Fellow atheists of /his/, how do you feel about moral realism? Apparently Matt Dillahunty has changed his position on morality being subjective after debating with the atheist youtuber Allegedly-Ian, who believes in secular objective morals. Personally, I'm not convinced by it, because I feel like it still needs a subjective starting point / goal such as "pursuit of wellbeing for majority" to become objective in that particular case. Morality is still quite objectively subjective (pun intended), because we can't base an objective goal.
>>18652536I don't give a fuck what e-celebs are saying or thinking. I have seen no good argument that proves the independent existence of objectively moral framework, only subjective frameworks claiming to be objective.
>>18652536>how do you feel about moral realism?I reject it. For me, to accept moral realism, there would have to be objective features of reality which can be aligned with the truth or falsity of moral statements, and which do not just boil down to preferences of humans or other living things. Since there are no such features in reality, I reject it.
>>18652536>Morality is still quite objectively subjective (pun intended), because we can't base an objective goal.I think we can. An acorn objectively aims to become a tree. You might point out that we could never get a written statement signed by the acron and we could never scan the acorn's brain to determine neurological traces of intent, but those methods are reverse-engineered from apriori agreeing that there exist goals and that we do observe them in living organisms - humans. There is no reason why this recognition should be limited to animals or to conscious goals. If you think understanding as an epistemological tool is subjective and so establishing goal is subjective, then yes... every single science, study and field becomes subjective, and with it, morality.Also lol @ Dillahunty accepting something after realizing it can be Christianity-free.
>>18652536I find "pleasure good, pain bad" to be a compelling normative starting point for because it's basically hardwired into you as a human. It's not like an arbitrary decision or even something learned by habit, it's a basic feature of our type of consciousness. To say you don't agree with it is really a kind of denial. So I'd count that moral realism.However, what I'm saying only applies in an egoistic sense. It's my own pleasure, not yours, that is an inherent good to me. But there's plenty of morality to be found in self-interest, in fact it's sort of the underlying assumption behind a lot of moral philosophies and arguments even when they explicitly disavow it.
>>18652585>every single science, study and field becomes subjectiveScience as a human endeavor has certain goals, but that doesn't mean there aren't objective scientific facts (like what temperature water freezes at).
>>18652594>I find "pleasure good, pain bad" to be a compelling normative starting point for because it's basically hardwired into you as a human. It's not like an arbitrary decision or even something learned by habit, it's a basic feature of our type of consciousness. To say you don't agree with it is really a kind of denial. So I'd count that moral realism.So heroin is good and exercise is bad, it's as shrimple as that?
>>18652615That there ought to be a category called "water" and "freezing" are ultimately goal-driven categories. We use water in crucial ways and we manipulate frozen liquid differently from fluid one. Also, I think you understood but I'm just making sure to mention it explicitly; I'm not arguing that science is subjective or that there doesn't exist water. I'm saying that this subjective-objective dichotomy becomes not only brute, but completely uninsightful once we shove everything to do with a subject (like "understanding") into the "subjective" bucket. Because at that point we only call things "objective" if they have nothing to do with humans, meaning we've induced a term that's completely beyond our cognitive grasp - effectively an unalive silent god.
>>18652620Being fit is more pleasant than being a junkie. t. have done both
>>18652620Of course not. I said starting point. The next step is considering that pleasures and pains can be compared with each other and some immediately pleasurable things have painful consequences too bad to be worth it, while some immediately painful things have pleasurable consequences good enough to be worth it. Thankfully this is something everyone grasps intuitively.
>>18652640So how do you resolve disagreements between people on where that line is drawn?
