I hate to break it to you, but you are also subject to moral subjectivism, you’re just less honest about it. Your moral frameworks are just as much a matter of consensus, just of the theocratic. You are not immune or superior, you’re just less honest with yourself. You still follow the subjective morality defined by man, just under the guise of higher authority.
I understand that I follow morality. The question is, what is morality. If you are correct, it is subjective. If you are wrong, it isn’t. I am not sure what you are trying to say.
That you present deific morality as some alternative to the uncertain subjectivism of reality when it is not an alternative and it does not live outside of it. It is nothing more than delusion born of hubris because it is easier to reject reality and say “no I’m right!” than it is to accept the complicated nature of existence. You aren’t providing an answer to the problem, you’re hoping that if you cover your eyes hard enough the problem will stop existing.
What is it if not an alternative? Morality is either objective or subjective. You believe it is the latter, but how can you be so sure you are correct?
I am simply saying that it is a very unnatural way to think about morality, and this is why my argument works. Some people, I believe, would rather say that God is real than that morality is subjective. You can say the opposite of that, of course, but this is how philosophical arguments work.
Because my morality of doing what is best for society includes rejecting ignorance, and what is believing in that which lacks evidence if not ignorance?
I see no value in living my life in a constant state of “okay but what if,” especially when there is absolutely nothing to suggest or imply that the specific what if in question is any more founded than believing that the universe was created by a giant crab’s vagina who only wants just to eat our own hair. It is definitional absurdity, and condoning it would be immoral, in my estimation.
And the important distinction between the case at hand and philosophical arguments is that those are that of theory, not practical application. If you want to talk about god in terms of the abstract, go ahead to your heart’s content; that’s a fascinating field with no shortage of questions to explore. But when you start to put those ideas in practice the real world with completely unfounded yet still concrete assumptions, that actually becomes a fucking problem for society.
But you seem pretty certain morality is subjective, which is not only unproven, but goes against our intuitions.
You seem to think I am comparing objective religious morality with subjective secular morality. This is not the case. I am comparing two accounts of morality, according to one of which morality is independent of subjectivity, and is singular, and according to another all moral views held by all people are subjective.
Your morality is based on “doing what is best for society”. But are you capable of constructing a rational deductive argument with sound propositions that proves that this is, indeed, what morality is? If not, in what way is your morality better than religious morality. Both are “preferences”, according to you, that are not based on rationality.
It’s not better, my point is yours doesn’t exist. It is also the exact same moral subjectivism. Period. You’re just choosing a premade character instead of going into the character customizer. You are still making a choice of morality based on your preference, period.
And it’s not that I’m saying definitively with certainty that morality must be subjective, again my philosophy is that nothing is sacred. But objective morality is the claim and claims must be supported before being accepted. This is how scientific inquiry works. You make a claim, you support that claim, and you invite others to challenge your supporting evidence to see if it holds water. You don’t say my claim is true and it’s up to you to disprove it. By that rational, I would invite you to disprove my claim that god is a crab’s vagina who wants us to eat our own hair.
So it’s not that I’m unwaveringly certain in my conviction that morality is inherently subjective, it’s just that it is the default assumption until evidence to the contrary proves otherwise. So unless you have evidence to the contrary, we remain in the default understanding, but as always willing to reassess and adapt our understanding as additional knowledge is acquired.
It’s not better, my point is yours doesn’t exist. It is also the exact same moral subjectivism.
I understand that if moral subjectivism is correct, morality is subjective. But you can’t just say that analytically true statement over and over again, and expect it to work as an argument. How can you be sure it is subjective?
Why is the subjectivity of morality the default assumption? It is a claim, is it not?
I hate to break it to you, but you are also subject to moral subjectivism, you’re just less honest about it. Your moral frameworks are just as much a matter of consensus, just of the theocratic. You are not immune or superior, you’re just less honest with yourself. You still follow the subjective morality defined by man, just under the guise of higher authority.
I understand that I follow morality. The question is, what is morality. If you are correct, it is subjective. If you are wrong, it isn’t. I am not sure what you are trying to say.
That you present deific morality as some alternative to the uncertain subjectivism of reality when it is not an alternative and it does not live outside of it. It is nothing more than delusion born of hubris because it is easier to reject reality and say “no I’m right!” than it is to accept the complicated nature of existence. You aren’t providing an answer to the problem, you’re hoping that if you cover your eyes hard enough the problem will stop existing.
What is it if not an alternative? Morality is either objective or subjective. You believe it is the latter, but how can you be so sure you are correct?
I am simply saying that it is a very unnatural way to think about morality, and this is why my argument works. Some people, I believe, would rather say that God is real than that morality is subjective. You can say the opposite of that, of course, but this is how philosophical arguments work.
I don’t see the problem you are referring to.
Because my morality of doing what is best for society includes rejecting ignorance, and what is believing in that which lacks evidence if not ignorance?
I see no value in living my life in a constant state of “okay but what if,” especially when there is absolutely nothing to suggest or imply that the specific what if in question is any more founded than believing that the universe was created by a giant crab’s vagina who only wants just to eat our own hair. It is definitional absurdity, and condoning it would be immoral, in my estimation.
And the important distinction between the case at hand and philosophical arguments is that those are that of theory, not practical application. If you want to talk about god in terms of the abstract, go ahead to your heart’s content; that’s a fascinating field with no shortage of questions to explore. But when you start to put those ideas in practice the real world with completely unfounded yet still concrete assumptions, that actually becomes a fucking problem for society.
But you seem pretty certain morality is subjective, which is not only unproven, but goes against our intuitions.
You seem to think I am comparing objective religious morality with subjective secular morality. This is not the case. I am comparing two accounts of morality, according to one of which morality is independent of subjectivity, and is singular, and according to another all moral views held by all people are subjective.
Your morality is based on “doing what is best for society”. But are you capable of constructing a rational deductive argument with sound propositions that proves that this is, indeed, what morality is? If not, in what way is your morality better than religious morality. Both are “preferences”, according to you, that are not based on rationality.
It’s not better, my point is yours doesn’t exist. It is also the exact same moral subjectivism. Period. You’re just choosing a premade character instead of going into the character customizer. You are still making a choice of morality based on your preference, period.
And it’s not that I’m saying definitively with certainty that morality must be subjective, again my philosophy is that nothing is sacred. But objective morality is the claim and claims must be supported before being accepted. This is how scientific inquiry works. You make a claim, you support that claim, and you invite others to challenge your supporting evidence to see if it holds water. You don’t say my claim is true and it’s up to you to disprove it. By that rational, I would invite you to disprove my claim that god is a crab’s vagina who wants us to eat our own hair.
So it’s not that I’m unwaveringly certain in my conviction that morality is inherently subjective, it’s just that it is the default assumption until evidence to the contrary proves otherwise. So unless you have evidence to the contrary, we remain in the default understanding, but as always willing to reassess and adapt our understanding as additional knowledge is acquired.
I understand that if moral subjectivism is correct, morality is subjective. But you can’t just say that analytically true statement over and over again, and expect it to work as an argument. How can you be sure it is subjective?
Why is the subjectivity of morality the default assumption? It is a claim, is it not?
Because the only way the alternative exists is if we assume the supernatural, and in lieu of evidence to support that, we are unable to do so.