tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post116728383679839780..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Morality TestAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-24205723959419354922006-12-31T10:36:00.000-07:002006-12-31T10:36:00.000-07:00All this talk about Subjective vs. Objective, and ...All this talk about Subjective vs. Objective, and I have yet to understand why, or who cares...<br /><br />It is pretty obvious to me what Bacon Eating Atheist Jew was getting at. Now, it would seem to me that you are just looking to read your own words with this excersize in semantics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-9322230123562931812006-12-30T13:24:00.000-07:002006-12-30T13:24:00.000-07:00m wrote: "You're confusing "a claim" with "the act...m wrote: "You're confusing "a claim" with "the act of making a claim". One shouldn't use the word "claim" to refer to the latter."<br /><br />Actually no :-(<br /><br />As our discussion has slipped into a splitting of hairs, perhaps we should find something more tangible to discuss on the subject?<br /><br />I asked a question to Alonzo <a href="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2006/12/meaning-of-morality-is-subjective.html">here</a>, that is specifically what I'm focused on. Perhaps this wording is more clear.<br /><br />If you'd like to respond ... why don't we move our discussion to that location?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-24856700972218549442006-12-30T12:46:00.000-07:002006-12-30T12:46:00.000-07:00You're confusing "a claim" with "the act of making...You're confusing "a claim" with "the act of making a claim". One shouldn't use the word "claim" to refer to the latter. You can say "that was an exhausting run", but when you say "that was an interesting claim" you're not saying that the act of making a claim was interesing, but rather that the claim was.<br /> <br />Relationship 1: "God is extant" (an objective claim)<br />Object: God<br /><br />Relationship 2: "[? claims] God is extant" (a subjective claim)<br />Object: "God is extant" (an objective claim)<br />Subject: ? (a claimant)<br /><br />When people talk about claims being subjective or objective, they're talking about 1. Nobody should talk of 2 being subjective or objective, because by definition it's subjective - that relationship includes a subject, an entity that feels, thinks, and decides (implied or explicit).<br /><br />A claim can be called a claim on its own. Nobody need be claiming it. In the same way, I can call a man a runner even when he isn't running. When someone says "is a claim", there's no need to bring a subject, a claimant, into the picture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1167503129452453502006-12-30T11:25:00.000-07:002006-12-30T11:25:00.000-07:00m wrote: Bringing this back to Alonzo's statments:...m wrote: <EM>Bringing this back to Alonzo's statments: "at least one God exists" is objective.</EM><BR/><BR/>I do not agree. I agree with Alonzo <A HREF="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2006/12/meaning-of-morality-is-subjective.html" REL="nofollow">respecting this post</A>. Which I extrapolate, and claim all meanings/definitions/statements/claims are subjective.<BR/><BR/><EM>Objective</EM> relates to a material object. An object whose reality and existence is based upon observed facts.<BR/><BR/>Statements can respect the objective, but they are not objective themselves.<BR/><BR/>m adds: <EM> I think that you're bringing a claimant into the relationship, and suggesting that thus the claim is now subjective.</EM><BR/><BR/>hmmm ... my intent was quite the opposite. I've intended to focus on the <EM>claim</EM>, not who is making it (Alonzo), nor on the object of the claim (God).<BR/><BR/>It appears to me that you are focus on the object of the claim, not the claim itself.<BR/><BR/>m concludes: <EM>Alice can't be 'wrong' for favoring ice cream, but in the former, she definitely can be (and is) wrong for believing that it's ethical to randomly kill people.</EM><BR/><BR/>I don't have any interest in starting a discussion with regards to <EM>relativism</EM>. However, the conclusion that any action is immoral requires a definition of <EM>immoral</EM> and all definitions are subjective. <BR/><BR/>imo, to be objective each of the enumerated definitions below must apply<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/objective" REL="nofollow">Objective:</A><BR/>1. Of or relating to a material object, actual existence or reality. <BR/>2. Not influenced by the emotions or prejudices. <BR/>3. Based on observed facts.