>>18652632>That there ought to be a category called "water" and "freezing" are ultimately goal-driven categories.Sure, but once you settle on all the goal-driven definitions involved in understanding the statement "Water freezes at 0C", that still doesn't by itself determine whether that statement is true or not. You still need to defer to reality to determine whether the statement is right or wrong. That part of reality which determines the truth of that statement is what I would call the objective scientific truth here. >Because at that point we only call things "objective" if they have nothing to do with humansI don't see why. You can still have objective scientific truths about humans like "the average human male height is 170cm" or whatever.>becomes not only brute, but completely uninsightfulAgain, I don't see why it would become uninsightful. If we all believed in objective ice cream tastiness, society would spend a lot of time arguing about ice cream flavors, but if you accept that there is no such thing as objective ice cream tastiness, you would realize the entire argument is a waste of time and spend your resources elsewhere.
>>18652713>once you settle>part of reality which determines the truth of that statement You're presenting a correspondence theory of truth. We chunk up reality to based on our ideas and then we follow up on our ideas until reality makes them unfeasible. It's like projecting an image of a pig onto a cow and adjusting it in photoshop until it fits. You get to call the cow a pig, perhaps with a few exceptions or refinements, but in the end you're still confidently locked in the realm of ideas with only marginal "objective" pushback. Which is the weakness of the correspondence theory - you can never really be sure you actually have an ounce of truth because there is a thick wall between ideas and reality that only sometimes lets signal through. >"the average human male height is 170cm"This ultimately becomes circular. If you define averages a certain way, split organisms certain way, perform measurements certain ways, select one direction in particular, the ratio would be something like 170 of this other particular bit made of platinum in a space called Paris. It's in the end no less arbitrary than saying "Mona Lisa is seductive as heck boi."
>>18652793>but in the end you're still confidently locked in the realm of ideas with only marginal "objective" pushback. Which is the weakness of the correspondence theory - you can never really be sure you actually have an ounce of truth because there is a thick wall between ideas and reality that only sometimes lets signal through.I don't know on what basis you're making these judgements of there being such a wall between reality and "ideas" and receiving only marginal objective pushback. If I jump off a 20-foot building, I immediately receive a very strong pushback from reality (and the ground). I can't stop my bones from breaking by having the idea that my bones are made of diamond. So, I would say you can know a lot about reality, and science is very effective at that. I think in your attempt at pushing back against moral anti-realism, you are becoming too anti-realist towards scientific truth.>If you define averages a certain way, split organisms certain way, perform measurements certain ways, select one direction in particular, the ratio would be something like 170 of this other particular bit made of platinum in a space called Paris.That's still non-circular once you've settled on your conventions. For example, if you keep the rest of this statement the same but change 170 to 300, you would, by your own standards, conclude that it's a false statement. You still need to look at the reality outside your definitions and conventions to determine its truth.
>>18652895>I don't know on what basis you're making these judgements of there being such a wall between reality and "ideas"Based on the structure of correspondence theory. >If I jump off a 20-foot building, I immediately receive a very strong pushback from realityThen your subjective experience ends. Whether you acquired any truth is completely up for debate. >you are becoming too anti-realist towards scientific truthLike I tried to warn in >>18652632, I am completely fine with science having truth claims and many of them might very well be correct. I'm just warning against the ways the terms "objective" and "subjective" can mislead us and you have happened to bring up the correspondence theory of truth where the knower is arguably misled precisely by this dichotomy. >That's still non-circular once you've settled on your conventionsIt is, because your conventions are pointing to other conventions. >once you've settled>change the 170 to 300If you settle the conventions and then change their relationships then you don't have settled conventions.
>>18652536The fact that there are different religions/ideologies in the first place literally proves that morality is subjective. If two people are arguing about whether morality is objective or subjective, that proves it is subjective.
>>18652914>Based on the structure of correspondence theory.I don't know what you're talking about here. I don't hold to any correspondence theory with some sort of wall between reality and experience. >Then your subjective experience ends.A 20ft fall isn't necessarily fatal.>If you settle the conventions and then change their relationships then you don't have settled conventions.Your notion of conventions looks too broad to me.
