tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post116735979813147772..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Meaning of "Morality" is SubjectiveAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-19723970356911683942007-01-01T16:07:00.000-07:002007-01-01T16:07:00.000-07:00Alonzo,
Thanks for the clarification.Alonzo,<br /><br />Thanks for the clarification.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-59271244011171060292007-01-01T07:17:00.000-07:002007-01-01T07:17:00.000-07:00boabbitt
A claim can be false and still be object...<b>boabbitt</b><br /><br />A claim can be false and still be objective.<br /><br />In logic, a proposition can have a 'truth value' of 'false' (or, in computer language, a 'truth value' of 0).Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-58506725144260519102006-12-31T16:57:00.000-07:002006-12-31T16:57:00.000-07:00Alonzo,
I apologize ... in my prior post I inadv...Alonzo, <br /><br />I apologize ... in my prior post I inadvertently posted as "anonymous" :-(<br /><br />Thanks for the reply. Your examples are quite appropriate in clarifying the context. I believe we are on the same page.<br /><br />However, I do not understand why a claim must respect favor a truth value.<br /><br />Given our understanding of <em>truth</em> is not perfect, I find the reliance on truth to beg a universal authority of some kind (philosophical or real).<br /><br />Why cannot a claim be false and still be objective?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-41065839264597035742006-12-31T16:22:00.000-07:002006-12-31T16:22:00.000-07:00Alonzo, I much enjoyed reading The Cult of Justice...Alonzo, I much enjoyed reading The Cult of Justice and Will. You presented many complex issues in an entertaining and coherent manner, and for this I commend you. I'll keep track of your site for the appearance of Thayne Tiempko's War.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-36045872428862229282006-12-31T05:23:00.000-07:002006-12-31T05:23:00.000-07:00Anonymous
I apply the concept of 'objective' only...<b>Anonymous</b><br /><br />I apply the concept of 'objective' only to propositions.<br /><br />Typically, I use the standard that a proposition is objective if it has a truth value independent of whether it is believed to be true. It is subjective if its truth value requires belief.<br /><br />"I like chocolate" is objectively true. Anybody who disputes that statement is clearly not in touch with reality.<br /><br />Even, "I believe that no God exists" is objective. It is as true as the statement, "I am in Colorado."<br /><br />However, the proposition, "A planet is an object that is round by its own gravity, orbits a sun, and has swept its orbital ring substantially clear of other matter," is not objectively true. The only reason this is true is because a group of people <i>decided</i> that it is true. All definitions are subjective.<br /><br />(However, Pluto is not an object that is round by its own gravity AND orbits a sun AND has swept its orbit substantially clear of other objects is objectively true.)Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1167441261363637452006-12-29T18:14:00.000-07:002006-12-29T18:14:00.000-07:00Alonzo,A short question. Respecting this passage.I...Alonzo,<BR/><BR/>A short question. Respecting this passage.<BR/><BR/><EM>If [a] claim is not a part of the objective truth [...] then it is not ‘subjective truth’, it is ‘objective fiction'</EM><BR/><BR/>Given none have universal knowledge of all objective substance, how do we objectively determine what claims are certain to represent objective truths? ... how do we clearly and fairly distinguish between objective and subjective <EM>claims</EM>?<BR/><BR/>While the object of any claim may be objectively true or false, to equate the objectiveness of the object of a claim with the objectiveness of the claim itself appears logically faulty to me.<BR/><BR/>Is there a perspective on this I've missed?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1167414510001602532006-12-29T10:48:00.000-07:002006-12-29T10:48:00.000-07:00MWell, kinda.I have written two books - fiction - ...<B>M</B><BR/><BR/>Well, kinda.<BR/><BR/>I have written two books - fiction - which I have not tried to get published, that dealt with a society with different creatures having different capabilities. They range from animals to near God-like creatures with exceptional intelligence and powers.<BR/><BR/>I never tried to get the books published, but I have written them.<BR/><BR/>One of them is posted on my web site: <A HREF="http://www.infidelguy.com/members/AlonzoFyfe/cult_of_justice_and_will.shtml" REL="nofollow">"The Cult of Justice and Will"</A>.<BR/><BR/>The other, "Thayne Tiempko's War," is sitting on a disk around here somewhere. The central theme of this book rests with the idea that even an omnipotent being who creates a planet and populates it has no right to demand the obedience of those he creates. There is a "cult" in this society - which Thayne Tiempko belongs to - that holds that the Gods are the moral equal to mortals. (The Gods, in this book, actually do exist and are in a habit of asserting that they have a right to rule and the citizens of the planet have a duty to obey).<BR/><BR/>Now that you mention it, maybe I'll dust it off and see if I can make it available.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1167410904875848002006-12-29T09:48:00.000-07:002006-12-29T09:48:00.000-07:00Alonzo, have you written anything on how morality ...Alonzo, have you written anything on how morality applies to beings that are outside the familiar band that humans characterize? If we encounter or develop (or some of us become) more intelligent, conscious, or complex entities, how should they treat us? How then should we treat animals and other less complex replicators? Equality is an important assumption in most moral philosophies, but are all beings on the very broad scale of complexity equally entitled? I find this a most troubling question. What are your thoughts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1167394297454609502006-12-29T05:11:00.000-07:002006-12-29T05:11:00.000-07:00The point of the essay was to show that there is n...The point of the essay was to show that there is no such thing as an objective definition of anything. You cannot have an objective definition of morality.<BR/><BR/>You cannot have an objective definition of <I>anything</I>.<BR/><BR/>The only thing that we can possibly ask for is each speaker to obey the principle of substitution with their definitions.<BR/><BR/>"What Jesus would do," like Pluto, does not change its own propertied depending on what we call it. There is a set of objective facts surrounding "What Jesus would do," and those facts remain the same regardless of the words we use to describe them.<BR/><BR/>If a person says that 'morality' = 'What Jesus would do' obeys the principle of substitution, he will only use the word 'morality' to talk about the objective facts associated with 'What Jesus would do.'<BR/><BR/>If a person says that 'morality' = 'what Jesus would do' instead makes claims about 'what Jesus would do' that are not a part of these objective facts, then that person is violating the principle of substitution and is engaging in a fallacy of equivocation.<BR/><BR/>Such a person is actually <I>making things up</I>. His claims about 'what Jesus would do' that is not a part of the objective facts surrounding 'what Jesus would do' are not some sort of 'subjective truth'. They are 'objective fictions' that he is writing into his definition of 'morality' - something necessarily outside the objective truth of 'what Jesus would do'.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1167363435197407722006-12-28T20:37:00.000-07:002006-12-28T20:37:00.000-07:00My point is that unless we can make the DEFINITION...My point is that unless we can make the DEFINITION of morality OBJECTIVE we cannot even attempt to answer whether morality in itself is objective or subjective.<BR/><BR/>I am not a moral relativist by the way. <BR/>According to my definition of morality, there is right and wrong actions always, based on the individual circumstances that occur prior to or during the action.<BR/><BR/>But my definition is not everyones definition. And everyones definition seems to differ slightly from one person to another.<BR/><BR/>With respect to your Pluto analogy. Pluto will behave exactly the same no matter whether you think it is a planet or a rock. And it will be observed identically by those who call it a rock or a planet.<BR/><BR/>But if your definition of morality is "what Jesus would do" versus "the laws that govern your state" the actions may be the same, but the perception is different, like when it comes to legal abortion.Baconeaterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134934827966299989noreply@blogger.com