The debate "You can't prove killing someone else is wrong without an objective source of morality" was started by
August 10, 2019, 5:06 pm.
73 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 28 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
JDAWG9693 posted 38 arguments, jrardin12 posted 1 argument, Edmqnd posted 42 arguments to the agreers part.
Allirix posted 17 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument, JDAWG9693 posted 7 arguments to the disagreers part.
jrardin12, Edmqnd, zeref, Hopetown27, poopy, JDAWG9693, itzmeboi, Manuel, whackamole1, YEET, Zsheaffer, Aiyaz, Delta_Force01, Lind and 59 visitors agree.
Allirix, TheExistentialist, Atratuscythe, Aby, codyray16 and 23 visitors disagree.
A) No, relativism is the framework, while for example, social contract theory is a different framework but is not any form of relativism.
1) I do, roughly, use culture as a framework; i.e. social contract theory. But, I don't follow what the culture does because it is doing it. Was slavery moral in the 1800s? Because that was the cultural norm, so it must be moral (under the guise of cultural relativism).
1b) Also, how can one go against cultural morality and remain moral? Like freeing the slaves, for example, went against the cultural morality of the time, and was therefore immoral.
3b) Were you born with a worldview or did you grow into one? If you grew your perception, then you formed the opinion that you hold on how the world works
4) We were talking about subjective truths and I was saying that, for example, that it is objectively true that you feel pain, but how much is subjective and an opinion. The pain example was better than the color.
5) Because it's based on feelings and opinions, rather than anything substantial. Social contract theory (SCT, henceforth) focuses on pragmatic solutions, rather than what feels good. Also, it is acceptable to change the contract as needed, where going against the cultural morality would be immoral.
There may be more overlap with nihilism than you think. The fictionalism side of nihilism asserts moral claims are nonsensical. Relativism agrees. Nihilism just stops there though. Relativism says "Lying is bad" can become sensical if you apply a framework to the question. The judgement only makes sense inside that framework though otherwise it's nonsense.
1) If you make moral judgements using your own framework those claims are only relevant to you, not society. They'd be irrelevant to me. Morality is concerned with how we should interact with each other and because culture determines the type of person we interact with it is logically the most relevant framework for morality. If you use culture as a framework to make moral judgements those judgements are only relevant to that culture.
3b) I'm not sure how you're defining opinion. How is your model of the world an opinion? It's a feature of subjectivity but it's not a "view or judgement formed about something". It's the framework you use to make views and judgements.
4) I guess I just don't get your point here. We agree that no objective perspective exists, I'm not sure how that is relevant to your overall position though.
5) Why does relativism fail?
1) Who's to say that cultural relativism is right and individual relativism is wrong? Once it's all subjective, each person can draw his own line.
2) Yes, it is a sacrifice of certain natural rights for the security of others, just as I said; progress being the main reason for this.
3b) All of those can be rephrased to be nothing more than opinions: "in my opinion, the world works as follows..." "in my opinion, that hurts like a mofo," etc.
4) I would definitely have to look more into how that works, but my point still stands. Just as pain exists, 500 nm light wavelengths exist, but neither has an objective perception (as ever everything else).
5) I understand, it's a long one, haha. I think it's toward the end where i switch over. And, nihilism on its own is definitely useless; it's moving forward from that starting point that is helpful. i would say that relativism is trying to move from that point, but simply fails.
1) You don't have to care about others, but you also don't set morality. The world is bigger than you so morality depends on more than you. According to cultural relativism it's relative to the society/culture you're in. The collective (culture) cares about how people feel because it's beneficial for us in many ways, one being because care is reciprocal.
2) The social contract is a voluntary resignation of certain rights to protect other rights. This directly maximises personal rights, the other benefits are secondary.
3) My point with the subjective world was it's the unit that is harmed or benefited so it's the subject of morality.
3b) Subjective truth is far more than just an opinion. It includes your model of the world, how you think it works, how your senses build it around you, how your feelings like pain and pleasure react to situations, and probably other things I can't think of now.
4) An electromagnetic wave with a ~500 nm wavelength is perceived as blue, but the blue you see is entirely inside your head. It's a subjective product of your brain that doesn't actually generate any blue, it just makes you experience it. No one else even sees the same blue as you.
5) I had a quick look. It appears TheExistentialist was the one you spoke to. Nerimoff was a relativist in the thread as well. I agreed with a lot that I read and didn't see the point about relativism being untrue/useless (although I skim read it because there was a lot) so I'm unclear where we disagree exactly. It's nihilism that's useless in my opinion lol
1) What do I care about another's subjective experience? Especially, like, a stranger that I literally don't care about?
2) A social contract does not attempt to maximize freedom. It may attempt to maximize freedom as a secondary goal, but the whole point of the social contract is to sacrifice freedoms for security and progress. The reason you don't kill me is because we have come to an agreement that I will also not kill you; otherwise I have little reason not to go on a killing spree. We have natural freedoms (the freedom to kill, rape, watch TV, eat chips; basically every action) and the social contract limits those that affect others in order to gain security and promote progress (the contract's two main goals). It may attempt to maximize freedoms within the contract, but I wouldn't say that that's a specific goal, rather a consequence of attempting to keep a high morale within the society to further the promotion of progress and to make sure that everyone continues to agree and uphold the contract.
