Objective Morality, Naturalism, and Euthyphro

[Tim]

@Giltil

Well, if some people quarrel about who is the greatest rock guitarist, it is because they do think that an objective answer exists to this question, otherwise it would be nonsensical for them to do so.

Why?

[Tim]

@Giltil

But isn’t the case that the abolition of slavery or the renunciation of gladiatorial combats as entertainment marked an objective moral progress? And conversely, isn’t the case that if our societies were to reintroduce slavery or gladiatorial combats, this would mark an objective moral regression ?

No, it is not “the case” in either question.

It would be subjective “moral progress” and “moral regression”, respectively.

In your opinion, and the opinion of most people here, it would be true – but that opinion is culture specific – and thus subjective.

You have failed to demonstrate that any of these opinions are “objective” – all you have done is find some moral position and assert that this position is objective.

1. A moral position exists.

2. A gaping void opens up.

3. By some miracle we are suddenly across this gaping void and, for no readily discernable reason, the moral position has been designated as “objective”.

I’m trying very hard to work out what (2) entails – is it that, if you believe really really hard, the position will miraculously become objective?

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Giltil

But isn’t the case that the abolition of slavery or the renunciation of gladiatorial combats as entertainment marked an objective moral progress? And conversely, isn’t the case that if our societies were to reintroduce slavery or gladiatorial combats, this would mark an objective moral regression ?

It’s impossible to answer that without knowing what your claimed objective moral standard says about such topics.

What does your objective moral standard say about gladatorial combat?

How do you know?

When are you going to admit you don’t have the faintest idea what your claimed-to-exist objective moral standard says???

[Faizal_Ali]

@Giltil

Well, if some people quarrel about who is the greatest rock guitarist, it is because they do think that an objective answer exists to this question, otherwise it would be nonsensical for them to do so.

Do you believe there is an objective answer to that question?

[Gisteron]

@Giltil

Well, if some people quarrel about who is the greatest rock guitarist, it is because they do think that an objective answer exists to this question,…

No. People can and do have differences of opinion, and are perfectly happy to hash them out between one another, without thinking that there is an objectively correct answer to every question they ever discuss. Not everybody is a nine-year-old. Most of us can tell the difference between matters of personal opinion and matters of subject-independent fact, and still subjectively care enough to discuss both. In fact, if anything, matters of fact are the more boring ones, since they can be settled (in principle, anyway, given sincere interlocutors and all that) by just reviewing the actual facts.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Faizal_Ali

@Giltil

Well, if some people quarrel about who is the greatest rock guitarist, it is because they do think that an objective answer exists to this question, otherwise it would be nonsensical for them to do so.

Do you believe there is an objective answer to that question?

No, not really. This is why I won’t waste too much time arguing that Mark Knopfler is the best one!

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

I don’t think a quarrel about which flavor for an ice-cream, vanilla or chocolate, is the best one would go very far, do you? The question is why. And the answer is straightforward, it is because the tastes for flavors are very subjective. Bottom line: a genuine quarrel about any issue can only arise if the participants truly believe that there is an element of objectivity in it.

[Paul_King]

An important point is that the belief that there is an objective answer does not in any way entail that there is an objective answer. People might well naively assume that their moral values are objectively true - and be incorrect. Indeed if the existence of moral disagreements implies that the arguers believe that there is an objective answer it must be the case that at least one of them is mistaken in this way. And in no case - excepting degenerate examples like “murder is wrong” - can it be shown that either of them is objectively correct.

For a comparison we might consider language. There are no objectively true spellings or meanings of words. Standardised spelling was not part of the English language in Chaucer’s day. Dictionaries may be used as authorities on meaning but they do not set rules - they record the actual use of words. No use then, can be objectively wrong. If it becomes widely used enough it will enter the dictionaries and become correct. And yet people will argue about both meanings and spellings. Whether it is because they wrongly believe that there are objective answers or not Lewis’ argument has a problem.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Giltil

Bottom line: a genuine quarrel about any issue can only arise if the participants truly believe that there is an element of objectivity in it.

It’s as if you have no experience with human beings whatsoever. The more subjective an issue is, I would suggest, the more impassioned argument it will inspire. Alt that is required for an argument is disagreement. It does not require the prospect of resolution, never mind an objective one.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Faizal_Ali

It’s as if you have no experience with human beings whatsoever. The more subjective an issue is, I would suggest, the more impassioned argument it will inspire.

What about the case of almost complete subjectivity such as the GOAT guitarist? Do you think there has been impassioned argument on this one?

[Paul_King]

But obviously emacs is objectively superior to vi. linux.com

[Tim]

@Giltil

I don’t think a quarrel about which flavor for an ice-cream, vanilla or chocolate, is the best one would go very far, do you? The question is why. And the answer is straightforward, it is because the tastes for flavors are very subjective. Bottom line: a genuine quarrel about any issue can only arise if the participants truly believe that there is an element of objectivity in it.

@Giltil:

You appear to be conflating “subjective” with idiosyncratic and “objective” with consensus.

Yes, for the quarrelers to not be talking past each other, their respective viewpoints cannot be too idiosyncratic (this may be what you mean by “a genuine quarrel” – but your idiosyncratic terminology does not make this clear).

But for a meaningful quarrel, it does not require that the topic they are quarreling about has an objective basis – merely that they have some subjective consensus on its basis.

Taking ice cream as an example – there would probably be a widespread consensus that ice cream flavors should be sweet. This means most would not prefer wasabi as a flavor. This does not however mean that there is some objective rule that ice cream should be sweet.

Your “bottom line” appears to be nothing more than an unfortunate consequence of this conflation.

[Faizal_Ali]

I think many, if not most, arguments are undertaken with the goal of persuading someone to accept your point of view, rather than arriving at an “objective truth”. This is particularly the case with moral arguments.