Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

It isn't a matter of getting it right or wrong, it is a matter of individual perception. If person A perceives the colour differently to person B, what more is there to say? The same goes for morality.

The whole talk about "perceiving the same" vs "perceiving differently" is precisely the confused gobledygook of philosophers I am talking about.

Suppose everybody perceives it exactly the same yet we say different things about it.
Suppose everybody perceives it differently but we say exactly the same thing about it.
Suppose everybody perceives it exactly the same and we say exactly the same thing about it.
Suppose everybody perceives it differently and we say different things about it.

And then?

And then nothing? What more are you expecting?

[Skepdick]

Well, you've made a few strides since your TimeSeeker days. Back then you couldn't tell undetermined from underdetermined.

Seems you've regressed since my TimeSeeker days. Nowadays you can't tell that there is no difference.

Failing to meet the sufficiency criteria for determination there's no difference between underdetermined and undetermined.

Where did you get this idea that to understand someone, you have to agree with them?

Where do you get this idea that you can understand anybody without temporarily agreeing to their undetermined/underdetermined determinations?

Clearly you're still a work in progress. Stick with us, Skepdick and, screaming and kicking no doubt, we'll get you there.

There where? You don't even have a clue where you are going

[Skepdick]

It isn't a matter of getting it right or wrong, it is a matter of individual perception. If person A perceives the colour differently to person B, what more is there to say? The same goes for morality.

The whole talk about "perceiving the same" vs "perceiving differently" is precisely the confused gobledygook of philosophers I am talking about.

Suppose everybody perceives it exactly the same yet we say different things about it.
Suppose everybody perceives it differently but we say exactly the same thing about it.
Suppose everybody perceives it exactly the same and we say exactly the same thing about it.
Suppose everybody perceives it differently and we say different things about it.

And then?

And then nothing? What more are you expecting?

I am not expecting anything. I am merely pointing out that you can't even escape the trap of linguistic and perceptual relativity.

So you (and all philosophers around here) erroneously extend this to moral relativity.

The celebration of your ineptutude is very sad indeed.

[Harbal]

The whole talk about "perceiving the same" vs "perceiving differently" is precisely the confused gobledygook of philosophers I am talking about.

Suppose everybody perceives it exactly the same yet we say different things about it.
Suppose everybody perceives it differently but we say exactly the same thing about it.
Suppose everybody perceives it exactly the same and we say exactly the same thing about it.
Suppose everybody perceives it differently and we say different things about it.

And then?

And then nothing? What more are you expecting?

I am not expecting anything. I am merely pointing out that you can't even escape the trap of linguistic and perceptual relativity.

So you (and all philosophers around here) erroneously extend this to moral relativity.

The celebration of your ineptutude is very sad indeed.

It isn't sad to me, because I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Sculptor]

Ah good, you've caught up.

It took you this long to grok that I've been caught up all along?

Well, you've made a few strides since your TimeSeeker days. Back then you couldn't tell undetermined from underdetermined.

Perhaps I'm wrong and everyone who says objective really means consensual, but it seems to me that there are people who believe that some things are true regardless of who believes them.

I mean, you'd have to agree with their conception of what it means for something to be true first...

Where did you get this idea that to understand someone, you have to agree with them? Clearly you're still a work in progress. Stick with us, Skepdick and, screaming and kicking no doubt, we'll get you there.

I do not accept your optimism in this.

The characteristic that understanding entails agreement is common in young children, typically under fives, and occaisionally in adults like Trump.
But is thanksfully rare in people who are practiced thinkers.

[Skepdick]

I do not accept your optimism in this.

The characteristic that understanding entails agreement is common in young children, typically under fives, and occaisionally in adults like Trump.
But is thanksfully rare in people who are practiced thinkers.

You call yourself a thinker? At least you have a sense of humour.

To say you understand anything is to make a claim about the world. What is it that your own understanding entails? Do you even know?

I can tell Alexa understands me because she follows instructions: I ask her to turn on the lights, and she does.

There's no evidence that you understand anything. Even when you say you do. Frankly - there's plenty of counter-evidence. Being argumentative, uncooperative, combative.

The strognest evidence for lacking any sort of understanding is defaulting to being philosophical - even when incredibly uncontroversial things are being said.

[Dontaskme]

It isn't sad to me, because I have no idea what you are talking about.

LOL

Sometimes you just have to call it a day and go to sleep. Zzzz! Zzzz!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=HnaYE1NocXw

[Will Bouwman]

Well, you've made a few strides since your TimeSeeker days. Back then you couldn't tell undetermined from underdetermined.

Seems you've regressed since my TimeSeeker days. Nowadays you can't tell that there is no difference.

Failing to meet the sufficiency criteria for determination there's no difference between underdetermined and undetermined.

Oh dear, still stuck on sufficiency criteria. This could take a while.

Where did you get this idea that to understand someone, you have to agree with them?

Where do you get this idea that you can understand anybody without temporarily agreeing to their undetermined/underdetermined determinations?