3) I don't mind so much the thought of a "subjective world," more the connotations/consequences that often follow such a viewpoint. Because once someone says that what they think is true, then that is often the end of discussion (not saying that you do this, but that's what that thinking often leads to). Also, as I've said, truth cannot be subjective, then it becomes an opinion. What do you think the difference between an "opinion" and a "subjective truth" is?
4) Going back to your previous point on subjective truths, pain objectively exists. There is, however, no objectively quantifiable scale in which we can measure it. Blue objectively exists, we just have to look at things very, very specifically to see it.
5) If you're up for it, there's a thread on here called "Moral relativism is true," or something to that effect. I created it, if that helps you find it if you want to. It's a pretty long one, but Nemiroff and I had a really good discussion and he's actually the one who helped me realize how moral relativism is untrue/useless and why I should look more into social contract theory.
1. Harm or benefit towards another's subjective experience.
2. A social contract is about pragmatically maximising personal freedom, not progress... although that's often an outcome
3. And what's your gripe with a "subjective world"? Experience is more than a perspective it's 100% of everything you know and do as a human. There's no such thing as an objective experience. There's our subjective world (all your experience) and the objective world (the true nature of the world that science tries to model). Morality answers questions about the subjective world.
Benefit and harm towards what goal? Good feelings? Because I really don't care how people feel. I might care about general morale because that will affect the goal of what the social contract strives toward (progress).
You don't have a "subjective world," you have a subjective perspective of the world. And, it isn't true in any sense that puppies are cute or tasty. The very fact that two people can disagree on whether a puppy is cute or not and neither be wrong immediately makes the statement not a truth statement. What is a truth statement would be that "you hold the opinion that puppies are cute" not that "puppies are cute". But, your opinion is in no way true.
I explained what makes murder bad. It causes harm that significantly outweighs benefit. It's inconceivable for an opinion or beneficial feeling to outweight the harmfulness of murder. There's a reason no living culture believes murder is good. By focusing on extremes your obfuscating the differences modern cultures that moral relativism legitimises.
And all I'm saying of subjective truth is morality is not a priori, it's a posteriori. At the end of the day it's beholden to the subjects being impacted. In my personal subjective world it's a truth that dogs are cute and adorable pets, in another person's world dogs may be a tasty food source. Different tastes show how the same action affects two people very differently. Killing a tasty puppy and eating it will benefit someone who has not put a puppy in the circle of "cute and adorable pet" and enjoys their taste. It's not some objective force that divides us. How we categorised the puppy was subjective. That's evident by the fact that not everyone puts it in that circle. My cultural upbringing just shaped how I perceive puppies.
What makes murder bad? I think you agree with me that objective morality doesn't exist? If so, then yes, absolutely subjective truth doesn't exist. The very definition of truth is objectivity. Any "subjective truth" is nothing more than opinion; no matter how reasonable or supported it is, it is still just an opinion. Otherwise I can just say that it is true that cauliflower is the worst vegetable and it is true that abortion is wrong and it is true xxxx, etc. and you will have a very hard time refuting my statements because I already said that they are true. What about the people who legitimately enjoy killing? What makes them wrong and you right? Unless you take a logical/pragmatic approach like social contract theory or (in my opinion a more basic view) Kant's categorical imperatives, any ethical framework you pose is equally as valid as another's and there is no reason to follow yours over mine.
'Making a reason' isn't the same as reasoning, especially when it's absolute. Absolute reasoning is necessarily logical and grounded in truth. Is your point that truth and logic are independent of God and they are the laws morality is based on that are 'above' God? Sure. I'd say 'above' isn't accurate, they're just limits on him. But, that just boils down to the degrees of omnipotence argument we had elsewhere. Omnipotence that can go against logic and self-evident truth is self-contradictory and nonsensical.
And yes humans like saving face and lie to do so, it's just where they draw the line in East Asia is very different to Western culture. Cultural relativism is about where cultures draw lines between what's acceptable and what's not. Those lines are rather stable, and since a culture is an aggregate of many individuals, the lines have grey area with a lot of overlap with other cultures. The grey area depends on the distribution of individuals in the culture.
This is all rooted in the idea that moral truths aren't truths. If morality isn't objective, then moral truths must also not be objective. You agree that objective morality doesn't exist but you've ran to the extreme. The issue with base nihilism is it rejects the idea that subjective truth exists. That's like rejecting pain, feelings or even the colour blue exist. It's an incomplete view.
Given our subjective consciousness we can be impacted positively or negatively. The nature of that impact can be objective though ie harmful vs beneficial. A specific action may harm someone now, but benefit them later. A mental state change can be all that's needed to make something beneficial. The context and individuals involved drastically change whether a specific action is harmful or beneficial. Harm and benefit are only the 2 most common dimensions of good and bad. A group's collective understanding of what's good and bad is used to approximate how good or bad something really is. This is group relativism. Cultural relativism uses culture as the group. It's a far more complete theory of morality that rejects objective morality than nihilism. It also means statements like "murder is bad" are correct.
@Allirix: When A=B you are following both, yes. But, it's not A=B, it's that there's a conclusion (objective morality that doesnt need a reason because it's axiomatic) and God trying to make up reasons for the objective morality. Why are the laws of logic the way that they are? It's just because they are; axiomatic. If I try to make a reason, I'm just making shit up. That's what God is doing when he tries to make reasons for following an objective morality (if it exists).
Lying to stay face is a human thing, not just an Eastern culture thing. We are prideful creatures. So, is it okay to lie to stay face always? Or even just in Eastern cultures? If only in Eastern cultures (even though it's a human issue) then why only there and not here?
