yup! anddd, i'm not entirely sure what i think about non-reductive materialism being a farce, but i guess i just need a walk-through into his arguments so i can understand it better.
objective morals cannot be a bandwagon argument because we know that the moral zeitgeist is true. A better explanation is shared subjective values as consistent with time and culture of the subject.
You should throw your two cents in more often. It would be cool to get varying theistic views on morality.
I would say morality exists prior to God creating us, in fact I would say morality has always existed.
While it happens to be true that God values each of us equally, I do not think that is what gives us morality. The way God "essentially is" determines what has value, and it "essentially is" the case that God values human life equally.
i'm a fan of the thomistic view of a creational ethic. i think it gains credence from the observation that morality is species-specific - what is right for us may not be right for black widows, and vice versa. this doesn't mean that morality didn't exist forever but it does mean that it pertains to our specific nature.
that God values us and that values are derived from God's essence are consistent. do you think a morality can be derived apart from the notion of value?
I don't think that morality can be derived independently of value. That which is objectively valuable ought to be valued, and if you value something there is a specific set of behavior needed to achieve that value.
I think the same principles/obj values would apply to black widows as humans. If they recognize the same things are objectively valuable, they just may go about different actions to behave consistently with those values.
this raises a few questions.: first, what does "objectively valuable" mean? by objective, do you mean it ought to be valued independently of preference/feeling/desire? if the act of valuing is itself a mental state, then is something that is "objectively valuable" to be valued independently of our valuing it? (those aren't scare quotes, i quote them to designate one term).
second, which objective values would apply to black widows? and do they apply to non-sentient beings?
If something is objectively valuable, then it should be seen as valuable even if an individual has contradictory preferences. (you ought not rape people even if you think it would be in your best interest to do so)
If something is objective (like stars for example) it exists independently of black widows ability to see them. Black widows may be ignorant of that value.. or stars existence.
It would be valuable independent of human's valuing it (but co-eternal with God valuing it).
"then it should be seen as valuable even if an individual has contradictory preferences"
in essence, this says, i ought to value X, whether or not I actually do value X." i agrree because God values X and created me in such a way that valuing X is desirable for me. but wouldn't you agree that there *is* a subjectivity, albeit a harmless one, here?
@legodesi ha It has everything to do with it. You stated that statements of truth correspond with reality. This is Correspondence theory. But the other side Coherence would say that truth rather is found in the statement itself, which being an inspiring linguistic philosopher I agree.
Would you say that God's moral prescripts are predicated by the fact that he happens to value us equally? Does his morals pressupose what he values?
manutdfan4321 1 year ago
@manutdfan4321
By his morals, if you mean, the morality he intends us to live by, yes his morals presupposes what he values.
legodesi 1 year ago
Just some clarification for better understanding. In what way is " we are not to kill" objective?
Also when you see morality, do you see it as mainly an ought or an is?
Foxcanine1 1 year ago
So I was watching this video again for no reason in particular, but are you very familiar with Jaegwon Kim?
WayOfTheBastard 1 year ago
@WayOfTheBastard
yup! anddd, i'm not entirely sure what i think about non-reductive materialism being a farce, but i guess i just need a walk-through into his arguments so i can understand it better.
legodesi 1 year ago
dip your head a little lower in your next vid so we can see your slick new lawyer haircut in all its glory!
I think I liked the ceaser better...
sammcalpine 1 year ago
objective morals cannot be a bandwagon argument because we know that the moral zeitgeist is true. A better explanation is shared subjective values as consistent with time and culture of the subject.
Hexdoll 1 year ago
you guys are just arguing semantics now.
three7eightyfive 1 year ago
@three7eightyfive
what do you mean by that, and how are we arguing semantics?
legodesi 1 year ago
@three7eightyfive semantics is the basis for the confusion in the first place.
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
You should throw your two cents in more often. It would be cool to get varying theistic views on morality.
I would say morality exists prior to God creating us, in fact I would say morality has always existed.
While it happens to be true that God values each of us equally, I do not think that is what gives us morality. The way God "essentially is" determines what has value, and it "essentially is" the case that God values human life equally.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
i'm a fan of the thomistic view of a creational ethic. i think it gains credence from the observation that morality is species-specific - what is right for us may not be right for black widows, and vice versa. this doesn't mean that morality didn't exist forever but it does mean that it pertains to our specific nature.
that God values us and that values are derived from God's essence are consistent. do you think a morality can be derived apart from the notion of value?
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi
I don't think that morality can be derived independently of value. That which is objectively valuable ought to be valued, and if you value something there is a specific set of behavior needed to achieve that value.
I think the same principles/obj values would apply to black widows as humans. If they recognize the same things are objectively valuable, they just may go about different actions to behave consistently with those values.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
this raises a few questions.: first, what does "objectively valuable" mean? by objective, do you mean it ought to be valued independently of preference/feeling/desire? if the act of valuing is itself a mental state, then is something that is "objectively valuable" to be valued independently of our valuing it? (those aren't scare quotes, i quote them to designate one term).
second, which objective values would apply to black widows? and do they apply to non-sentient beings?
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi
If something is objectively valuable, then it should be seen as valuable even if an individual has contradictory preferences. (you ought not rape people even if you think it would be in your best interest to do so)
If something is objective (like stars for example) it exists independently of black widows ability to see them. Black widows may be ignorant of that value.. or stars existence.
It would be valuable independent of human's valuing it (but co-eternal with God valuing it).
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
"then it should be seen as valuable even if an individual has contradictory preferences"
in essence, this says, i ought to value X, whether or not I actually do value X." i agrree because God values X and created me in such a way that valuing X is desirable for me. but wouldn't you agree that there *is* a subjectivity, albeit a harmless one, here?
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi
That is a good summary.
"i agrree because God values X and created me in such a way that valuing X is desirable for me."
That is the part where we split. I don't think it is necessarily true that X is desirable for me (or that I would realize it is desirable for me).
Also, I don't think it is given value because God values it. I would describe value in terms of God's essential nature, not in his subjective values.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
well, i may say that valuing X is *good* for me to do (not necessarily in terms of utility. sacrifice is sweet and good for me to do.)
and, if we agree that God's valuing us and his valuing being derived from his essence are consistent, we don't have to be in disagreement.
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi
fair enough
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
Careful Lego because there is a dichotomy between Coherence and Correspondence theory of truth.
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119
but what does that have to do with this?
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi ha It has everything to do with it. You stated that statements of truth correspond with reality. This is Correspondence theory. But the other side Coherence would say that truth rather is found in the statement itself, which being an inspiring linguistic philosopher I agree.
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119
well, i'm with the correspondence theory of truth, but if you like, you can use the coherence theory for sake of this video.
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi ha No I can't actually Coherence would disagree with all of what you said in this video.
bananabread119 1 year ago