jlowder

I don't think so. I've never seen a sound argument for such a position.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "universally consistent morality." If by that you mean moral objectivism, then moral relativism is logically inconsistent with moral objectivism by definition.

Why?

Jeffery Jay Lowder

jlowder

Are you claiming that metaphysical naturalism implies there are no objective values? If so, what is your basis for that claim?

Are respected atheist philosophers Evan Fales, Michael Martin, Quentin Smith, John Post, William Rottschaefer, et al "delusional" simply because they believe morality is objective? Or is it possible you are not familiar with the arguments for moral objectivism, arguments that are compatible with metaphysical naturalism?

Check out John Post's argument for moral realism. I summarized it on the Moral Foundations & Principles board, at the bottom of page 3 of the "<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000345&p=3" target="_blank">But atheists do have morals... And theists don't</a>" thread.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

jlowder

Matt,

There are several naturalistic replies to Plantinga's evolutionary anti-naturalism argument in the book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801487633/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Naturalism Defeated?</a>, edited by James Beilby. (I'm not sure what this has to do with this thread, though.)

Jeffery Jay Lowder

jlowder

This assumes that moral properties are not objective properties, which is precisely the point at issue. John Post, a metaphysical naturalist and a professional philosopher, argues that natural facts determine values. For an explanation of what that means, as well as an argument for that claim, please see the link to the morality board I provided in one of my earlier posts in this thread.

By definition, moral objectivism is logically inconsistent with moral relativism. If morality is objective, it cannot be relative.

Not necessarily. Moral objectivism is merely the view that there is an (objective) "truth of the matter as regards the correctness or incorrectness of our value judgments, a truth of the matter determined by objective, natural fact" (Post, p. 252). Moral objectivism should not be confused with moral absolutism, the view that moral principles are absolute and admit of no exceptions.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>

Chip

Theli: “For morality, proper conduct or ‘right’ to be obective it cannot be disagreeable nor can it differ from person to person. Furthermore, you have limited this question to humans (living in this time) only. The fact that these opinions (even shared ones) changes over time and is also tied to our genetic makeup (the need to breathe, need to eat, need to sleep) makes them properties of humans, and not of the universe (universal).

Well, universe is a pretty big place and what might be good for the continuous existence of some rock somewhere will not be of any consequence to human desires, sure. I do believe that one could find the use of the term “universal” as being a qualifier limited to humans, or more precisely, thinking entities capable of weighing judgment on what was good or bad. Maybe it would have been best to have stipulated this as any other understanding would be pointless. For thinking life, might there be a common concept of morality? I think that is a possibility whereby I have to question whether moral relativism might involve a reasoning that justified, basically, anything.

Concerning the modeling of desire to breath for me and you as X and Y, X V Y (V being the logical operator “or”) is obviously most often true but, as you suggest, X V ~Y is possibly okay in my eyes and ~X V Y okay in yours but might there be merit in finding that X ^ Y was desirable (^ being used as the logical “and”)? Seems we have made laws against murder either directly or through neglect. Appears that socially we strive to hold X ^ Y as a jointly held and enforced moral and I, for one, am glad for it.

Theli: ”Not everyone wants to breathe, not that it really matter but just FYI.”

For sure, but please give me the benefit of the doubt, instead of breath how about “required action for sustaining life?” Of course this brings up the incidence of suicide to claim that this is not a moral us humans or thinking-life ascribe to jointly. I attempted to address this before. Let me try again, if we find something to be immoral, does that mean that humans or thinking-life would not do it? I don’t think so.

Chip: “If we have to strip any moral judgment about suicide or anything else for that matter, then why breathe?”

Theli: “I might have missunderstood this question, if so I apologize, but are you suggesting that the meaning (or value) for an individual to live is based on moral law? That without morality you don't want to live?

Chip: “Yes, I think so. As far as “moral law” goes, that is another question. Morals I believe are more a desire, a predilection for a certain state of affairs where our options are not curtailed. Law can come to express a moral understanding of a few that is counter to the moral conceptions of others, as for example, the US Bill of Rights does not apply to non-US citizens.

Chip: “'Universally consistent morality' then means just what it says. One can argue that things out of context can appear as good at one time and bad at another but if we take the logical position that things can only be understood and judged in context, there is no contradiction to the concept of universally consistent morality.”

Theli: “Now you are arguing a ‘universally morality for us’, out of the lack of a second, nonhuman opinion. Wich is a paradox. As our morality is tied to our genetic makeup, wouldn't you find it probable that a posible alien race would have morality tied to theirs?”

Yes, but I believe the desire to exist would be shared by aliens just as it is for other life forms other than human. Might we meet aliens that would not be classifiable as living? Now we would need to come to a non-genetic dependent way to define life.