>>18652933>I don't hold to any correspondence theory with some sort of wall between reality and experience.You don't think there is a subjective world of ideas in your mind and an objective world of facts that you're trying to correlate?>A 20ft fall isn't necessarily fatal.I suppose. So what do you reckon you have learned?>Your notion of conventions looks too broad to me.I'm talking about concepts. Words. We define words through other words. You can't argue some words are "settled" while you change their relationships, which would affect their definitions - the very thing we're supposed to not change.
>>18652940>You don't think there is a subjective world of ideas in your mind and an objective world of facts that you're trying to correlate?I just don't think in those terms. "World of ideas" and "world of facts" are already too anti-materialistic. At best, they can be used as rough analogies, not as some deep ontological claims.>So what do you reckon you have learned?That my imagination of my bones being made of diamonds was mistaken.>We define words through other wordsSo how does changing 170 to 300 change the definitions of the other words in the sentence?
>>18652952>"World of ideas" and "world of facts" are already too anti-materialistic.So how would you frame the subjective and the objective poles?>not as some deep ontological claimsNone of this is ontological, it's epistemology.>That my imagination of my bones being made of diamonds was mistaken.Or maybe you didn't define diamonds well enough.>So how does changing 170 to 300 change the definitions of the other words in the sentence?You're changing how concepts relate to one another. I'm not going to be able to list every definition, every word's definition within that definition and trace them all back to where they meet in our semantic maps to questions of ratios, that would take a dissertation. But I think you can concede even without a dissertation that definitions are word relationships so any change in how words relate is a change in definitions.
>>18652981>So how would you frame the subjective and the objective poles?Subjective = is ultimately a matter of conventions and preferences.Objective = is something dependent on the reality outside conventions and preferences.>Or maybe you didn't define diamonds well enough.Maybe, but that would be subjective. Under my definitions though, it is objectively true that my bones are not diamonds.> But I think you can concede even without a dissertation that definitions are word relationships so any change in how words relate is a change in definitions.But I'm not changing the definitions of anything here. I'm just replacing 170 (which had a known definition) with 300 (which has another known definition).
>>18653002>Subjective = is ultimately a matter of conventions and preferences.Is there any item or domain that fits this but doesn't fit "world of ideas"?>Objective = is something dependent on the reality outside conventions and preferences.Is there any item or domain that fits this but doesn't fit "world of facts"?>under my definitions though, it is objectively true...That would make it subjectively objective.>> But I think you can concede even without a dissertation that definitions are word relationships so any change in how words relate is a change in definitions.>But I'm not changing the definitions of anything here. Something you defined as being 170x smaller than something else is now defined as being 300x smaller than something else. That's a change in relationship between words. And relationships between words is what definitions are.
>>18653010>Is there any item or domain that fits this but doesn't fitMaybe, since your definitions of these worlds of facts and ideas apparently implied some wall between reality and experience, but my definitions of subjective and objective don't imply that.>That would make it subjectively objective."Subjectively objective" would be contradictory under my definitions of subjective and objective, but if you just mean that the truth value of the statement depends on the definition of "diamond", then I would just say that is objectively true.>That's a change in relationship between wordsIt's a change in the sentence, which leads to a change in the truth value of the sentence. The words in the sentence haven't changed their meanings.
>>18652671Sometimes you just can't. Since there is no way to scientifically measure pleasure or pain, you kind of have to vibe it out. But just because we lack the means to measure something, doesn't mean that it doesn't have a quantity. Also, a certain tradeoff of goods may be worth it for one person but not another because everyone is different and experiences things differently. So there is subjectivity there. But also, the bottom line is that there is a real answer to "is this thing a net good for me?" and it requires objective thinking to not be wrong about it.