@Edmqnd: I'm not quoting anyone, but you are using Kathrine Rogers' argument which is an obviously flawed argument. I'm not saying that you read up on her and are copying her, I'm saying that you two reached the same conclusion (even though you did read similar articles) and you should read up on the opposition so you have a better perspective. And, yes I see where you're coming from but all it does is reword saying that God made morality, making it subjective. Firstly, define one's "nature" or "essence" and then prove that that is his nature and he's not just saying shit to sound impressive to us lowly humans. Also, if one's "nature" is within a being, then it still came from within God, making it subjective. If morality came externally from God and he's just telling us what it is, then it is objective and God is not omnipotent (and didn't create morality). If it came from within God (whether his personal preference or his "nature"(please define)), it is subjective.
JDAWG9693, since the nature is perfect it has to be objective that's the point. Okay we don't have to continue on this very point but do at least understand why we believe Euthyprho's Dilemma is a false dilemma?
And I dont even know who this person you keep on quoting is, I represent myself and no one else.
There are plenty of examples that become apparent when you immerse yourself in another culture. One example is it's the norm to lie to save the face of others in many east Asian countries.
And if A=B you're following both A and B when you follow A
@Edmqnd: I have the stamina, I don't see the point. I disagree with your statement. I have presented my arguments, you have stated yours; we fundamentally disagree.
Someone's "nature" is the exact same as what's within someone. Look into AntiCitizenX claims on omnipotence and people who refute Katherine Roger's because you're basically using her argument (one that almost everyone disagrees with).
If God came to the same conclusion as an already set objective morality, then I don't care what God says, I'm just going to follow what is moral.
Very few issues are only relevant to one culture. I, actually, can't think of a single issue that cant be boiled down to its basics and apply to every culture.
Allirix dont know who you responded to but I'll still say the following: Morality is objective because we believe Allah has a perfect nature and goodness is derived from that perfect nature and you'll then say how do you know God is good and therefore goodness has to be external to God but no, Allah is the only one worthy of worship and the only one worthy of worship is the highest moral being, according to what we believe...
According to what we believe Allah cant lie because he is Al haqq the truth and he's perfect so a weakness cant be applied to Allah since he's perfect and no we wont call it stalemate I explained why Euthyprho's Dilemma is a false dilemma now you either say I'm probably right or you say that you dont have the stamina do continue and that I'll understand.
I think I need to clarify something, correct me if I'm wrong. It's subjectivitism vs objectivitism and absolutism vs relativism. Relativism and absolutism can be objective, subjective or a combination of the two.
1. Believing it was God who set morality is a form of subjectivism,
2. Believing it was a magical force that's independent of any subject is who set morality is objectivism,
3. Believing God and this magical force independently arrived at the same morality is a combination of the two.
@Relativism: pain is an expression of subjectivity, but if the subject was impacted negatively then the negative classification of the impact is objective. Harm is objective, quantifying it is subjective.
1. Eg Believing morals are set by individual subjective experience is subjectivism
3. Eg Believing the objective consequences an action is expected to have in a specific culture can answer moral questions that are only relevant to that culture.
Are you serious? I think we'll just have to call it stalemate, Edmqnd. However, you can't say that he can't lie (something that is so easy and absolutely logical) and then say that he's omnipotent. That's literally saying that omnipotence is "being able to do everything except what you can't do." In which case, I'm omnipotent.
1: You saying he can choose what his nature is, is like saying he can choose whether to exist or not I mean come on, do you really think that? And he is omnipotent, Allah can't lie that doesnt take his omnipotence away from him! And he's perfect and you saying just because he doesn't choose to he perfect or because he doesn't choose to have a perfect nature makes him non omnipotent. That's absolutely ridiculous.
2: Again he doesnt choose his perfect nature that's just what he has and he's eternal so he can't choose to add attributes or take away attributes, what he has is what he has and that's forever what he'll have because he's eternal. Now once more his goodness is derived from his perfect nature and since his nature is perfect goodness is not subjective but father objective.
@Allirix: If there are objective morals and God is simply reaching the same conclusions, then he 1: did not make them, and 2: might not have good reasons to do so. He never (that I know of) tells us why we should do anything other than because he said so, just what to do. "Do not kill." Okay, God, good idea; may I ask why? "Because I said so." Well, that's not very convincing... "Because you'll go to Hell if you do" Well, that's just a threat, not really a reason... "Are you doubting me? Alright, you're going to hell anyways."
That's the impression that I get everytime God tells us what to do.
The only way that I would be using a moral absolutist perspective is when saying that moral relativism doesn't work. Without objective morals (which there is no evidence of) then all morality is subjective. When morality is subjective, it is no more than each person's opinions, which are equal to each other's. It's akin to your favorite color. In which case, they're useless. Therefore, we must be pragmatic, hence social contract theory.
@Edmqnd: Firstly, if he doesn't choose/can't change all of those things, there's no way that he can be omnipotent. Secondly, you're saying exactly what Katherine Rogers said and very few people agree with what she said because they realize that that's just false. His nature either conforms to a higher standard of objective morality OR his "nature" is just what he says about himself, making it no more than his opinion of himself (which is incredibly narcissistic, might I add)
We dont believe he created morality we believe it's derived from his perfect nature!
you have misunderstood Allah completely, he doesn't choose to be perfect and what perfect is and he doesnt choose what good is! I'll say it again, goodness is derived derived from his perfect nature!
