[
Replying to The Tanager in post #264]
My original assertion was focused on the moral principle that "one shouldn't steal", which (I think) you had used as an example.
If I have misunderstood your intention behind using the concept of stealing in the context of objective morality, please feel free to clarify.
Stealing would be one example that plays out the general discussion we were having on a specific level. Are you saying observations point to humans inventing "one shouldnt steal", even if they dont speak to humans inventing morality on a more general level? If so, support that because I dont see it.
The concept of "stealing" relies on the existence of beings capable of ownership, intent, and social interaction. Without humans (or other intelligent beings capable of similar concepts), there would be no framework for stealing to exist as a moral or legal concept. Stealing implies a social contract in which property rights and personal ownership are understood and respected, as well as an understanding of transgression when something is taken unlawfully.
If no humans (or similar beings) exist, then there would be:
No ownership: The concept of possession is a human construct. In nature, animals may hoard resources or defend territory, but this behavior isn't moralized as "stealing" in the way humans do.
No moral obligation: Without beings capable of moral reasoning, there wouldnt be any prescribed rules like "one shouldnt steal." Moral rules are contextual to the beings creating and following them.
The concept of stealing only exists because humans have developed notions of ownership and social rules about how possessions should be treated. Without humans, stealing wouldn't exist as a moral violation because the underlying concepts (ownership, transgression, laws, or moral codes) wouldn't exist.
You seem to be (unintentionally) begging the question here. Why not say that scientific beliefs have been shaped by cultural, historical, and personal factors (they certainly have been) or that moral value judgments exist independently of human perception and are discovered through empirical observation and logical reasoning? You need to support the distinction you made. Where is the evidence and the logical reasoning that gets you there?
Scientific
facts describe objective phenomenasuch as the speed of light, the structure of atoms, or the force of gravitywhich exist independently of human perception. These
facts are discovered through empirical observation and experimentation, and they remain true regardless of who observes them or how different cultures interpret them.
Morality, on the other hand, is not about objective, unchanging facts but about value judgmentswhat is considered 'good' or 'bad,' 'right' or 'wrong.' These judgments are influenced by cultural, historical, and personal factors, making them subjective rather than objective. While moral discussions can be informed by logic and reasoning, they do not have the same kind of empirical foundation as scientific facts.
I want to clarify that my focus is on scientific
facts, not beliefs which may be shaped by scientific
facts. Scientific
factssuch as the chemical composition of water (H2O) or the force of gravityexist as objective truths. They are independently verifiable through empirical observation and experimentation, meaning they do not change based on cultural, historical, or personal factors. This is the nature of scientific truth: it remains constant regardless of human perception or belief.
Morality, however, is a different domain. While we can observe actions (like stealing) and the consequences they produce (such as harm), the moral judgment that 'stealing is wrong' involves value judgments, which are not objectively verifiable in the same way as scientific
facts. These value judgments are influenced by human culture, personal experience, and historical context. In this sense, moral values are not objective truths like scientific facts, because they rely on subjective human interpretation of right and wrong.
I think the burden of proof here lies with showing how moral values, which inherently involve human judgment, could ever be positioned similarly to scientific
facts, which are empirical and do not depend on human values. To equate them, one would need to demonstrate how moral values could be objectively verifiable in the same way as scientific
facts, which hasnt been shown.
Im not arguing that they are discovered. Im arguing that if God exists, they could be things that are discoverable, but that if God does not exist, I dont see how they could be things that are discoverable.
I understand that youre proposing that if God exists, objective morality might be something we could discover, similar to scientific laws. However, even if we assume the existence of a creator, this doesnt necessarily mean morality is objective in the traditional sense of being external and universally applicable.
From my perspective, GOD isnt an external, objective lawgiver dictating unchanging moral rules. Instead, I see GOD as a subjective being working through human subjective experiences. Morality, in this framework, emerges from how we, as minds/souls/spirits having a human experience, interact with the world. Its shaped by our collective human experiences, culture, history, and personal development, rather than being a set of fixed principles imposed from the outside.
That said, morality is still discoverable, even if GOD is a subjective force. It can be discovered through our experiences, relationships, and the evolving understanding of our roles as individuals and as communities. In this sense, we are continually discovering morality as we navigate our lives, but its not an objective, unchanging thingits adaptive, evolving, and deeply intertwined with our subjective experiences.
What remains unclear to me is how morality, as you describe it, could be discoverable in a fully objective sense, independent of human thought and culture. What evidence suggests that these moral truths are independent of subjective human experience, if GOD is indeed the source?
For morality to be objective, it doesnt have to be harm-based. That would depend on what our objective purpose is.