>>18653059>some wall between reality and experience, but my definitions of subjective and objective don't imply that.Not experience. You said conventions and preferences. There is definitely a wall between that. Tell me what you know for certain and I will show you how it boils down to concepts standing on other concepts. The wall is real, you just don't hit it often enough because people intuitively cut corners around the correspondence theory.>"Subjectively objective" would be contradictoryMy point exactly. Saying "under my definitions though, it is objectively true..." is saying that relative to your concepts, there is an absolute (objective) outcome. In short, the relatively absolute. It doesn't work. You either commit to it being relative, or you abandon the subjective/objective dichotomy. We naturally do the latter.>It's a change in the sentence, which leads to a change in the truth value of the sentence. Ah, well yes, if your point was that you can express words in a way that doesn't conform to how the words are defined, that is completely granted. You can say any number of meaningless gibberish, that doesn't help you navigate or understand the subjective/objective divide.
>>18653064>So there is subjectivity there.Correct>But also, the bottom line is that there is a real answer to "is this thing a net good for me?" and it requires objective thinking to not be wrong about it.That does not make moral realism true. What you're describing is still subjective morality, not objective morality - it's still subjective even if there's a objectively better choice to reach that subjective goal, i.e if you (subjectively) value health and longevity then it is objectively better to exercise and eat a balanced diet than it is to eat uranium and dive headfirst into a woodchipper, but that doesn't make the initial preference for health and longevity any less subjective. I'm not even sure if we disagree significantly or if there's just semantic confusion.
>>18652793You are an absolute retard
>18652536>Morality is still quite objectively subjective (pun intended)retard
>>18652536I've always argued that atheists are the only ones who can affirm 'objective' morality. Bump
>>18655386Here's how that works. First we need to make sure we agree on what morals are. Morals are a social code of conduct. If you think morals are a magical divine thing in the realm of forms then the conversation is over here, before it even starts.Since morality is a social code of conduct it follows that there were certain reasons why it developed the way it did. We can then divide morals in 2 dimensions: Context and Strength.Morals are contextual because they rely on the socio-historical context in which they exist and can't be separated from it.Morals are strength-based because their primal origin is directly related to what causes strength and what causes weakness (whether to an individual or to the group).Now we need to expand on what we mean by objective vs subjective. Every human being is by definition a subject so everything you do or interpret is by definition subjective (related to the subject). Objective is a reference to the object that exists in raw reality that the subject is interacting with.So saying 'morality is objective or subjective' is a pointless statement. What we can really ask is which morality is closer to reality, which one is closer to objectivity.Now we have the materialist atheist who is empirically-minded making a genuine effort to structure his morality in accordance to reality while the theist lazily accepts what someone else told him comes from 'god' without a second thought.This is why if anyone can claim 'objective morality', it's the atheist. He is the one making a genuine effort to work as close to reality as humanly possible.
>>18652536Remake this with, "You riding a horse is cruelty to it" o algo. It will be funnier.
>>18655412>Now we need to expand on what we mean by objective vs subjective. Every human being is by definition a subject so everything you do or interpret is by definition subjective (related to the subject). Objective is a reference to the object that exists in raw reality that the subject is interacting with.Morality is not a physical object, it is an abstract concept. Objective morality refers to something that is true regardless of the observer. Atheists are further away from being able to claim ("claim," not "prove" being the operative word here) objective morality than religious people because they do not have some divine universal law they can point to, they often just point to utilitarian ideas or appeals to fairness, and those are subjective.
>>18655501>Atheists are further away from being able to claimThat's not the case at all. By pointing to objectivity itself (material reality) as the root cause of the social code of conduct we call 'morality' the materialist atheist is closer to objectivity than the religious person. Invoking a supernatural imaginary being and stating this imaginary friend gives objectivity is a claim that's highly 'subjective' and that's demonstrated by the variety of gods and religions that have ever existed. Back in pagan times every tribe had their own gods and that's evidence pointing to the higher degree of subjectivity that is inserted whenever invoking gods.While noone can claim 'objective' anything due to the reality of human nature at least the materialist atheist is empirically deriving morality from the objective itself so if anyone is closer to it it's the atheist without a doubt.
>>18652931>If two people are arguing about whether it's day or night, that proves that day and night are subjective!Nice one, genius.