<BR/><BR/>At least that's my <EM>subjective</EM> opinion of what <EM>objective</EM> is ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1167439104136225412006-12-29T17:38:00.000-07:002006-12-29T17:38:00.000-07:00If you mean that someone's making the statement "g...If you mean that someone's making the statement "god exists" is subjective, then I agree. "Alice thinks that god exists", for example, is subjective because it involves Alice. But this is a different thing entirely. Here, any statement becomes subjective by virtue of an individual stating it. "The moon has more mass than this stone" becomes a 'subjective statement', as you define it, when we consider that someone is saying it, and that some fool might disagree. But this is hardly notable. When I talk of the objectivity or subjectivity of a certain claim, I'm considering the claim itself, and not going a step higher to consider the person making it.<BR/><BR/>If Alice says "the mountain is bigger than the sun", this claim isn't subjective - it's wrong. The line here is fine and easy to mistakenly cross. The difference is between "Alice thinks the mountain is bigger" and "the mountain is bigger". The former is subjective (and true), the latter objective (and false).<BR/><BR/>Bringing this back to Alonzo's statments: "at least one God exists" is objective. It has nothing to do with people or perception. Differing definitions of God have no effect because we're using Alonzo's definition. Differing beliefs regarding the truth have no effect on the actual truth of the statement. The claim itself is objective. I think that you're bringing a claimant into the relationship, and suggesting that thus the claim is now subjective. But it's really a new thing entirely. Things are subjective only because now we've switched to talking about "the claimant thinks at least one God exists", and no longer "at least one God exists". This is a subtle switch.<BR/><BR/>When I speak of subjective debauch, I refer to "her belief is subjective, and her reason is sheer preferance". My point there was that if we don't know, the right thing to do is admit it, instead of taking up some belief and hiding under "but it's subjective, so it's ok". If someone says "it's ok to randomly kill people", they're wrong. "Alice thinks it's ok to kill people" can't be equated with "Alice favors ice cream", because they're very different types of subjective relationships. In the latter, Alice can't be 'wrong' for favoring ice cream, but in the former, she definitely can be (and is) wrong for believing that it's ethical to randomly kill people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1167411880918955732006-12-29T10:04:00.000-07:002006-12-29T10:04:00.000-07:00m wrote: "But the underlying statement is objectiv...m wrote: "But the underlying statement is objective. God exists, or does not."<BR/><BR/>Ok, I'm <EM>now</EM> seeing your perspective. However, ... I still do no agree.<BR/><BR/>I'm speaking of the objectivity of the <EM>statement</EM> or <EM>claim</EM>, not of the truthfulness of the claim.<BR/><BR/>While there might actually exist some "God" by some definition, and his existence might be <EM>true</EM>, any <EM>statement</EM> that he does or does not is plainly subjective, as long as there is known objective evidence for the claim.<BR/><BR/>m commented: "A lack of knowledge should not lead to subjective debauch".<BR/><BR/>In my opinion, it certainly does. If an individual makes a claim with a lack of knowledge, the <EM>claim</EM> is subjective. Even <EM>if</EM> what is claimed is true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1167406306585172942006-12-29T08:31:00.000-07:002006-12-29T08:31:00.000-07:00Ben, to better illustrate, I'll give two examples ...Ben, to better illustrate, I'll give two examples of subjective claims. The first relates to value judgements: enjoy, prefer, favor, hate. "Joan prefers ice cream". The second relates to belief in the truth of claims: think, believe. "Jack thinks god exists". In the first, if you take Joan out of the picture, it makes no sense: the relationship needs an ice-cream enthusiast. The second is a subjective statement about an objective truth. Jack is the subject, and Joan might not believe in god, so yes, the "thinks" statement varies from person to person. But the underlying statement is objective. God exists, or does not. It doesn't matter if we can falsify or detect God. We might be utterly incapable of determining what happened at a certain point in the big bang, but something did happen. A variance in belief does not suggest a variance in truth. A variance in definition or belief of what is good (moral) does not suggest that morality itself varies, only that people disagree, are mistaken, or suck at figuring out what is moral and what isn't. A variance in belief in god does not suggest a variance in the truth (or untruth) of god's existence. When we truly do not know, as with the existence of god (or the fsm), what we should do is remain agnostic, and analyze the probability of truth. A different type of subjectivity emerges, and it's specific to subjective claims that not only differ, but are baseless. Alice thinks Thor exists, but has no sensible and sound reason for the belief. Her belief is subjective, and her reason is sheer preferance.