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.
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
We can know 2+3=5 because we can take 2, add 3, and see that there are 5. — SonJnana
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
The point is that agnostic atheism/theism complicates matters unnecessarily. — darthbarracuda
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
So because a fact complicates things, we should ignore it? — JustSomeGuy
First of all, who is "we"? — JustSomeGuy
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
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, 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
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
You can't group objective morality in the same group. — SonJnana
"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
I just see moral principles as on basically the same level as mathematical principles. — darthbarracuda
But is conscience just the feeling of good or bad, or does it have cognitive content (as I've said many time already)? — darthbarracuda
Mathematical principle can be proven in reality. — SonJnana
Conscience is not proof that it is objectively wrong to murder. — SonJnana
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
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
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 — BlueBanana
Or you can perceive those amounts — BlueBanana
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
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
You have to prove that there is that objective morality outside of what people think. — SonJnana
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
↪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
So if I understand you correctly, there are no objective inherent reasons why murder is always immoral, other than what a society dictates? — Sam26
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
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
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
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
Where are you going to check these moral principles? Where are you getting this objective morality from? — SonJnana
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
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
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.