So you agree with everything I say that you understand, at least temporarily. There's hope then.

Clearly you're still a work in progress. Stick with us, Skepdick and, screaming and kicking no doubt, we'll get you there.

There where? You don't even have a clue where you are going

Aha, a breakthrough! Indeed Skepdick, you won't understand the last two and a half millennia of western philosophy until Socrates and the Oracle sinks in.

[Skepdick]

Well, you've made a few strides since your TimeSeeker days. Back then you couldn't tell undetermined from underdetermined.

Seems you've regressed since my TimeSeeker days. Nowadays you can't tell that there is no difference.

Failing to meet the sufficiency criteria for determination there's no difference between underdetermined and undetermined.

Oh dear, still stuck on sufficiency criteria. This could take a while.

Where did you get this idea that to understand someone, you have to agree with them?

Where do you get this idea that you can understand anybody without temporarily agreeing to their undetermined/underdetermined determinations?

So you agree with everything I say that you understand, at least temporarily. There's hope then.

Clearly you're still a work in progress. Stick with us, Skepdick and, screaming and kicking no doubt, we'll get you there.

There where? You don't even have a clue where you are going

Aha, a breakthrough! Indeed Skepdick, you won't understand the last two and a half millennia of western philosophy until Socrates and the Oracle sinks in.

Ahhh, no wonder you are still catching up.

You are still stuck on Western philosophy.

[Immanuel Can]

I'll settle for an answer that is verifiably true.

How do you want to "verify" it? What's the method you'd find convincing?

I can't even imagine what an "objective" source of morality -or a source of objective morality- could possibly be, so I have no idea.

Well, then, can one be surprised that you know of no "verification" of the existence of God, since, as you say, you "can't even imagine" what you'd accept as that?

When you accept no proof, don't be surprised if you have none. It just makes sense.

[Immanuel Can]

What you presumably mean is that your data set is strong enough that you find it conclusive.

...as would any fair-minded and rational person, I would say.

Are you defining "fair-minded" as agreeing with you? Could any fair-minded and rational person come to an alternative conclusion?

I was only saying that if somebody is behaving rationally and has the relevant data set in hand, the conclusion would be obvious.

Long story short: if you are to demonstrate that yours is the only conclusion, or even the most probable, you need some evidence that is unique to the God hypothesis.

For "only," perhaps; but not for "probable." One can have two explanations for phenomena -- on highly probable, and the other highly improbable -- and that's sufficient for saying which is "probable."

Christians don't say that God is the "only" explanation for various phenomena and happenings. One can always invent some alternate explanation, no matter how strained or improbable, if one is determined to do that. But it doesn't make the strained and improbable reasonable to prefer to the obvious and probable.

Faith is a calculation of belief by way of the probable. What makes a thing probable is the evidence. But nothing that is probabilistic is ever beyond the possibility of an alternate explanation, even if finding such an alternate explanation strains the rational to its breaking point.

If I'm an ignorant tribesman who thinks the world is flat, I certainly lack data...but I'm in no position to tell modern people that they can't "specify" that the world is "uniquely" spherical. All I can say is that I, personally, am ignorant of the relevant data.

If you were such a tribesman, I wouldn't waste any time asking:

What are you willing to accept? What would constitute the kind of evidence that would persuade you? What are you looking for?

Why do you do that with God?

Because while the flatness or roundness of the Earth will likely have no practical impact on the life of an ignorant tribesman living somewhere out in the bush, whether God exists or not will have a definite relevance to every life, wherever it is.

[Harbal]

How do you want to "verify" it? What's the method you'd find convincing?

I can't even imagine what an "objective" source of morality -or a source of objective morality- could possibly be, so I have no idea.

Well, then, can one be surprised that you know of no "verification" of the existence of God, since, as you say, you "can't even imagine" what you'd accept as that?

I said I can't imagine what form "objective" morality could possibly take; I didn't say I wouldn't accept evidence of it, if there were any of a convincing nature. Not that I would accept evidence of God as evidence of objective morality, as I consider morality to be a purely human thing.

When you accept no proof, don't be surprised if you have none. It just makes sense.

I haven't been presented with any proof, so I haven't had a chance to reject it, but I am not surprised by its absence.

[Immanuel Can]

I can't even imagine what an "objective" source of morality -or a source of objective morality- could possibly be, so I have no idea.

Well, then, can one be surprised that you know of no "verification" of the existence of God, since, as you say, you "can't even imagine" what you'd accept as that?

I said I can't imagine what form "objective" morality could possibly take; I didn't say I wouldn't accept evidence of it, if there were any of a convincing nature.

But if you don't know what "of a convincing nature" would look like, you can't expect to find it. And the fault would not be in the evidence, but in the lack of a standard you'd select for it to meet.

Not that I would accept evidence of God as evidence of objective morality, as I consider morality to be a purely human thing.