But you brought up Euthyprho's Dilemma to prove a contradiction in Allah but I'm showing you why it's a false dilemma and then you just go "Prove that, prove that" I'm telling you that's what we believe and that's why it's a false dilemma. Your logic is if a claim God is perfect I have to prove that to continue my argument but no that's ridiculous because that's what we believe and I'm just applying our belief to show how Euthyprho's Dilemma doesnt work, I dont need to prove it to you that's the problem you have.
For "objective reasoning" I tried using your term and tried to make it more specific. You said: "Arbitrary doesn't mean no reason, it just means no objective reason meaning it's subjective". The normal definition of arbitrary disagrees, but if an objective reason is a reason independent of a subject, then it is reasoning seperate to God. But, if God's reasoning is the highest form of reasoning, and the highest form of reasoning is also independent of God, then the two must always align because every other instance is contradictory. He's not necessarily following or beholden to some independent source of reason, he's just reaching the same conclusions as it.
And you're using a moral absolutist perspective to criticise moral relativism, yet you're somehow a moral nihilist. If your premise is morals are absolute then your conclusion will always be morals are not relative. I agree that moral relativism makes it difficult to criticise other cultures, but that's just a result of morals not being absolute. If you truly are a moral nihilist you should recognise that issue with your own stance as well. That's why a set of proxy metrics other than just "culture says it's good" is needed to approximate how positive or negative an action is
Ah. So, subjective morals does boil down to the want of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. "We shouldn't kill because I wouldn't enjoy being killed." While that is a reason, what if I don't care what you enjoy? Through social contract theory, we have reasons not to kill other than the emotions (once I breach the social contract, i am open to equal consequences of what i have done). It depends on the moral relativism.
Cultural moral relativism: just because a culture agrees on something doesn't make it true (killing homosexuals in the middle east, slavery for most of history, various religions that aren't your own, etc.) Not only that, but going against these cultural morals would be inherently immoral (banning slavery giving rights to women, etc.) because those things were moral, so to advocate the opposite is immoral. Also, if each culture has a different cultural morality, but they're all subjective/relative, then who is each other culture to judge the other? Their morals are equally as valid as yours, they're just different. And, morals would then change depending on where you are, being as each culture has a different cultural morality.
Individual moral relativism: Exact same issues as above but on a personal scale (except for the location one).
I'm not sure what you mean by "objective reasoning". I think that if there is objective morality, it is definitely above/independent of God, but I think that it "reasoned" itself into existence as much as gravity did. It just is (if it exists).
Edmqnd said that Islam doesn't preach omnipresence for God (neither does some sects of Christianity, either. I'm not familiar enough with Judaism to comment). But, the reason I reject it is because he has given no support for such a claim. For the discussion, I can grant that a deity exists. Now he has to show that all his claims are coherent. Having objective morality and that morality being created by a being are logically contradictory.
And, how can we know he is absolute? What if he just says that he is? What if he truly thinks that he is, but actually isn't? See, that's the thing, we can't know ANYTHING for certain (bar that my own consciousness exists in some form). So, how can God, or anyone for that matter, claim to know anything? As much as I know anything I know that epistemological nihilism is absolutely true.
And why doesn't moral relativism work? Because it's dependant on context and appears whimsical? Because it's not using divinity as a basis?
The emotions comment was aimed at this comment "subjective morality ultimately boils down to emotions which is fallacious". It's wrong to say subjective morality boils down to emotions, it's far more complex than that, and emotions aren't inherently fallacious anyway. Subjective morality isn't "I'll do whatever my emotions tell me to do and that's a good thing". If this is what you believe though then I understand why you despise subjectivism.
Also, if you define objective as independent of God, and then say objective reasoning is higher than God's reasoning, then you are rejecting that God's reasoning is absolute. But that's how he is defined. Rejecting that is like rejecting God is omnipresent so you can win a debate about God. You may have a point, but that point doesn't apply to the God that's defined by the Jews, Christians and Muslims. It certainly applies to the gods of Socrates time though.
If God's reasoning is supposed to be absolute it is necessarily equal or higher than any independent basis for reasoning. Absolute reason is necessarily the highest form of reason and therefore must be the least arbitrary basis for morality. If it's the least arbitrary basis it's the least capricious basis.
Your definition of "good" was basically being moral. But if god made morality, then he defined himself as good... Do you not see the issue with that?? Also, if God made morality, etc. and "perfection" is defined as being free from fault who decided what a fault is? God?! And then he decided that he was perfect?! Do you not see the problem with this???
Also, you keep saying that I would say "how do I know what is good, therefore good must be external to god" which I don't disagree with that. But, then you just say, 'no you're wrong, God is worth worshipping.' Like, that's not supporting your claim, that's literally just a claim. Hitchen's Razor.
I have defined it! I gave a clear definition, if you didn't read it go back to the comments and look for it because I gave you a clear definition.
Again the word perfect is important. Goodness is derived from his perfect nature. And you'll then ask how do you know God is good, therefore goodness has to be external to God but no God is the only being worthy of worship and the only being worthy of worship is the most moral being. According to what we believe. so Euthyprho's Dilemma is a false dilemma.
@Allirix: Arbitrary doesn't mean no reason, it just means no objective reason meaning it's subjective.
