I know today it is often used to refer to a middle ground between atheism and theism, but that isn't the true meaning of the term.

Exactly what, outside of social agreement, is the "true meaning" of the term agnosticism? Does something being really old make it truer?

Also relevant.

Just because your "conscience" tells you something is right or wrong doesn't mean that it is objectively morally right or wrong. If that were the case then if my friend conscience tells them to donate 50% of their money then that implies that it is objectively morally good to do that. But other peoples' conscience tells them to donate 25% maybe. You can't get to objectivity from conscience. That's nonsense. It could just be a psychological mechanism that our brains developed because those without empathy didn't pass on their genes and cooperation was promoted by evolution. You can't get an objective morality from that. If your brain were to activate hormones that make you feel bad when you murder because that kind of process was useful for your ancestors to survive, that doesn't make it objectively true that it is morally wrong to murder. Also, there may be people such as psychopaths who may not even have this conscience you speak of. — SonJnana

Just because people can be mistaken in moral beliefs or moral perceptions doesn't mean morality isn't objective. People disagree about things all the time. Doesn't change anything.

What is it about a priori intuition of moral truths that you find problematic? All I'm saying is the concepts "good" and "right" are similar in kind to the concepts "number" and the specific numbers themselves.

We can know 2+3=5 because we can take 2, add 3, and see that there are 5. — SonJnana

How do we "see" they are equal to 5, if not through an intuitive, a priori understanding of certain mathematical concepts? I don't just "see" 2+3=5 when I look at some scribbles on a page or see some things put into the same bunch as other things.

We can develop proofs for mathematics that are sound. But we cant say that it is objectively true harming others needlessly is objectively morally wrong. Show me the proof for that. I've already explained why conscience doesn't work for that. — SonJnana

Well, as I've said, if we are honest and clear-headed I think it should be clear what some of these moral principles are, which we can manipulate logically. And the fact is that we can create valid logical inferences with moral propositions. Honestly I don't see your resistance to this as any more than a prejudice, a prejudice I've been trying to get you to acknowledge.

The point is that agnostic atheism/theism complicates matters unnecessarily. — darthbarracuda

So because a fact complicates things, we should ignore it?

We just want to know: do you believe God exists, or not? It's very simple, you're either a theist, an atheist, or in between as an agnostic — darthbarracuda

First of all, who is "we"?
Second, the fact that you apparently think it not only acceptable, but more reasonable to ignore certain details and intricacies of an issue in favour of simplifying it is surprising, being that we're on a philosophy forum and that attitude is very un-philosophical.
And third, I'm not opposed to have a term to describe someone who is neither atheist nor theist, but agnostic already means something else entirely, so instead of stealing the words of others, how about creating a new word to serve this new purpose?


I posted the true meaning of the term in the same comment you just quoted. Did you miss it somehow?

So because a fact complicates things, we should ignore it? — JustSomeGuy

It's not a fact, it's just a useless and sneaky way for a lot of people to escape having to justify their beliefs by pretending to be the "null position" and begging the question. That's bullshit.

First of all, who is "we"? — JustSomeGuy

Presumably anyone interested in knowing whether God exists or not.

Second, the fact that you apparently think it not only acceptable, but more reasonable to ignore certain details and intricacies of an issue in favour of simplifying it is surprising, being that we're on a philosophy forum and that attitude is very un-philosophical. — JustSomeGuy

Why? I just showed how it was useless and dumb to put agnostic and (a)theism together. It's incoherent and unhelpful.

And third, I'm not opposed to have a term to describe someone who is neither atheist nor theist, but agnostic already means something else entirely, so instead of stealing the words of others, how about creating a new word to serve this new purpose? — JustSomeGuy

Well like you said, words go through changes in definition. As of now agnostic is used primarily as a middle position between atheism and theism.

I now see trying to use reason with you is futile. You apparently have no interest in it.
Carry on without me.

Well, as I've said, if we are honest and clear-headed I think it should be clear what some of these moral principles are, which we can manipulate logically. And the fact is that we can create valid logical inferences with moral propositions. Honestly I don't see your resistance to this as any more than a prejudice. — darthbarracuda

The principle of mathematics can be logically proven by what we see in reality. You can't group objective morality in the same group. The only thing you've mentioned as grounded in reality about objective morality is that there is a command from a-far, which you haven't demonstrated, and the conscience argument.

Just because people can be mistaken in moral beliefs or moral perceptions doesn't mean morality isn't objective. People disagree about things all the time. Doesn't change anything. — darthbarracuda

As I've stated before "If your brain were to activate hormones that make you feel bad when you murder because that kind of process was useful for your ancestors to survive, that doesn't make it objectively true that it is morally wrong to murder." Conscience is not proof that it is objectively wrong to murder.

k

You can't group objective morality in the same group. — SonJnana

You keep asserting this but I've denied this every time. I just see moral principles as on basically the same level as mathematical principles. Forget the whole "calling" thing, because it's not even that relevant (it's just a phenomenological description with no connection to whether it's actually objective).

