I do not claim to have access to objective morality.

Yes I assumed you did not. But you were asking for an observation based morality from those who do. I was curious if you have a moral stance based on (non-objective) observations. A common criticisms from folks like you is that religious people don't employ the same rigorous methods and standards as found in science for their own beliefs. I assume you have a strong moral stance. For something so important as morality can you justify your moral views with the same rigor that you demand for religious views?

keiths doesn't answer questions which reveal the untenable nature of his root arguments. He's slippery that way!

This thread has been reposted by Joy here: http://telicthoughts.com/carry.... For the benefit of dial up users such as herself, we should post further responses on that thread.

First of all do you even read what I post?

If the answer is "yes", a bunch of "Are you crazy?" questions follow.

this is how I know you believe in objective trancendental truth. Do you even understand what I'm saying?

Peace

This raises some interesting questions. First, do any of these people seriously believe that all sincerely held propositions are equally justified, simply because they all depend ultimately on subjective observations, perceptions, and intuitions?

If the answer is "yes", a bunch of "Are you crazy?" questions follow. For example, do they seriously believe that the proposition that astronauts visited the moon in 1969 is no better justified than the belief, held by some, that ancient Indians were flying around in spacecraft?

Assuming the answer is a sensible "no", then what criteria or methods do they use to distinguish between well-justified and poorly-justified propositions? Would they care to show us how these methods and/or criteria establish moral propositions as objective truths or falsehoods?

I have already sketched out some methods by which we can tell that Adelson's squares are objectively the same color, except in the unlikely event that we are all being fooled by an evil Cartesian demon or equivalent.

Where are the demonstrations of moral truths being established to that same degree of certainty?

This "testable prediction" tells us nothing about whether stealing and slavery are objectively immoral. You do understand that, don't you? If a thief claims that you are wrong to steal from him, it means simply that the thief thinks it's wrong for you to steal from him. Subjective morality.

Actually it means that the thief "believes" that stealing is objectively wrong no matter what he says when he is stealing. He expects you to agree with him as well.

Of course if I believe that stealing is objectively wrong and you believe stealing is objectively wrong it does not prove that it is objectively wrong . If you will remember I said about 200 posts ago that objective moral truths are not falsifiable. They are presuppositions just like mathematical and logical truths. I also told Mark that his first mistake was in treating moral truths as deferent sorts of things than mathematical and logical truths

You can't prove that two plus two always equals four you must presuppose it in order to do math. You can't prove the law of non contradiction you must presuppose it in order to think logically. In the same way you can't prove moral truths you must presuppose them in order to function in society.

It's impossible to prove transcendental truths but with out them it's impossible to prove any thing .

Peace

You accuse people of not rising to the challenge. Do you have an answer to my questions? You seem to have a very strict epistemological standard (science based?). Do you have a moral stance that has the same level of rigor that you demand? If so please explain.

Steve,

My opponents on this thread claim that objective morality exists and is accessible. They are the ones who claim to be able to demonstrate the objective truth of moral principles. Naturally the burden falls on them to back up their claim.

I do not claim to have access to objective morality. In fact, I doubt that objective morality exists. So of course I cannot supply an objective justification of my moral stances. I've never claimed that I could.

Before you go, you wrote:

When you take a thief's stuff he will not protest that he does not like you to take his stuff. He will claim that it's wrong or unfair for you to take his stuff. The same goes for the enslaved slave holder.

That is a testable prediction.

This "testable prediction" tells us nothing about whether stealing and slavery are objectively immoral. You do understand that, don't you? If a thief claims that you are wrong to steal from him, it means simply that the thief thinks it's wrong for you to steal from him. Subjective morality.

All the while you have demonstrated that you really do believe that objective moral truths exist no matter how hard you try and deny it. Which is what I set out to accomplish in the first place

So I would say my work here is done.

5mm,

If you think you've accomplished any such thing, I would recommend rereading the thread.

Bye-bye.

You repeat "truth is normative" like a mantra, but you never justify it.

Deuce:

Um, maybe because it's so blatantly obvious that I didn't think I needed to.

It's not at all obvious. The mere fact that something is true does not oblige us to believe it, to affirm it, or to act as if it were true. Those things follow only if you also hold that we should believe the truth, that we shouldn't tell untruths, or that we should act according to what we believe is true.

Are you aware of the positive vs. normative distinction?

I agree. In fact, I suspect that Mark, Raevmo, mtraven and I would agree on all of the following:

a) that subjective morality is real, and very important;

b) that subjective morality has all kinds of consequences for how we structure our societies, our norms, our legal systems, etc.;

c) that not one of our critics has demonstrated the existence of a single objective moral truth; and

d) that we're not aware of anyone outside this thread having done so either.

Of course you agree on those things you started out agreeing on those things. So in this thread you have succeeded in accomplishing exactly nothing.

Meanwhile you haven't shown that any statements of yours are objectively true or why since you can't do that why any of us should care what you think.

All the while you have demonstrated that you really do believe that objective moral truths exist no matter how hard you try and deny it. Which is what I set out to accomplish in the first place

So I would say my work here is done.

Peace