Sorry for the lengthy time it took me to get back to you. I was seriously questioning whether or not any time on this forum was of any use to me. I will attempt to respond to other comments here that interest me.

Thank you for the intelligent discourse, Chip

Chip

Tronvillain: “I go in for ‘subjective morality’ rather than ‘moral relativism’ myself, but in any case there does not appear to be any objective or universal moral system. Is that what you meant by ‘a universally consistent morality’?”

No, not precisely. What I mean, to use your terms, “subjective morality” may be something that has similar manifestation to all thinking beings, making it relatively universal though, strictly, not objective.

Dr. Retard: “This is a pointless dialogue.”

Okay. Be that way.

Chip: “Seems to me that they can and do imply no worth to anything anywhere for some.”

Jlowder: “Why?”

Because some deny the validity of subjective values.

Jlowder: “Are you claiming that metaphysical naturalism implies there are no objective values? If so, what is your basis for that claim?”

Yes, I guess so. I find the phrase “objective values” to be misleading, as I only find value to come via subjective inclinations and desires.

Jlowder: “Are respected atheist philosophers Evan Fales, Michael Martin, Quentin Smith, John Post, William Rottschaefer, et al "delusional" simply because they believe morality is objective? Or is it possible you are not familiar with the arguments for moral objectivism, arguments that are compatible with metaphysical naturalism?”

I am unaware of any of these individuals. If they truly believe that “morality is objective” then I must have a different definition of objectivity. Maybe objectivity has to do with "majority opinion?" If you were to suspend your disbelief for a moment and consider the possibility that there is no objective truth, how would you rephrase the words “moral objectivism?”

I checked out the post you refer to and do not understand whether or not you, Jeffery, ascribe to there being an objective reality or not. This will probably be more apparent if I read more… Hmmm, seems if I understand you correctly, Jeffery, we are not in disagreement though we may mean somewhat different things with some of our terms. "Natural facts," I find to be somewhat funny. Are there unnatural facts? Can some one come up with more descriptive terminology to clarify what is meant by "objective?"

Thank you for your patience. I am very much a novice when it comes to philosophy. I do have opinions and appreciate the opportunity to learn what might lead to change, clarification or abandonment of my conceptions in favor of more understanding.

Thank you, Chip

Chip

BTW, I see there are a number of threads with subjects that beat this same bush, so to speak. Seems I am not alone in these explorations.

Regards, Chip

jlowder

Huh? I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. Can we please start over?

Who does "they" refer to in the sentence, "Seems to me that they can and do imply no worth to anything anywhere for some"?

How is the term "objective values" "misleading"? Do you instead mean to say the concept of objective value is self-contradictory, or that there are no objective values?

All of them are moral objectivists who believe that moral properties are natural properties (as opposed to supernatural properties). And with the possible exception of Rottschaefer, they are all nonbelievers. Here are some links:

• <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/evan_fales/" target="_blank">Evan Fales</a>
• <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/" target="_blank">Michael Martin</a>
• <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/" target="_blank">Quentin Smith</a>,
• <a href="http://www.vanderbilt.edu/~postjf/" target="_blank">John Post</a>
• <a href="http://www.lclark.edu/~rotts/" target="_blank">William Rottschaefer</a>
  

Objectivity has nothing to do with majority opinion. In fact, the whole point of objectivism--moral or otherwise--is that the set of propositions in question have truth values that are independent of opinion. All that moral objectivism says is that moral principles are objectively true (i.e., independently of the subjective beliefs of persons).

See above. Natural facts is used to distinguish one type of facts from "supernatural" and "non-natural" facts.

Regards,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>

Dr. Retard

Dude, you completely misinterpreted my indexical! (And you sunk my Battleship!) "This" doesn't refer to this iidb discussion. "This" refers to the little hypothetical example dialogue I invented for illustrative purposes. There are many things in my message which ought elicit a response from you, and thereby commence a fruitful, productive dialogue.

Theli

Chip...

But, then you do agree that moral judgement and morals are properties of the individuals, and not an external source that the individuals imitate.
If morality really was objective, then shouldn't it be able to exist independent of the thinking entities?

Perhaps.

Common, yes. Most people think that pizza is good, but it's still merely an opinion. It doesn't mean that the quality/attribute "good" is inherit in the pizza.

I might have missinterpreted your question here but are you asking me to judge a relative moral claim?
In order for me to do so, I would need an objective scale of right and wrong to measure it after. Or I would have to use my own sense of morality.

It depends. The "scale" in wich to measure the value of X and Y is inherited in my personality, and therefore an attribute of me. As I don't have a desire for anyone I don't even know to die, I would have to value Y &gt; ~Y. If a third person were to judge X&gt;Y or X&lt;Y, then the "scale" would be an attribute of him.

To be continued...