>>18655524Again, the word objectivity has nothing to do with physical objects.
>>18652594It sounds reasonable but doesn't hold up to scrutiny. That some people wouldn't want to enter the Pleasure Cube proves pleasure itself still only holds subjective value.
>>18655412This only explains why morality happens to be the way it is. IE, an evolved proclivity towards behaviors that increase the likelihood of passing on your genes. But this doesn't establish that you ought to act this way, that it is an objective good to pass on your genes.
>>18655977Objectivity implies a relation to the object by definition. There is a causal relation between objective reality and the social conduct that humans have decided to engage in.>>18656006Not only passing your genes but also having your genes be successful in the future. It's not about making your behaviors 'objective' but about them being probabilistically closer to the objective from an empirical point of view.
>>18656075>Objectivity implies a relation to the object by definition. There is a causal relation between objective reality and the social conduct that humans have decided to engage in.You need to completely do away the idea that objectivity has something to do with physical objects just because it has "object" in the word. Objective morality refers to something that is universally morally good regardless of opinion or feelings.
>>18656075>Not only passing your genes but also having your genes be successful in the future.Either way the point remains. >It's not about making your behaviors 'objective' but about them being probabilistically closer to the objective from an empirical point of view. Would you still feel this way if the behaviors that made your genes successful were not aligned with your moral intuition? If we contrived an environment where raping children made your genes more successful, would you think you ought to do that?
>>18656097I disagree. You should use the term 'universal morality' instead of 'objective morality' so your position is clearer. Universality means it applies everywhere all the time while objective means it's related to the material. It's perfectly coherent for you to assert universal morality and defend it but conflating 'objective' with 'universal' is a sleight of hand.>>18656106The problem with these hypotheticals is that you are stripping away one of the fundamental aspects of morality which is context. There is no context where allowing the rape of children (or just rape in general) made genes more successful because society will break down into a low-trust weak society that will get conquered by a stronger society that doesn't allow rapes as their social code of conduct.For that reason the hypothetical is nonsensical and pointless since there is nothing that can be extrapolated from it into the real world since that's not how the world operates.If you built a new universe where rape made everyone stronger and their genes more successful then yes you ought to do that.But the god-believer is not immune from this hypothetical. I can ask you the same thing. If the omnipotent omnibenevolent God commanded you to rape a child, do you think you ought to do that?Your response will be exactly the same. Acknowledge it doesn't make sense in this universe because you don't think God would command something that goes against his nature and then say that in a different universe you ought to do it.These hypotheticals are cute but ultimately pointless. Better to argue things directly.
>>18656228>I disagree. You should use the term 'universal morality' instead of 'objective morality' so your position is clearer. Universality means it applies everywhere all the time while objective means it's related to the material. It's perfectly coherent for you to assert universal morality and defend it but conflating 'objective' with 'universal' is a sleight of hand.Then you are just incorrect and you're using the word in a way no one else is using it.
>>18656228>There is no context where allowing the rape of children (or just rape in general) made genes more successful because society will break down into a low-trust weak society that will get conquered by a stronger society that doesn't allow rapes as their social code of conduct.This is not correct. You would not need to build a new universe, just alter the environment so that the selective pressure selected for rape. It's not that far-fetched, we are currently witnessing modern liberalism be conquered by more "primitive" morality. >But the god-believer is not immune from this hypothetical. I can ask you the same thing. If the omnipotent omnibenevolent God commanded you to rape a child, do you think you ought to do that? I do not believe in God. I do not believe in objective morality.