<BR/><BR/>A lack of knowledge should not lead to subjective debauch - "god's existence or morality are meaningless and up to my whims" - but to careful and perhaps hopeful agnosticism - "I truly don't know, but I hope that I can discover". I disagree with your first reason. I think that there are no questions that are both subjective and sensible. For example: "is ice cream the best?" is senseless; "does Joan favor ice cream most?" is objective. I could be wrong here, but just as there is imperfect reason to believe I'm right, there is drastically less reason to believe that I'm wrong. Can you think of a question that is subjective and sensible? Could elaborate on qualification vs. quantification? I don't think I understand what you mean there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1167363309109820922006-12-28T20:35:00.000-07:002006-12-28T20:35:00.000-07:00m said: The statements 1-7 are objective because t...m said: <EM>The statements 1-7 are objective because the relationships do not necessarily include an individual. God exists or does not, and this doesn't vary from person to person</EM><BR/><BR/>ok, I understand your position. However, I do not see how your qualification of <EM>the existence of God(s)</EM> is objective. If there is/are *no* God(s), then the belief must be subjective. Simply because there is no objective means by which to falsify the claim.<BR/><BR/>To be clear, with regards to the definition I linked in my prior comment, I do not see 1,2,3 as either/or's ... but as an inclusive set of requirements.<BR/><BR/>Meaning to be certain a claim qualifies as objective, there can be no doubt that the claim relates to the existence of a material phenomena which is not influenced by emotions/prejudices, and is based upon observed facts.<BR/><BR/>My feeble position is that it is impractical to attempt to purge from human society all philosophy respecting the non-objective (respecting my inclusive definition of <EM>objective</EM>).<BR/><BR/>It is impractical for two reasons; (1) there is no reason to believe that all questions either are or ultimately will fall to realm of objective methodology. (2) We will never *all* agree as to what qualifies as objective if the terms are not sufficiently explicit and narrowly defined ... what is really required is not a method for the qualification of <EM>objective</EM> claims, but a quantification.<BR/><BR/>While such a goal is as elusive as any <EM>truth</EM>, If we are going to distinguish between <EM>objective</EM> and <EM>subjective</EM> claims we should strive to develop an <EM>objective</EM> method to do so.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, any attempt to distinguish between the two will appear as a separation based upon individual preferences and prejudices.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1167354347374046022006-12-28T18:05:00.000-07:002006-12-28T18:05:00.000-07:00Ben, perhaps I could cast some light. The statemen...Ben, perhaps I could cast some light. The statements 1-7 are objective because the relationships do not necessarily include an individual. God exists or does not, and this doesn't vary from person to person - but a belief does, and this is what might throw someone. "Ice cream is the best" is a subjective claim. "Alice favors ice cream" is an objective claim. We have no way to show that ice cream is the "best" (whatever that means), but we can easily determine the truth of the latter claim.<BR/><BR/>Atheist Jew, I'll try to be clearer. You were discussing the topic of the objectivity of morality (see your quotation). You stated "the definition of morality is subjective". It's unclear what this implies, but it might translate to one of two things: "people define morality differently, therefore morality is subjective", or "people define morality differently". Context suggests the fallacious former, but if all you were doing was making the obvious latter statement, then that's fine - we got an interesting post in response that might clear things up in case they confused anyone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1167334256252116022006-12-28T12:30:00.000-07:002006-12-28T12:30:00.000-07:00Alonzo wrote: "It is not clear, in part, because I...Alonzo wrote: "<EM>It is not clear, in part, because I can come up with a similar set of statements about things that are totally objective, where people are in disagreement about the facts of the matter. Yet, they are still facts.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>Alonzo, while I find your post very insightful, the above introductory passage caused me some confusion as I read the remainder. The statements you've enumerated in the section "<STRONG>Argument from Differences of Opinion</STRONG>" appear to be <EM>subjective</EM>, rather than <EM>objective</EM>, to me.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/objective" REL="nofollow">Objective:</A><BR/><EM> 1. Of or relating to a material object, actual existence or reality.<BR/>2. Not influenced by the emotions or prejudices.<BR/>3. Based on observed facts.