"If your brain were to activate hormones that make you feel bad when you murder because that kind of process was useful for your ancestors to survive, that doesn't make it objectively true that it is morally wrong to murder." Conscience is not proof that it is objectively wrong to murder. — SonJnana

But is conscience just the feeling of good or bad, or does it have cognitive content (as I've said many time already)?

I just see moral principles as on basically the same level as mathematical principles. — darthbarracuda

Mathematical principle can be proven in reality. You still have to prove the objective morality.

But is conscience just the feeling of good or bad, or does it have cognitive content (as I've said many time already)? — darthbarracuda

Let me rephrase a little bit. If the human brain were to evolve to encompass a type of thinking where it believes that it is objectively morally wrong and/or activate hormones that make a person feel bad when they murder because that kind of thought process was useful for ancestors to survive, that doesn't make it objectively true that it is morally wrong to murder. Conscience is not proof that it is objectively wrong to murder.

Mathematical principle can be proven in reality. — SonJnana

How do we do this? I'm stressing that mathematics is synthetic a priori, not synthetic a posteriori. We don't do mathematical experiments, at least not in the sense of using experiments to show 2+3=5.

Conscience is not proof that it is objectively wrong to murder. — SonJnana

I'm not associated conscience with a good or bad feeling, like a hit of dopamine. I'm associating it with the feeling that what one did was right or wrong (with the good and bad feelings, of course).

Basically, moral principles are a priori and can be manipulated into valid logical inferences, operating similarly to mathematical axioms. Many people agree on mathematical truths, and it might surprise you how many people actually agree on moral truths as well. That needlessly slaughtering infants is wrong is going to be generally accepted by most people. We grasp moral truths, moral principles, in a similar way to how we grasp mathematical truths and principles. And so whatever it is that makes mathematical truths actually objectively true is, as I see it here, going to be similar to what makes moral truths objectively true.

The point I'm making is that I don't see morality as too much different to mathematics, and I think you don't recognize that mathematics is a priori in this sense. Empirical senses provide content for mathematical forms, and empirical senses also provide content for the application of moral principles.

If moral principles seem to you weird or not reliable (because they came from evolution, say), we need only remember that the same thing can be said about mathematical principles. Our mathematical sense is just as much a product of evolution as our moral sense would be. Yet most of us think mathematical principles are in fact objective and not a cobweb of the mind.

It only means that everyone's wants, needs, desires are the same or similar so that everyone's preferences are consistent with each other. — SonJnana

Isn't this an objective observation you've made?

If there is a general scientific agreement that the earth is flat then it would be true that the earth is flat. It turns out that there is no general scientific agreement that the earth is flat. Some religious groups think this, but they do not belong to an appropriate group to satisfy the objectivity claim in this case. — bloodninja

I don't see what you have a problem with? I never said the earth changed shape. I was making a claim about the conditions for objectivity.

How do we "see" they are equal to 5, if not through an intuitive, a priori understanding of certain mathematical concepts? — darthbarracuda

I don't just "see" 2+3=5 — darthbarracuda

Take two objects. Take three objects. See that there are five objects. That's a posteriori knowledge.

Take two objects. Take three objects. See that there are five objects — BlueBanana

How do I know what two, three, and five objects are, though? I must already have numbers as an a priori concept before.

Or you can perceive those amounts in the world and name them, which makes them a posteriori.

Or you can perceive those amounts — BlueBanana

How do we perceive amounts? Pretty sure we're given sense data and our mental faculties organize it. Do you think we perceive space and time?

That data contains the amount.

How cryptic...

So if I understand you correctly, there are no objective inherent reasons why murder is always immoral, other than what a society dictates?

The point I'm making is that I don't see morality as too much different to mathematics, and I think you don't recognize that mathematics is a priori in this sense. Empirical senses provide content for mathematical forms, and empirical senses also provide content for the application of moral principles. — darthbarracuda

There a clear distinction between mathematics and morality. When we make a math statement like 5+5=11, we can check that. If we have 5 apples and add 5, we get 10. We realize that the original statement 5+5=11 is wrong because statements like those are grounded in reality. That is a math law that is true regardless of what people think.

To say that morality is the same, you would have to prove that there is a natural law of ought. Conscience does not get us there because it relies on what people think is true. You have to prove that there is that objective morality outside of what people think. People can be socially conditioned to think many things, but just because they think that there is an objective morality and make statements about it, doesn't mean that there actually is one.

It only means that everyone's wants, needs, desires are the same or similar so that everyone's preferences are consistent with each other. — SonJnana


Isn't this an objective observation you've made? — TheMadFool

If everyone's favorite ice cream was vanilla, it would objectively be true that everyone's opinion of ice cream being the best flavor was consistent. But that wouldn't mean the opinion itself was an objective fact. It would just mean that the subjective opinions are consistent. Consensus on an opinion or belief doesn't mean that the opinion or belief itself is objectively true.

You have to prove that there is that objective morality outside of what people think. — SonJnana

But we check statements like 5+5=11 by thinking. You're just assuming mathematics is objective, but it is the person themselves that has to think about mathematical principles to derive conclusions. "Checking" mathematical proofs is not empirically verifiable or anything like that, because mathematics is synthetic a priori.

