Thought Experiment

Lucian

Active member
P1. If a thing is objectively good/bad/worst/best, it is good/bad/worst/best independent of opinion.
P2. The standards by which aesthetics are judged, are, necessarily, opinions.

C. It is not possible for a thing to be objectively aesthetically good/bad/worst/best.

Which of these do you dispute?
The argument is invalid. That aside, I don't accept either premise (especially 2) or the conclusion.
 

Lucian

Active member
Then it has a faulty inference to the conclusion - please explain.
There's no rule of inference I can identify that gets you from the premises to the conclusion. I suspect the argument could be easily reformulated, though.
Then you have access to some standard that is objective, and proof that it is so?
'then' implies that you think this follows from my not accepting your premises, which it clearly doesn't.
Also, how can a thing be objectively true and depend on opinion?
Perhaps one might argue that the communis opinio of a suitably qualified or well-functioning community is at least partly constitutive of ('objectively') true aesthetic judgements, for example. I don't know whether this view is correct, but it seems worth considering.
 

El Cid

Well-known member
But environments aren't all in a constant state of change.

Now all you have to do is prove it.
All you have to prove is that purposes can come from random non personal sources. So far you have failed. All you need is one example, and remember you cant use living things, because that would assume what we are trying to prove.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
All you have to prove is that purposes can come from random non personal sources. So far you have failed. All you need is one example, and remember you cant use living things, because that would assume what we are trying to prove.
And about the environment not being in a random state of change?
 

El Cid

Well-known member
Your analogy is poor because consciousness is non-physical.
So is piled-ness.
No, that is the physical characteristic of being in a pile.
El Cid said:
How can the physical produce the non-physical?
The same way the non-piley can produce the pile.
No, see above.
El Cid said:
Then why did purposes exist long before humans did?
Loaded question - prove that they did.
Dinosaurs had eyes whose purpose was to see 65 mya.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Dinosaurs had eyes whose purpose was to see 65 mya.
The fact that A does B does not mean that the purpose of A is B.

If a meteorite crashes into the Yucatan and kills the dinosaurs, "the meteorite's purpose was to kill the dinosaurs" would be an asinine take.
 

El Cid

Well-known member
No, His character exists outside the human mind, therefore a morality based on it is objective.
Objectivity requires independence of all minds, not just human ones.
Yes, Gods moral character exists outside all minds.
If vanilla were objectively better than chocolate, it wouldn't matter that an alien thought that chocolate was better than vanilla.
True but if it was based on an objective standard of taste that existed outside all minds then it would matter. So it is with morality.
 

El Cid

Well-known member
But of course, the majority of people in the world think it is wrong because we are all created in the image of the Christian God.
No; it's because of evolution.
But Indian tribes are a product of evolution as well. So why the difference?
El Cid said:
Also, why is it wrong to harm people?
Why are even numbers divisible by two?

By definition.
If it is as obvious as that, why have there been so many societies built on the concept of harming people?
 

5wize

Well-known member
If it is as obvious as that, why have there been so many societies built on the concept of harming people?
Because that knowledge requires an experience of their own potential victimhood from it. Societies have moved away from that via direct experience, wanting to live better, and not under threat of some retaliation borne of the animosity that those practices produce. Supernatural fiat not required.

Do you think the 10 commandments are some ubiquitous objective human truths or were they exact prescriptions for better living giving what a wandering, nationless, lawless group was directly experiencing?
 

El Cid

Well-known member
There were some Indian tribes, at least the men, that DID believe that rape was perfectly moral.
I would like a little more than this to be convinced. Can you give any information that they in all sincerity thought rape was moral? Can you give any arguments they might have made in support of rape being moral?
Read about Cortez conquering of Mexico. One of the first gifts they gave the Spaniards were women for them to have sex with when they entered a tribes territory.
El Cid said:
But of course, the majority of people in the world think it is wrong because we are all created in the image of the Christian God.
Hmm, that doesn't seem to come up in any law against rape.
In Christian nations it was, But because we are created in His image most of us have a moral conscience that produces similar laws and morals to the Christian God's.
El Cid said:
What is your definition of harm? Also, why is it wrong to harm people?
Do I really have to define harm? One way of defining it is that which causes injury both mentally and/or physically.
Many people have different definitions of harm. Is it harmful to an alcoholic's mind to cure him of alcoholism?
It's wrong to harm people because of what harm is.
See above.
If I come round your house and break your nose are we going to sit around over a cup of tea and discuss whether I've done you any harm or not, or will you call the police?
Say I was trying to rape your wife and you broke my nose. Would you be guilty of causing harm to me? Say you bought a cow from a farmer and slaughtered it and ate it. Are you guilty of causing harm to the cow and so should be arrested?
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
But because we are created in His image most of us have a moral conscience that produces similar laws and morals to the Christian God's.
Or, people wrote that their god (who doesn't exist) thinks that is immoral, what most of them thought was immoral.

The Bible god thinks that theft and rape and murder immoral because people do, not the other way around.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Read about Cortez conquering of Mexico. One of the first gifts they gave the Spaniards were women for them to have sex with when they entered a tribes territory.
This doesn't quite answer my question. For the men giving the women, were they doing it because they thought it morally right? If so what arguments would they give to justify this position? It sounds like good old men having power over women and women's position in society being inferior to men.
In Christian nations it was, But because we are created in His image most of us have a moral conscience that produces similar laws and morals to the Christian God's.
This is what we're debating, that because we are created in God's Image we have a moral conscience. Just stating that belief as you've done here doesn't show it's true.
Many people have different definitions of harm. Is it harmful to an alcoholic's mind to cure him of alcoholism?

See above.
You are now saying it's ok to rape someone because different people have different definitions of harm.
Say I was trying to rape your wife and you broke my nose. Would you be guilty of causing harm to me? Say you bought a cow from a farmer and slaughtered it and ate it. Are you guilty of causing harm to the cow and so should be arrested?
This doesn't answer my question.
 
Top