I think I see where you're going with the idea that objective morality could be tied to an objective purpose rather than being harm-based. This raises an interesting point: if morality is discoverable in relation to our objective purpose, the key question becomes how we identify what that objective purpose is.
From my perspective, understanding human purpose would likely involve subjective experiences, because how we perceive purpose is deeply influenced by our consciousness, culture, and environment. If we are minds/souls/spirits interacting with the world through our human forms, then any notion of purpose would emerge through those experiences.
However, you seem to be suggesting that our purpose, and by extension morality, might exist independently of these subjective factors, as something objective that we could discover. If thats the case, what evidence points to this objective purpose, and how would we distinguish it from subjective interpretations of what our purpose is?
For it to be through a subjective rather than an objective system, then you would have to allow for the creator saying that it is good, in certain environments, for children to be abused. Not, that God couldnt work good out of the bad of child abuse, but that the child abuse itself is good, for its own sake.
In future, please try to avoid the following type of responses.
1. Strawman Fallacy:
The strawman fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents an argument in a way that makes it easier to refute, rather than addressing the actual argument being made.
In this case, your response seems to be implying that because I am arguing for subjective morality, I would have to allow for the idea that child abuse could be considered "good" in certain contexts. This is a misrepresentation of my argument. My position doesnt imply that subjective morality would justify such harmful behaviorit only suggests that morality is shaped by individual and collective experiences, which doesnt equate to moral relativism where anything goes. By oversimplifying and distorting my argument, you have created a strawman.
2. False Dilemma (False Dichotomy):
You are implying that there are only two possibilities: either morality is objective (and thus clear-cut, avoiding moral atrocities like child abuse) or it leads to subjective moral systems where child abuse could be considered "good" in some contexts. This is a false dilemma, as it ignores the possibility of a nuanced middle groundnamely, that morality can be subjective yet still bound by universal human intuitions or shared moral principles, without slipping into moral relativism that would justify any harmful act.
3. (Possibly) Appeal to Emotion :
You are invoking a highly emotionally charged examplechild abuseto challenge my argument. While discussing serious moral issues is important, this might be seen as an appeal to emotion, where a visceral reaction to an immoral act (child abuse) is used to provoke an emotional response rather than advancing a logical argument. This could be designed to pressure me into defending my stance against a particularly extreme and emotional example, even though it doesnt accurately reflect my position.
Is that what you are saying?
No, thats not what Im saying at all. I believe that morality, while influenced by subjective human experiences, still emerges from shared human intuitions and the deeper consciousness that we, as minds/souls/spirits, bring into the world. This doesnt mean that actions like child abuse could ever be considered morally good, even in different contexts.
Its also important to note that our moral frameworks evolve over time, and this evolution aligns with what we know from history. In the modern era, we tend to see things differently than ancient societies did. What we now frame in clear moral language might not have been articulated the same way in the past. In ancient times, harmful actions like abuse might have been viewed through cultural, religious, or practical lenses, rather than being explicitly condemned or permitted in moral terms. This doesnt make those actions 'good,' but it shows that morality, as we understand it, is not static and has evolved with human consciousness.
What Im arguing is that morality is not dictated by an external, objective lawgiver in a prescriptive, unchanging sense. Instead, it emerges through our subjective interactions with each other and the world, shaped by a creator who works through those experiences. This allows for moral evolution that reflects both universal human intuitions and the unique contexts in which we live, but it doesnt justify harmful acts being deemed 'good' in any era.
I dont limit harm to physical harm. I dont think suffering and death are intrinsically evil.
I see your distinction between human-caused harm and harm that is part of the natural order of the world, where you suggest suffering and death are not intrinsically evil. However, I think the question of inconsistency becomes moot if we consider a subjective creator, which aligns with my view.
From my perspective, since GOD is omnipresent and intimately involved in every aspect of the human experienceboth the pleasant and the painfulGOD is also experiencing pain and suffering alongside us. This suggests that harm and suffering are part of the broader human experience that GOD shares and is not imposed externally as punishment. In this sense, the question of why a creator would allow harm and suffering isnt about inconsistency, because GOD is not an outside observer. Rather, GOD experiences these aspects of existence through us, through our subjective perspectives.
That said, if we assume an Objective creator who is external and prescriptive, then the question of inconsistency becomes relevant. How do we reconcile the idea that harm caused by humans is morally wrong, while harm as part of the created world is not intrinsically evil? It seems that under an objective moral framework, such an inconsistency could arise. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this distinction.
The shape of the earth is subject to human interpretation and experience. Flat-earthers exist. Yet, the shape of the earth still remains truly objective.