</EM><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subjective" REL="nofollow">Subjective:</A><BR/><EM> 1. Pertaining to subjects as opposed to objects (A subject is one who perceives or is aware; an object is the thing perceived or the thing that the subject is aware of.)<BR/>2. Formed, as in opinions, based upon subjective feelings or intuition, not upon observation or reasoning, which can be influenced by preconception; coming more from within the observer rather than from observations of the external environment.<BR/>3. Resulting from or pertaining to personal mindsets or experience, arising from perceptive mental conditions within the brain and not necessarily from external stimuli.<BR/>4. Lacking in reality or substance</EM><BR/><BR/>Due to my confusion it is not clear to me if "subjective" is a more appropriate word for the context of your introductory passage, or if your intention was to point out an inherent weakness in Jewish Atheist's approach, by contrasting his framework for discussing subjective truths with the objective variety.<BR/><BR/>While your post is spot on for me, perhaps you can clarify the intent of the introduction for me?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1167332377280409032006-12-28T11:59:00.000-07:002006-12-28T11:59:00.000-07:00I was trying to find how a particular person defin...I was trying to find how a particular person defined morality.<BR/>Again, I know exactly what I was attempting to prove: That what is considered to be moral to me and to the degree it is considered is most likely not exactly on the same scale as me or anyone else because we all have a different DEFINITION of what is morality is.<BR/><BR/>M, define morality.Baconeaterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134934827966299989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1167324351074619612006-12-28T09:45:00.000-07:002006-12-28T09:45:00.000-07:00I see as much difference between the two as betwee...I see as much difference between the two as between "ball" and "spherical object, typically manipulatable by humans".<BR/><BR/>As Alonzo said, it's unclear what you meant to imply. But, from context, I assume that you were not making the trite statement that people's opinions on what is moral differ. Of course they do. The argument you were having and the statements you make in your post and above lead one to assume that the issue here is moral subjectivism. I quote you:<BR/><BR/><I>Why do you ignore the definition of morality. What is the definition of morality? Be exact. If you think morality is objective, what exactly are the rules?</I><BR/><BR/>Are you sure of what you're arguing? In the end it's unimportant. What is important is that people understand those fallacies that Alonzo presented.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1167315075820470572006-12-28T07:11:00.000-07:002006-12-28T07:11:00.000-07:00Again, I didn't conclude that morality is subjecti...Again, I didn't conclude that morality is subjective. I am concluding that the DEFINITION OF MORALITY is subjective.Baconeaterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134934827966299989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1167311899946560252006-12-28T06:18:00.000-07:002006-12-28T06:18:00.000-07:00Atheist Jew, "morality is subjective" is not your ...Atheist Jew, "morality is subjective" is not your premise, it is your conclusion. This conclusion is based on a premise that people disagree about what is moral. As Alonzo pointed out, this is fallacious reasoning. It's like saying "people disagree that god exists, therefore god's existence is subjective".<BR/><BR/>Morality might be subjective, but the argument that you presented is useless in showing that it is so.<BR/><BR/>Most of this is moot, because of your explicit objective definition. We don't have enough information for any of your statements, but all we have to do is learn if a) there was any guilt, or b) the act was done maliciously or selfishly and led to harm. It all comes down to objective (but perhaps unreliable) measurements.<BR/><BR/>But what a naive definition of morality! If an intelligent criminal plays on my human emotions, and I feel guilt for taking away that criminal's freedoms, is this immoral? If I selfishly slam my body into a crowd of people while dodging an errant cyclist?<BR/><BR/>Your post doesn't show in the least that morality is subjecteve, but that it's an issue that many people have difficulty with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1167286076403745592006-12-27T23:07:00.000-07:002006-12-27T23:07:00.000-07:00I wasn't looking to collect data, just compare ans...I wasn't looking to collect data, just compare answers.<BR/>My premise was, and still is, that the definition of morality is subjective.<BR/>When I speak of morality, I use the definition that you quoted me on.<BR/>I am more inline with Hellbound Alleee and Francois' idea that actual morality (using their definition) is not subjective....but my idea of morality is not exactly theirs.Baconeaterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134934827966299989noreply@blogger.com