>>18656233Yea that's what 'disagreeing' means. It means I think you are incorrect and you think I am incorrect.The image you provided literally agrees with me: "moral realism asserts that moral facts exist in the fabric of reality". Material reality is the object.>>18656266>You would not need to build a new universe, just alter the environment so that the selective pressure selected for rape.What's an example of a successful tribe or civilization prescribing a morality of rape amongst their own while simultaneously succeeding in competition against other tribes who don't do it?If there is none then you are not working in reality you are working in the realm of hypothetical universes where somehow social chaos is preferable to social order from the perspective of attaining evolutionary success.There is nothing wrong with doing that for fun but I don't see how it leads anywhere.>I do not believe in God. I do not believe in objective morality.Fair enough but the point is simply to reveal that the same moral issues exist regardless of our morality being derived from empiricism or being derived from 'god'. That's why I don't think that hypothetical leads anywhere.The big problem I see with such hypotheticals is that they present a clean slate for morality but morality can't be disentangled from the context in which it exists.I truly dislike this dichotomy between subjective/objective because objectivity is a goal that's impossible to reach but it can be used as a north star. The closer you get the stronger you are. Anyone claiming to be the star itself is simply lying.
>>18656325>What's an example of a successful tribe or civilization prescribing a morality of rape amongst their own while simultaneously succeeding in competition against other tribes who don't do it?Depending on how generous you will be in defining rape, Islam currently conquering the UK. >If there is none then you are not working in reality you are working in the realm of hypothetical universes where somehow social chaos is preferable to social order from the perspective of attaining evolutionary success. Sure but there is a difference between a potent hypothetical and an impotent hypothetical. We don't need to imagine a world where the laws of physics or evolution work differently, we just need to contrive an environment where rape is selected for. Imagine a meteor hits the Earth and reduces humanity to 2 small tribes. Now imagine the women of these tribes refuse to have children. One tribe accepts this and goes extinct, the other tribe enslaves their women and makes them breeding stock. Even if you bite that bullet and say it is good to rape in that scenario, it still leaves the question open of why you ought to have successful genes.
>>18656363>Depending on how generous you will be in defining rape, Islam currently conquering the UK.I said rape "amongst their own" not the rape of outsiders/enemies. Those UK rapes are always about raping the native english 'kuffars' and not the muslim women.>Imagine a meteor hits the Earth and reduces humanity to 2 small tribes. Now imagine the women of these tribes refuse to have children. One tribe accepts this and goes extinct, the other tribe enslaves their women and makes them breeding stock.But you are re-defining the laws of physics and evolution because it's not a natural behavior for all women to simply decide to go against their inherent desire for sex and motherhood. This is a hypothetical universe that doesn't really translate to reality. In that scenario rape would be moral because the raping tribe would be stronger than the other one and take over the world. I posit that even in this scenario eventually the tribe will grow and splinter and the new tribe that outlaws rape will be more successful since it will be more conducive to order and consequent development. The original tribe will remain stuck in a state of chaos and be enslaved or conquered.>it still leaves the question open of why you ought to have successful genes.Because existence has value and non-existence doesn't. In order for morality to exist, existence itself is required.
>>18656375>I said rape "amongst their own" not the rape of outsiders/enemies. Those UK rapes are always about raping the native english 'kuffars' and not the muslim women.No, moslems rape their own more than any other. Again depending on how generous you are with definitions, most moslem men rape their wives. >But you are re-defining the laws of physics and evolution because it's not a natural behavior for all women to simply decide to go against their inherent desire for sex and motherhood It is, we are seeing this play out in collapsing birthrates in countries where women have more freedom. >In that scenario rape would be moral because the raping tribe would be stronger than the other one and take over the world. I posit that even in this scenario eventually the tribe will grow and splinter and the new tribe that outlaws rape will be more successful since it will be more conducive to order and consequent development. So is rape being moral contingent on it becoming immoral in the future? What if this scenario happened very near to the end of Earth's capacity for human life, such that for the remainder of human existence rape would be more successful than nonrape? >Because existence has value and non-existence doesn't. In order for morality to exist, existence itself is required. My contention is that morality doesn't exist. It's just the idea of morality, just like the idea of god, that is contingent on existence. Existence only has value to the existing.
>>18652536Those fat fucks literally looks indistinguishable
