of emotional arousal elicited by your performances might be taken as an objective measure of taste. If you accepted that, literally one aberrant result — your wife, your mom, me, a great-grandson eleven generations removed raised in a vastly different musical climate — would conclusively prove that, under the constraint of a set of conditions you signed off on, Axl Rose is not definitively better than you.Common ground is often convenient, but it isn't absolute.
That's not remotely how burden of proof works.
If you assume the universe exists (which we all do), than there is no reason not to assume that human happiness is better than human suffering. Sure it's an assumption, but the princess is always going to spot the inductive assumptions, now matter how many deductive mattress you pile on top.In short, moral relativists are the smarmy mouthed pedants barely through Philo 101.
Only if you define evil in this case as "something the majority don't like." That's easy. I don't use the term evil due to the implication that it involves a moral fact. I prefer to call them "awful". Or more accurately, "unwanted."
Only if you assume that a god exists and you have hubris to think that you literally created a deity. More humbler to realize that god doesn't exist and the humans have been pathetically pretending he does to bring themselves comfort when faced with things they can't explain.
Or humans feel the need to rationalize their actions, so they deny any higher being in favor of moral relativism. It goes both ways.
Originally posted by Lucius
If you assume the universe exists (which we all do), than there is no reason not to assume that human happiness is better than human suffering. Sure it's an assumption, but the princess is always going to spot the inductive assumptions, now matter how many deductive mattress you pile on top.In short, moral relativists are the smarmy mouthed pedants barely through Philo 101.
Havin a bad day, bud? (Skepticism is not actually a refutation of moral relativism.)
(One can be a relativist and still make concrete and justified evaluations on goodness)
((e.g. Scanlon who asserts that morality consists in making decisions according to reasons which others cannot reasonably reject as a principle for actions. This is a relativist position in that there is not an ontological basis for evil, yet the criteria for "reasonably reject" are concrete enough to make non-arbitrary judgments even across societies.))
Originally posted by psmith81992Well, it's not, as far as I can tell. Seeing as he not once mentioned God in his post.
I know, that's what Veneficus is saying.
Moral relativism in the context it is being used here is just a way of saying there's no inherent moral law to the universe, just preferences people (Be they the majority or not) have toward certain beliefs. You'd prefer ISIS not kill innocent people, so for you this makes them "evil". A moral relativist like LL (Correct me if I've gotten your beliefs wrong) is just under the belief that they aren't empirically evil. They merely commit acts that he is opposed against and would prefer them be stopped (If not by US troops).
Well, it's not, as far as I can tell. Seeing as he not once mentioned God in his post.
Moral relativism in the context it is being used here is just a way of saying there's no inherent moral law to the universe, just preferences people (Be they the majority or not) have toward certain beliefs. You'd prefer ISIS not kill innocent people, so for you this makes them "evil". A moral relativist like LL (Correct me if I've gotten your beliefs wrong) is just under the belief that they aren't empirically evil. They merely commit acts that he is opposed against and would prefer them be stopped (If not by US troops).
It's not so much as what I'd prefer, but the butchering of innocents is evil in my book.