That would be an odd conclusion for you to try to sustain: that there IS a God, but that His existence didn't have any implications for morality. I don't know how you'd manage to put those two together. It seems rather obvious that if you DID "accept evidence for God," you'd also have to at least entertain the possibility that He would have a moral perspective -- in fact, it's hard to imagine how He could be "God" at all, and not have something to say on that subject, would it not?

When you accept no proof, don't be surprised if you have none. It just makes sense.

I haven't been presented with any proof...

Sure you have. You simply don't have a standard in hand that can help you recognize it as evidence. You're starting from the assumption that no evidence can be allowed to exist. So not surprisingly, you find none.

Yet the Bible says you do have the evidence. Look at this world. Look at your own body. Consider your own mind. You would have to accept that they at least make it slightly winsome to entertain the hypothesis that MAYBE God exists...at least 96% of the world thinks these things do, anyway. It's only the truly obdurate Atheists who insist it simply cannot be evidence for that. Even people as hard-headed as Dawkins are aware that it would be absurd not to recognize the attractiveness of that hypothesis, given the empirical facts of the world and human nature.

So it's more than reasonable for you to recognize that the world is at least potential evidence for God...even if you still refuse to acknowledge that that is what it is in actuality.

[Harbal]

Well, then, can one be surprised that you know of no "verification" of the existence of God, since, as you say, you "can't even imagine" what you'd accept as that?

I said I can't imagine what form "objective" morality could possibly take; I didn't say I wouldn't accept evidence of it, if there were any of a convincing nature.

But if you don't know what "of a convincing nature" would look like, you can't expect to find it. And the fault would not be in the evidence, but in the lack of a standard you'd select for it to meet.

What are you talking about? I wouldn't know what the evidence for any claim would be like until I saw it, would I?

Not that I would accept evidence of God as evidence of objective morality, as I consider morality to be a purely human thing.

That would be an odd conclusion for you to try to sustain: that there IS a God, but that His existence didn't have any implications for morality. I don't know how you'd manage to put those two together. It seems rather obvious that if you DID "accept evidence for God," you'd also have to at least entertain the possibility that He would have a moral perspective -- in fact, it's hard to imagine how He could be "God" at all, and not have something to say on that subject, would it not?

You seem to be assuming that the only concept of what God is, or could be, is the one that you have.

I haven't been presented with any proof...

Sure you have. You simply don't have a standard in hand that can help you recognize it as evidence. You're starting from the assumption that no evidence can be allowed to exist. So not surprisingly, you find none.

You are misrepresenting what I said; show me evidence of "objective" morality, and I will treat it the same as I would with evidence for anything else.

Yet the Bible says you do have the evidence. Look at this world. Look at your own body. Consider your own mind. You would have to accept that they at least make it slightly winsome to entertain the hypothesis that MAYBE God exists...at least 96% of the world thinks these things do, anyway. It's only the truly obdurate Atheists who insist it simply cannot be evidence for that. Even people as hard-headed as Dawkins are aware that it would be absurd not to recognize the attractiveness of that hypothesis, given the empirical facts of the world and human nature.

So it's more than reasonable for you to recognize that the world is at least potential evidence for God...even if you still refuse to acknowledge that that is what it is in actuality.

The Bible is just a book, and contains no more evidence of anything than any other book. Besides, God is not the subject here, nor part of it, as I have already said that morality is nothing to do with God. If there were a God, and he had moral opinions, they would be his opinions, not mine.

[Dontaskme]

So it's more than reasonable for you to recognize that the world is at least potential evidence for God...even if you still refuse to acknowledge that that is what it is in actuality.

Well lets take a look at the Bible's evidence for God.

“I am the light of the world,” is rooted in Jesus’ and the relationship with His Father. “Jesus speaks from God and for God and as God.”

So basically, all the quote is saying, it says that God is Light. And that's why the light that is Jesus had to disappear, so that there was not two sources of Light, one being the son and the other being his father to be existing at exactly the same time. Ok we get that, so far, so good.

So..It's obvious Light exists, that's what consciousness is. Any yet, we cannot see light/consciousness we are, because we are it, there is no other source, it's purely self-evident, no proof required, as light is self-illuminating. In the same conceptual context as the Sun that cast no shadow is the castor of all shadows.

One might say that God, like the sun, casts no shadow, for He is Absolute Light, or Without the sun, there is no shadow; without the Son, there is only shadow.

Now, who or what is conscious of being conscious? Who knows the concept ''Consciousness''? The answer is obvious and evident, consciousness itself knows of course as and through direct experience , no proof required, the evidence is self-illuminating.

Consciousness is light. Consciousness cannot be perceived by any individual, just as a child cannot perceive it's own mother's womb. The concept all there is only consciousness is wisdom. The concept there is no concept too requires consciousness for the individual to be conscious of the concept.

Consciousness keeps you alive and breathing. Consciousness does not go anywhere when you die, because there is no place for consciousness to go because consciousness is everywhere.

The recognition and realisation is that consciousness speaks through you and through everyone as well..in this conception.

Thanks for not reading.