You don't need moral relativism for social contract theory because moral relativism doesn't work properly. Social contract theory, however, is not focused on morality, its focused on ethics and it comes to such a conclusion pragmatically. Very similar how Kant got to his morality using only logic. I suppose you could call it a pragmatic morality as well, being that the why is the progression of society.
You're right, emotions are not necessarily a fallacy. I can't remember why you're bringing this up, if you could refresh me?
@Edmqnd: "nature" is still from within, making it subjective. Also, you still haven't coherently defined "good" or "perfect"
Allirix I hadn't heard about the dilemma too before JDAWG9693 brought it up so first I was speaking out of ignorance but then I read more about it and claimed it's a false dilemma and that there is a third way, a third option which is as following:
God is good and his goodness is derived from his perfect nature making it objective not subjective since his nature is perfect. now the next question is how do you know God is good therefore goodness has to be external to God but no, God is the definition of Good, why, because he's the only being worthy of worship and the only being worthy of worship is the being with the highest moral.
I've actually never heard of the dilemma but from the little I've read so far I don't quite get how it's a dilemma.
The two horns:
Proposition 1. The laws of morality are an independent standard above God that even God must follow. Problem 1: but God is supposed to be the ultimate authority in the universe.
Proposition 2. The laws of morality are entirely based on God's will. Problem 2: but God's will is based on nothing independent to himself so it's therefore subjective and totally arbitrary.
Problem 2 is weak because if God is supposed to be maximumally reasonable, and if his will is based on his reasoning, and if arbitrary = no reason, then God's will is not arbitrary, so neither is the morality he wills. But I'm willing to accept I'm missing something because this seems to have been debated for millennia.
JDAWG9693 That's what we believe, absolute, perfect and etc. If I want to prove that I first have to prove God exists, islam is the one true religion, the quran is the word if God and only then will you accept that but at this very moment it's irrelevant what we believe when discussing Euthyprho's Dilemma, my point was to show you it's a false dilemma and that there is a third way, a third option.
So ethics address how one ought to live and morals address why one ought to live that way? That's different to my understanding of morality and moral normative statements but I'll run with it. So "You should not steal without a reason" is the ethical normative statement and "because if stealing without a reason was a universal imperative private property would cease to exist and the concept of theft wouldn't exist" would be Kant's moral statement? Have I understood you properly? It's probably important we use a common language to talk about these ideas or else we'll never understand each other.
Also, isn't social contract theory dependant on accepting moral relativism not nihilism? Social contact theory only has legitimacy if how/why questions are answerable in relation to categories like culture or society instead of being arbitrary and empty (nihilism) or hidden universal qualities (absolutism). A society is also the aggregate of the ideas, attitudes, emotions, mental states, beliefs, expectations, etc of constituent individuals so it's at least built on individual subjectivity. Objectivity may emerge from collective subjective experience, that's what utilitarians believe, but subjective experience clearly should not be ignored when answering how/why questions.
I want to correct something too: subjective experience is much much more than just emotions, and using emotions as a metric for an ethical framework is not fallacious at all. What's fallacious is using your emotions to override logic and reason. Emotions aren't some magical thing that makes everything they touch a fallacy.
Who says that Allah has perfect nature? Did Allah say so? How can we prove it?
No, goodness, morals are again derived from his perfect nature (the word perfect is extremely important) and they are therefore objective because they are derived from his perfect nature and Allah can't have fault. Allah didn't define these things they are again derived from his PERFECT nature and that's why the morals are objective.
But, if good is what is moral, and god created the morals, then he defined good (and by default he defined perfection) and defined it as himself. Do you not see how narcissistic that is?
I did define good: Good is what is moral, doing good is doing what is right, righteousness.
Perfect: 1: free from fault, mistake or defects or at least as close to such a condition as possible.
2: Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.
3: absolute, complete.
No, I don't agree.
Define "good" and define "perfect".
Do you agree with that or do you at least understand why muslims believe Euthyprho's Dilemma can be dismissed?
Think of it this way, Allah is perfect and goodness is derived from his perfect nature and is therefore objective not subjective because his nature is perfect. Subjective means based on emotions, desires and etc but since God is perfect he does not have subjectivity only objectivity. And that Allah is the only one worthy of worship is a different discussion.
Good is that which is morally right, righteousness and god is good because he is perfect and goodness is derived from his perfect nature.
His nature is still from within. Within = subjectivity. Also, it is your subjective opinion that God is worth worshipping.
It's not a circular argument because what's good, the nature of god why's the nature of God good, it's good because God is the only one worthy of worship and the only being worthy of worship is the being with the highest moral and that is God. So it's derived from his nature.
Yeah, that's usually what I hear but it's still wrong. basically the dilemma is this: did morality come from outside of God or inside of God? If it cane from outside, then it is either an even higher God's morality, still making it subjective, or it is objective and God cannot change it (making him not omnipotent and more of a messenger). If it came from within God, however you wanna word it (essence, nature, wisdom, etc.) then it is God's subjective morality.
Also, no. Allah is NOT the definition of "good" or "perfect" and I promise you don't want him to be, and here's why: Firstly, it's a circular argument/definition. "Define good. 'God.' Define God. 'good.'" Well, that was useless and now we don't have a definition for either. Secondly, if God is the creator of all things, then he defined good/perfection, yes? That means that he defined perfection/good and then defined it as himself, which is as arrogant and narcissistic as one can get.