I see what youre saying, but I think the comparison between the shape of the Earth and objective morality overlooks a key distinction. The shape of the Earth is an empirical fact that can be objectively verified through observation, experimentation, and data. Even though some people, like flat-earthers, might deny this reality, the Earths shape is still something we can directly observe and prove through evidence.
However, morality isnt the same as a scientific fact. While flat-earthers are denying something that can be proven, those who claim objective morality are asserting something that cannot be empirically verified in the same way as the shape of the Earth. Morality is not something we can directly observe or measure through scientific methods. Instead, its shaped by human interpretation, culture, and experience, which is why we see different moral systems across societies and throughout history.
So, unlike the shape of the Earth, which remains the same regardless of belief, moral truths are not universally observable or provable. They are debated, interpreted, and often evolve as societies grow and change. The key difference is that we can objectively prove the shape of the Earth, but the claim of 'objective morality' remains an interpretation rather than an observable fact.
First, it adapts to context, but not human interpretation.
I want to focus on your point that objective morality adapts to context but not to human interpretation. This seems a bit unclear to me. If a moral principle adapts to context, doesnt determining the context itself require some level of human interpretation?
For example, how do we know when the context changes enough to adapt a moral principle like 'stealing is wrong'? Who or what decides that in a specific context, it is permissible to steal? The very act of assessing and applying moral principles to specific contexts seems to involve interpretation, whether individual or collective.
Could you provide a clear example of how objective morality can adapt to context without relying on human interpretation? Im struggling to see how context can be defined or adjusted without some interpretative process involved.
I dont think human experiences and societal constructs do shape it. I see no evidence of that. I see evidence that those things shape moral opinions, but not moral truths. Just like human experiences and societal constructs shape the opinions of flat-earthers, without shaping the truth itself.
I see what you're getting at with the flat-earther analogy, but I think we need to be careful about comparing moral "truths" to scientific
facts. The shape of the Earth is a measurable, empirical fact that can be objectively verified through observation. But moral "truths" aren't verifiable in the same way. We can't conduct an experiment to 'prove' whether something is morally right or wrong in the same way we can prove the Earth is round.
Thats why Im curious about how we determine these moral "truths" youre referring to, if they arent shaped by human experiences or societal constructs. If moral truths are independent of human perception and context, how do we discover or recognize them? Without observable, empirical evidence like we have for scientific facts, what distinguishes these moral truths from moral opinions?
Could you provide an example of a moral truth that remains objective, regardless of human experience or societal influence, and explain how we recognize it?
What do you mean by the creators influence coming through a subjective experience? Lets say I choose not to abuse a child because of the subjective feeling of disgust when the thought crosses my mind. Is that the subjective experience alone getting me there? Is it the creator influencing me through the experience, adding something to the experience itself? Something else?
When I refer to the creators influence coming through subjective experience, I mean that the creator works through the way we as minds/souls/spirits experience the worldour emotions, thoughts, and interactionswithout imposing an external set of objective laws. In your example, the subjective feeling of disgust when the thought of abusing a child crosses your mind is part of that experience.
The feeling of disgust itself may be shaped by a combination of personal, cultural, and societal factors, but I think the creator is intertwined with that process, guiding the development of those moral intuitions. Its not that the creator 'adds' something external to the experience, but that the creator is involved in shaping our emotional and moral responses as we engage with the world.
However, I also think its important to acknowledge that some people may feel resistance to those intuitions. For various reasonspsychological, environmental, or otherwiseindividuals can willfully or even unconsciously resist those feelings of disgust or compassion. This resistance doesnt mean that the moral intuition is absent, but that individuals might override or suppress it or otherwise be unable to resist, based on other influences.
Additionally, there are peoplelike atheistswho may feel the same moral disgust at the thought of abuse without believing they live in a created thing or acknowledging the existence of a creator. In these cases, Id argue that the creator's influence still comes through their subjective experience, even if they do not recognize it as such. They may see these moral intuitions as purely biological or cultural responses, but that doesnt negate the possibility that the creator is still working through their experience, whether or not they are aware of or believe in it.
Why? Thats what Im not getting. Why are these two things related?
This ties back to the claim of objective morality. If morality is truly objectivemeaning it exists independently of human interpretation and is dictated by an external source like an objective creatorthen it seems reasonable to expect that these moral principles would be universally recognized across cultures and societies.
Just like objective facts about the physical world (e.g., gravity, the speed of light) are observable and consistent no matter where you are, I would expect objective morality to manifest in a similar way. If the moral principles are rooted in the nature of the universe, they should transcend subjective human experiences and cultural variations.
