Objective Morality, Naturalism, and Euthyphro

[Faizal_Ali]

@Giltil

Your error is to think that something that is mind dependent is necessarily subjective, but this is not the case. Take theorems. They are mental constructs that hold true independently of individual beliefs, feelings, or perceptions, so —per my definition—they are objective.

But are they “mind dependent”? If no minds existed, including God’s, would mathematical theorems not be true? Or anything about math? If there were no minds, would it no longer be true that 2+2=4? I don’t think so.

@Giltil

Or take Decartes’ famous statement « cogito, ergo sum ». This statement is a mental construct, nonetheless it is an objective statement, as its truth is independent of individual whims and verifiable by anyone who thinks.

Wrong.

Cogito, ergo sum - Wikipedia

[Nesslig20]

@Giltil

Your error is to think that something that is mind dependent is necessarily subjective

By your definition, yes. It is.

@Giltil

Take theorems. They are mental constructs that hold true independently of individual beliefs, feelings, or perceptions, so —per my definition—they are objective.

The truth of theorems depend on axioms - assumptions that are taken to be true. So, their truth are not mind independent either.

@Giltil

Or take Decartes’ famous statement « cogito, ergo sum ».

That argument is LITERALLY citing ‘subjective experience’ as the premise.

I suspect the trouble you have is thinking that something cannot be both “subjective” and be “true with absolute logical certainty” at the same time.

[Tim]

@Giltil

Don’t you think that in the story of Susanna below the behavior of the two Elders is morally wrong …

Yes, but that is only my subjective moral opinion – even if (as I suggested above) it may be a reasonably strong (though I would not suggest universal) consensus opinion.

@Giltil

… and that this judgment is independent of individual whims ?

Irrelevant!

The standard is not the very low bar of “independent of individual whims”, but:

@Giltil

Grok gives the definition below, which seems rather good to me:
Something that exists or is true independently of individual thoughts, feelings, or perceptions. It’s based on facts, evidence, or reality as it is, not influenced by personal bias or interpretation.

And no, I do not think that this moral opinion is “true independently of individual thoughts, feelings, or perceptions” – so no, I do not think it is an objective moral opinion.

As @Roy alludes to above, you have yet to establish:

1. what is the full contents of this purported system of objective morality;

2. how we know these contents; or

3. how we would establish that this system’s morality is objective.

[Tim]

@Faizal_Ali

On the contrary, I think his bad analogies provide the clearest demonstration of the vacuity of his position. And make no mistake, if one of those “sophisticated” apologists like William Lane Craig or CS Lewis were here, they would not be making a case any better than @Giltil is.

That rather presupposes that “‘sophisticated’ apologists like William Lane Craig or CS Lewis” don’t use bad analogies.

I’ve long thought the analogy of CS Lewis’, that formed the basis of the name of the band Sixpence None the Richer (a couple of whose hits have stuck in my memory) was a particularly bad analogy.

But then, unlike some, I’ve never had the impression that he’s a “great thinker and writer” – and have seen little to give the impression that he’s seen that way outside chauvinistically Christian circles. Are there Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc who praise the profundity of his writing?

Addendum: to avoid an accusation of bias in my impression of CS Lewis, I asked ChatGPT to summarise his reception outside Christian circles. This was the conclusion:

Overall Secular Consensus

• Literature: Valuable and influential.
• Apologetics: Artful, but intellectually limited.
• Philosophy: Morally serious but not rigorous.
• Cultural criticism: Interesting, though ideologically conservative.

I will leave it to the reader to decide if this qualifies as a “great thinker and writer”.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Gisteron

@Giltil

Don’t you think that in the story of Susanna below the behavior of the two Elders is morally wrong and that this judgment is independent of individual whims ?

This is a red herring and you know it, because we’ve already been over this.

It’s also trivially false, because the two elders in the story didn’t consider their own behaviour morally wrong.

[Gisteron]

To be fair, people can have differing opinions even about objective matters. Just because the individual whims do not align doesn’t mean that there is not or cannot be an actual fact of the matter, discoverable or otherwise, any more than total consensus means that there is, and that the elders’ assessment would just happen to be (objectively) incorrect.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

To be precise, even if the elders’ behaviour was objectively morally wrong, the claim that the “judgement is independent of individual whims” is incorrect, because two of the individuals involved did not make that judgement.