I believe it's a false dilemma because of the following:
Euthyprho's Dilemma goes like this "Do the gods love good action because it is good or is good action good because it is loved by the Gods" Now the reason it's a false dilemma is because there is a third way. God is good, his nature is good, he's the perfect, the holy and his commands are derivatived from his nature. You'll then ask how do you know God is good and therefore good has to be external to God, but no because Allah is the definition of good, why because he's the only being worthy of worship and the only being worthy of worship is the highest moral being.
Hope this makes sense.
That's not the point of this platform and is not helpful to finding truth c:
I believe it is a correct dilemma. Why do you think otherwise?
I am not a subjectivist, no. I'm a nihilist who subscribes to social contract theory. Much like as yout said earlier about Kant's categorical imperative theory, since there is so objective morality and any subjective morality ultimately boils down to emotions which is fallacious, we must lin for what is pragmatic. Social contact theory is logical and pragmatic.
Also, I've always described the difference as ethics being what to do and morals being why to do it. But, with no objective "why" to do anything, you can have any reason you want to follow the social contract. Whether it be to avoid punishment, because you want the flourishment of society, etc. The is no right "why" (morals) but we do have rules (ethics)
Thank you and the reason you don't make a mockery out of me for admitting fault deserves my respect, thank you. Well start with that Euthyprho's Dilemma is a false dilemma, that's my claim.
Of course, if you change your mind we can always start from where you changed
I read alot more on Euthyprho's Dilemma and the conclusion is that it's a false dilemma.
Tldr: isn't subjectivity at the core of moral nihilism? The concept of murder is not right or wrong but instead exists on a spectrum of positive consequences vs negative consequences. Consequences are mostly subjective because humans are entirely subjective.
Just my random thoughts
You accept subjectivism with ethics, but you reject it with morality. I don't understand how, but I also believe the difference between ethics and morals is superficial. They're both ultimately addressing how one should act. What's the difference that makes subjectivism unacceptable in morality but acceptable in ethics?
I think I'm also a moral nihilist though, but I must differ in some way to what you believe because I believe subjectivity is at the core of moral nihilism.
I believe moral claims like "murder is wrong" are not true or false statements. The concept of murder instead exists on a spectrum of positive consequences vs negative consequences. An action's location on the 1D spectrum depends on the sum of the positive and negative consequences (which should also include lost opportunities). Since an action's consequences are highly contextual I also believe each specific murder (for example) in the set of all murders lies on a different location on the spectrum.
Averaging every murder in the set can get an overall picture of where murder lies, and if it's on the negative side of the spectrum my view would support "murder is bad" as a true statement, but there's an issue with applying that. A specific action's consequences are largely unknown, and lost opportunities are completely undiscoverable, so I think it's impossible to ever know where a specific action lies on the spectrum. (by "lost opportunities" I mean things that will no longer happen because of the action you made).
We can only use proxy metrics to represent consequences and our limited model of the world to determine the lost opportunities. A reasonable person has a pretty good model of the world and shares the same proxy metrics as the community they're in. These are entirely subjective and are all that is needed to create a solid moral understanding.
Can I apologize for everything I've said about concerning Euthyprho's dilemma, I did not know so much about and only spoke of what I felt to sound reasonable, I would like to retract every statement about Euthyprho's Dilemma because I believe it is foolish to talk about something which you have no knowledge of but now as I have done a bit more research about the Islamic view and not my view I kindly ask if we could start over the discussion about Euthyprho's Dilemma from the start and if we could forget about the claims I made about Euthyprho's dilemma, If you kindly would make your case for Euthyprho's dilemma and i believe we'll now have a more productive discussion.
There is no "essence of truth" so how can God make something true? Also, god had to interpret what he says, so by your own admission he can't espouse objective morality. And, everyone has to explain themselves if they expect me to follow them. If someone tells me that I should do something and I ask why, they had better have a very good reason other than "because I said so" or "because if you don't I'm going to torture you." Everyone has to justify their decisions and God it's not except from that.
Objective morality means a morality that is not up for interpretation but there is a ultimate truth and we believe that, that ultimate truth is what God has decreed to be the ultimate truth and another difference is that you're not all knowing and if you said for example killing is right because this, that and the other then God would say killing is wrong without supporting it with this, that and the other Hod would not have to explain himself (Supposing there is a God) because that's what he has decreed to be moral and that is then what has become objective.
If his morality is subjective and my morality is subjective, how is his morality any better than mine?
You admit that his morality is subjective meaning that the original premise that killing is not wrong without objective morality, is true.
Do you agree that if Allah created what he says is morality, then it is his subjective morality?
I believe I am saying that I do trust Allah's morality to be the ultimate morality.
All you're saying is that you th trust God's subjective morality. You're not saying that it isn't subjecting and equally as arbitrary
God has decreed what is right or wrong and yes I could agree with you that's subjective but for us as humans it becomes objective because that's what God has decreed. If there is a society believing killing is moral then God steps in a says its immoral we go with God because it is God that has said what's moral and immoral and we trust god when it comes to everything.
Better by what standards? If there's no objective morality, and God's morality is his own subjective view, then it's still just as arbitrary as my view of morality
allowed in society 2 killing is not allowed now god would be able to differ between those and know which ones more preferable and why they are
Ok, every culture let's say have there different moralities, these moralities are based upon different things either way they are different and subjective. The morality that god presents is probably his subjective opinion (This is the first time I've been introduced to this question so I might be wrong) But since God is all knowing he knows which kind of morality is better then others and for what reason, for example in society 1 killing is
Without an objective "source" of morality, you can still prove killing is wrong. The only limitation is that you can only prove it wrong within the confines of a given subjective moral code. In utilitarianism, for example, I can say killing is wrong if it causes more harm than joy. In Social Contract theory I can say killing is wrong in so far as it violates my agreement with society. In cultural relativism, killing is wrong as it pertains to cultural norms of a given civilization.