However, what we observe in reality is that moral beliefs and practices differ significantly across societies and throughout history. This variability raises questions about whether objective morality exists in the same way that objective physical laws do. If morality were dictated by an external, objective creator, why wouldnt these principles be consistently recognized by all human beings, regardless of cultural context?
Id also like to point out that from the four types of morality you provided earlier, the description of objective morality'the goodness/badness of an act does not depend on the person (e.g., anyone in the same situation can steal if their family is starving)'doesnt provide a concrete example of truly objective morality. It still depends on the context (whether a family is starving), which introduces a level of interpretation based on the circumstances. This makes it less of a fixed, universally applicable rule and more like situational morality rather than objective morality.
Could you provide an example of an objective moral truth that applies universally, independent of context or human interpretation?
Okay, I think you are confusing the senses of objective again. The phrase objective creator to me would refer to a creator that objectively exists, in the sense of actually exists in reality, rather than just in someones imagination. The opposite to this is a creator that doesnt really exist, but is a figment of someones mind.
To me subjective creator is a term that doesnt make sense. What does your view add to a subjective human experience where no creator exists at all?
I see where the confusion might arise. When I use the term 'subjective creator,' Im not suggesting a creator who is purely imaginary or doesnt exist in reality. Rather, I mean that the creator is experienced subjectivelythrough human consciousness and perceptionrather than as an external, objective lawgiver imposing fixed moral rules. The subjective creator exists and is involved in the created reality, but operates through the human experience in ways that are personal, cultural, and shaped by context.
In this view, the creator doesnt necessarily exist as a separate, observable entity in the way physical objects or empirical data do, but rather as a conscious force that works through our collective human experience. The creator influences morality, not by issuing external decrees, but by shaping and interacting with our subjective experiencesour emotions, thoughts, and connections to each other.
So, what this view adds to a subjective human experience is the idea that morality is not just a human construct, but is influenced by the creator working through the lived experiences of individuals and societies. Even though morality appears to evolve and shift with culture, history, and context, the creator is still intimately involved in that process, guiding how we interpret and engage with moral principles.
Why not evolve to emphasize a lack of empathy, hatred, transactional relationships, etc. as foundations for what is moral?
Even if morality is something the creator wanted humans to work towards, that creator has an objective, fixed rule that they are working towards. That fixed bit is what Im talking about.
I think we need to be careful not to fall into a hypothetical fallacy heresuggesting that morality could just as easily evolve toward negative traits like hatred or a lack of empathy seems to assume that all moral directions are equally viable. However, human history and cultural evolution suggest that moral principles tend to favor empathy, compassion, and cooperation because these traits are more aligned with social harmony and collective well-being.
That being said, you mention that even if the creator wants humans to work toward certain moral principles, there must be an objective, fixed rule that guides that process. Could you explain what this fixed rule is and how it came to be? How do we recognize it, and what evidence supports its existence?
I dont see why you think the known objective evidence points that way. Explain that reasoning. I get where you think it is pointing, but not why you make that connection. Show the connection. For instance, I dont think the moral frameworks are that diverse. I think its more of a matter of different beliefs about fact in applying those principles.
I understand your point that the core moral principles might be similar across cultures and that the differences are more about how these principles are applied. However, I think that the diversity in application of these principles is itself a strong indicator of how subjective experience plays a role in shaping morality.
For instance, while many cultures might agree on the principle that 'killing is wrong,' the context in which killing is justified or condemned varies widelywhether it's in self-defense, during war, or as part of legal justice systems. These variations suggest that human societies interpret and apply moral principles differently based on cultural, historical, and social contexts, which reflects a subjective process of moral development.
The historical evolution of moral thought further supports this. Over time, weve seen shifts in attitudes toward issues like slavery, gender equality, and human rights. These shifts didnt emerge from an objective, universal moral law but were driven by human experience, empathy, and cultural change. If there were an objective moral framework imposed by an external creator, we might expect less variation and more consistency across societies and history.
Thats why I think the objective evidencethe diversity in how societies apply moral principles and how those principles have evolvedsuggests that morality is cultivated through subjective experiences rather than imposed by an unseen, objective entity.
Im a relativist. Relativism is the opposite of absolutism. And relativism is not a synonym for subjectivism.
I understand that you're a relativist and that relativism differs from both absolutism and subjectivism. However, Im still trying to reconcile how that fits into our broader discussion, especially since weve been focused on whether morality is objective or subjective. It seems like the distinction between relativism and absolutism doesnt fully address the key question of whether moral principles are externally imposed by a creator or shaped through human experience.
Could you clarify how your relativist position connects with your view on objective morality and whether that still allows room for moral principles to adapt based on human experience?
the god - belief will prevail because we have the numbers and power.