So why not think of morality like this? Why not say, I can check to see if this law is morally acceptable, or if my actions are in line with moral principles? At its base, mathematics relies on certain axioms that must be taken to be true. Why can't morality be the same?

People can be socially conditioned to think many things, but just because they think that there is an objective morality and make statements about it, doesn't mean that there actually is one. — SonJnana

People can be socially conditioned to believe in an objective reality apart from consciousness, or God, or in the objectivity of mathematics, or the realism of scientific theories, or whatever. This is a possibility of error, yes. But it's still what you keep saying - a maybe, a perhaps. That's not very convincing.

↪SonJnana
I don't see what you have a problem with? I never said the earth changed shape. I was making a claim about the conditions for objectivity. — bloodninja

I should've said this earlier, but yeah our definitions for objective differ if you define objective as just consensus of what people think or believe so we're just beating a dead horse lol.

So if I understand you correctly, there are no objective inherent reasons why murder is always immoral, other than what a society dictates? — Sam26

I am not making any claims (see the edit in the original post). I am saying I haven't seen proof that there is an objective morality for why murder is immoral, other than what people think.

But we check statements like 5+5=11 by thinking. You're just assuming mathematics is objective, but it is the person themselves that has to think about mathematical principles to derive conclusions. "Checking" mathematical proofs is not empirically verifiable or anything like that, because mathematics is synthetic a priori. — darthbarracuda

Math statements however are grounded in reality. It doesn't matter if hypothetically everyone thinks that 5+5=11. Regardless of what people think, when you have 5 objects and add 5 more, you objectively have 10 not 11. The people that think it is 11 are wrong.

Why not say, I can check to see if this law is morally acceptable, or if my actions are in line with moral principles? — darthbarracuda

Where are you going to check these moral principles? Where are you getting this objective morality from?

People can be socially conditioned to believe in an objective reality apart from consciousness, or God, or in the objectivity of mathematics, or the realism of scientific theories, or whatever. This is a possibility of error, yes. But it's still what you keep saying - a maybe, a perhaps. That's not very convincing. — darthbarracuda

Unless you are solipsistic (in which case I'd end the discussion right here and now), you'd probably agree that the universe is. And mathematics can be derived from is. To argue for an objective ought, you'd have to assume that there is objective purpose behind the universe, and these balls of atoms that we label as humans have objective obligations. Do you believe in God?

I make an argument about objective morality in this thread starting on p. 2
(https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2297/if-objective-morality-exists-then-its-knowledge-must-be-innate/p2). I have several posts in this thread, so it's not just one post. So for what it's worth here is my argument.

Math statements however are grounded in reality. It doesn't matter if hypothetically everyone thinks that 5+5=11. Regardless of what people think, when you have 5 objects and add 5 more, you objectively have 10 not 11. The people that think it is 11 are wrong. — SonJnana

How do you know this? Again, you're just asserting the objectivity of mathematics.

Where are you going to check these moral principles? Where are you getting this objective morality from? — SonJnana

In the same way you would check mathematical proofs. By thinking about them, a priori and synthetically.

Unless you are solipsistic (in which case I'd end the discussion right here and now), you'd probably agree that the universe is. And mathematics can be derived from is. — SonJnana

But what I've been saying all this time is that we don't derive mathematics from the sense datum we take in, at least not in a wholly passive way.

To argue for an objective ought, you'd have to assume that there is objective purpose behind the universe, and these balls of atoms that we label as humans have objective obligations. Do you believe in God? — SonJnana

See, now you're offering snippets of the metaphysical picture of reality you think is true. That objective morality requires teleology to the universe, perhaps a God, is part of your conception of what objective morality is. You need to actually explain this though because I'm not sure I follow.

Math statements however are grounded in reality. It doesn't matter if hypothetically everyone thinks that 5+5=11. Regardless of what people think, when you have 5 objects and add 5 more, you objectively have 10 not 11. The people that think it is 11 are wrong. — SonJnana


How do you know this? Again, you're just asserting the objectivity of mathematics. — darthbarracuda

Do you think that beliefs change objective reality? Do you think that just because people believed that 5+5=11 (and not just redefined 11 to mean 10, but they actually believed 11), having 5 objects and then adding 5 would become 11?

To argue for an objective ought, you'd have to assume that there is objective purpose behind the universe, and these balls of atoms that we label as humans have objective obligations. Do you believe in God? — SonJnana


See, now you're offering snippets of the metaphysical picture of reality you think is true. That objective morality requires teleology to the universe, perhaps a God, is part of your conception of what objective morality is. You need to actually explain this though because I'm not sure I follow. — darthbarracuda

I actually take back what I said. But I do want to know since your asserting objective morality. Just so I can understand your position even more clear... does your claim of objective morality rely on the assumption that there is teleology, perhaps a god?

From the post I saw, I'm wondering why harm is an essential property of an objective morality. I could see why it would be an essential property of your subjective moral code. But I'd like to hear your reasoning on why it's an essential property of an objective morality.