Okay. If he created it, how is it not just his subjective opinion?
Good question I believe he must've created morality because if he discovered it that means morality is separate from him and is also eternal so there would be more then one eternals so he probably created it
I'll put it a different way: Did Allah discover or create morality?
Allah is all knowing and therefore knows what's right or wrong but you are not all knowing and therefore dont know
Yeah, that's not a third answer. That's just another way of saying that he made it up. That's like saying my opinion is objective because it's in my nature to think the way I do, which is true.
Read this it explains much better then me.
But, you don't believe that the Christian god is stronger than you because you don't believe that he exists.
And, no, I still stand that if god poses morality, then it is simply his subjective opinion and you have not supported otherwise.
First of all if we suppose for argument sake god exists and if he said killing is right would that be right then because you can't get more objective then God. And the reason I believe Allah is not because he's stronger, the christian Gid is stronger then me, I dont believe in him same for the hindu gods, so the reason I believe in Allah is not that reason but another for another topic.
If it's his own standards, then it's his subjective opinion and the only reason you should listen to him above everyone else is because he's stronger.
If you dont accept that then there's not so much I can do for you.
The euthyphros dilemma, God does define good and evil by the standards of his own.
Yeah. An ethical framework that ignores subjectivity is incomplete because 100%* of human life is subjective. Ignoring that in a framework on how we should live will lead to undesirable consequences. That's why contemporary ethical frameworks are dialectic. Subjectivism respects the human side, objectivism guides our values with ideas that transcend human experience.
*We never leave our brain. Our 5 sensors constantly measure the world: seeing your phone screen, feeling the haptic feedback of the key strokes, hearing the nearby highway, tasting your saliva, smelling your shampoo. The data is objective. Wavelengths of Light, pressure on the skin, pressure waves in the air, etc . But, the brain uses that data to build a subjective model of the world in the mind's eye. Our experience is then defined by that model and we react to the model with pain, pleasure or some other lower order feeling that is as subjective as the antecedent model.
For example, brown doesn't exist, try explaining it to someone who's never experienced brown, it's just a property of your vision interpretor. If you associate the brown light wavelengths with something positive though, like the concept of a steak when hungry, then you may feel pleasure after seeing it.
Yes, I have read it several times and have heard nearly every argument for the existence of a god and I am still not convinced. However, you still never answered the Euthyphro dilemma because even if I were to grant there being a god, the Euthyphro dilemma still stands.
To prove Objective morality exists I have to prove God exists first or at least five my reasons and then prove the morals of Islam (since I'm a muslim) ti be right and I believe I showed a very good case for the existence of God when I and Nemiroff discussed the existence of a neccessary existence, we came to an agreement ish. so I would want you to read that discussion, that's my reason/proof for a neccessary existence/Allah. Now if islam is the right religion and has the right morals I could debate that after you've read the discussion about a neccessary existence between I and Nemiroff.
I can argue for the nonexistence of morality.
I do agree with the claim that murder is not morally wrong without objective morality. I also, however, don't believe in objective morality, which it seemed that you do. Would you like to debate the existence of objective morality instead?
JDAWG9693 just to remind you the topic is about morality but you've said you dont believe in morality so what are you doing participating in this discussion?
I do heavily agree with Kant's categorical imperatives, however I feel that it poses a very black and white perspective of ethics and can lead to undesirable consequences.
I think Kant's "categorical imperative" concept a nice attempt to ground ethics in universal objectivity using logical contradictions instead of breachs of subjective experience. If everyone had the imperative to kill for no reason, everyone would be dead and there would be no one to murder. If everyone had the imperative to steal for no reason, private property would breakdown and the concept of theft wouldn't exist. If everyone was driven to break promises for no reason then promises would be meaningless.
If it actually worked, sure. But, it never has on a large scale and probably never will. Or, when it did "work", there were definitely better ways of doing it, like positive reinforcement. So, the torture would be bad because positive reinforcement works better.
And, I do answer the questions. But, when I do, I also try to point out something wrong with the question (irrelevance, fallacious, etc.) and/or pose another question (often that you try not to answer and then just accuse me of not answering). Then I end up reanswering because you couldn't understand my answer; which if I'm being unclear I am happy to clarify, but with my conversations with everyone else they seem to understand me just fine.
At the time of the Prophet people were very, and I say very rarely punished for adultery because you had to have penetrating sex in public with four people witnessing it.
You know JDAWG9693 I have noticed that also in other debates you like being evasive instead of just answering the question or the point. If pain boosts progress and productivity is the pain then justified, if torture boosts it is it then justified?
Yes, which I would say means that society as a whole viewed the killing of innocents as wrong, they just perceived themselves as powerless against the upper class.
the peasants surely thought it was not ok. but they didnt decide the law and society as a whole accepted those actions for many generations.
because women have always been the weaker sex politically. and i specifically said it wasnt just Islam. it happens all over India to this day, and traditionally it happened everywhere, including Christian nations. although unlike in Islam it wasnt officially legal, it was openly done and often unpunished.
a murder of an adulterous wife in Tennessee as recently as 1987 got turned into a voluntary manslaughter because she was cheating on him. (state v. thorton)
There is no evidence outside of the bible that the Jews were enslaved in Egypt that I know of. However, if I view it as a hypothetical, then yes it was wrong. Especially because they definitely did have other slaves/servants who built the pyramids and were not often tortured, but rather were treated respectfully.
Even the they weren't percieved as innocents they were innocents, dont you agree? You showing the flaw in your own admission.
so pain equals worse progress and is therefore wrong? if that's the case how come the Egyptians tortured and enslaved the jews and the causes pain to the jews and that made them work better because of fear of the punishment they were going to recieve, is that then allowed, good or not bad because pain is wrong because there's bad progress but in this case pain was good for the progress do you then justify that?
They were not perceived as innocent to their killers.
However, even if I grant that, my very next point outlined my answer if it was acceptable at one point. So, let's continue the discourse
And JDAWG9693 The arabs before Islam came buried their daughters alive because it was a shame to have a daughter and not a son, so it's absolutely ridiculous to claim "Killing innocents have never been accepted before" that's I'm sorry to say but a stupid claim. weren't the jews innocent when the nazi's slaughtered them? weren't the people that suffered at the sword of the crusaders innocent? weren't the american slaves innocent when they were tortured and finally killed? Weren't the 100 million people that died due to communism innocent? Sorry to say bug your claim is stupid.
I just explained that if there is too much pain, then morale will drop and when morale is low, progress slows. One of the main points of my view of ethics is progress.
Pain -> low morale -> slow/no progress.
Just look at the dark ages when progress basically cane to a halt
I think that it was viewed as not okay, but the people just realized (or though) that they had not enough power to fight back.
And, many of the time, the people doing the killing did not view their victims as innocent. For example, if a woman cheated, per your example, the society at the time viewed that as a capital offense. Whether they were right or not (obviously not) is up for debate, but they didn't think they were innocent.
Adultery was rarely punished at the time of Muhammed (SAW) and why are you implying that only women would be punished for adultery?
so again why is pain bad?
I believe that in many societies nobles were allowed to kill peasants. I believe it was not uncommon in Europe. it likely was very common in ancient times like before hammurabis code. and it was common in Japan during the time of the samurai.
also duels, and cheating women (not just in Islam). I think children werent particularly valued until modern society either.
Because morality doesn't exist, we should focus our ethics on what is pragmatism. And, if morale is low in a society, then progress will be slow, as well
why is pain bad, now that you dont believe in morality?
Not everything. Things that bring about progress with no unnecessary pain involved. So, it wouldn't be okay to build a new factory that's gonna be revolutionary to medical technology if you're trying to build that factory on top of an urban neighborhood. It would be ethical to find an available location or to properly compensate those who live there if they all agreed to move.
Or, it isn't ethical to kill a convicted rapist who has served his term and been released from prison, but if he attempted to rape you then it would be ethically acceptable to kill him in self-defense. Obviously non-lethal options are preferable (usually, in my opinion) but in that instance, I wouldn't condemn anyone for taking lethal actions
I understand now so everything that gives progress is ethical and encouraged? Dont want to say moral because you dont believe in that.
I did explicitly answer most of your questions and I felt that the answer to the rest was implicit, but I will express them again for you since you seem to need it.
1) Alex O'Connor (Cosmic Skeptic) is not a moral nihilist, he is a moral subjectivist. I am a moral nihilist.
2) Yes, we can judge people based on how well they follow the social contract. This, however, is ethics and not morality. They are related, but not the same thing.
3) Morality cannot change over time because morality doesn't exist.
4) Ethics can change depending on what that time and society calls for to bring about prosper and progress.
5) Killing innocent people has NEVER been viewed as acceptable.
5a) Even if at some point it was (which it NEVER has been) then, no, that would not be ethical because that would not encourage progress.
That's as clear as I can make it for you.
Good on you dont answer a single one of my questions, I wont repeat myself go to my previous comment and read the questions i asked.
Alex O'Connor (Cosmic Skeptic) is a moral subjectivist and I don't agree with his views. I am a moral nihilist (along with other forms of nihilism, but that's not relevant right now). Given that there is no objective morality, and any subjective morality boils down to nothing more than feelings, I look for what is pragmatic. So, whatever will create the greatest amount of societal progress with no pain/least amount of pain, that is what we should do. However, that is my ethical standpoint, not my morals.
Also, killing innocents has never in history been viewed as okay. And, even if it had (which it hasn't) then no, it wasn't okay because that did not encourage societal progress or flourishing.
I totally agree with Nemiroff here, but if you JDAWG9693 is a moral nihilist just like "cosmicskeptic" I believe then do you think you can judge someone else on what's morally wrong or right? And do you believe morality can change over time, for example today is it considered immoral to kill an innocent human being but in 1000 years let's say it'll be accepted by the majority that it's moral to kill an innocent person, would you accept that or agree with that then?
Great strawman. I said it's not morally wrong, as I believe that there is no objective morality (and therefore any morality). It is, however, ethically wrong.
do you support the death penalty? how about self defense? a justified war?
killing isnt wrong in any society, including pious Christian ones. murder is what is wrong, but that definition is a legal one, not a moral one.
Well I am glad you don't mind me killing you.
I don't think that it is morally wrong, being that I'm a moral nihilist. I think that it's ethically wrong under the subscription of social contact theory, which we all do subscribe to