Monotheists or dueltheists?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

I’m an American who (gasp) doesn’t think slavery is a bad thing. Slavery, by itself, is alright. When people think of slavery they think of the slaves being dressed in rags, if at all, and beaten/tortured/raped/etc. at the master’s will. While that might happen, that’s really the abusive behavior of the master, not an inherent flaw in slavery. So long as the slave owners are held accountable for their slave’s physical and mental well being, nothing’s wrong.

Actually, by your definition of slavery (men employing others to carry out personal work…in exchange for a place to live, food, and learning a trade) I was a slave for several years. I was part of a program called Job Corps, which is a government-run facility that housed, fed, and clothed young people while teaching them a trade. I had to abide by their rules and work long hours maintaining the grounds or washing dishes for a few weeks per year. It didn’t seem all that bad to me…aside from the forced sobriety. Keeping booze from someone should be against the law or something. :stuck_out_tongue:

I label myself a slave only lightheartedly, though. I realize that true slavery might not be so tolerable, but that doesn’t make it evil, just inconvenient.

22

Meat…

Your confusion arises from being inconsistent in your application of your subjective moral principle:

I say murdering me is wrong. The murderer says, “No, it’s right!”

Meat says: “Since there is no objective standard, then both the murderer and Shotgun are simply expressing their emotions, but neither are moral in any objective sense.”

So far, so good…

But, what happens when we consistently apply this principle?

Meat says that Leprechauns are big around March.

Shotgun says that Leprechauns are NEVER big…they are little fellas!

So, which of us has the truth of it? How do we find out when Leprechauns are big?

No matter how you answer this question, you will be appealing to a transcendent standard…because were you to remain consistent, you wouldn’t try to answer the question. You’d just say that whoever is stronger would be able to force his answer to the question: “Leprechauns are big around what time of year?”

“All the world is a text” says Jacques Derrida. It’s not just situations (like the murder or not murder scenario I described above) that are open to subjective interpretation. It’s not just ambiguous questions (like the Leprechaun illustration) that are open to subjective interpretation…oh no. It’s ALL the world! EVERY event you experience is similarly open to subjective interpretation.

Thus…Nietzsche is driven to impose his will over all of his experiences in order to construct them into something coherent. But then…he’d have to admit that communication is impossible (as many Existentialists, like Sartre, do admit.)

Moral objectivity does exist…along with objectivity of external experiences…we’d not be able to talk, use science, do math or logic without it.

And, only the Christian God can account for this objectivity. You should repent for denying him Mr. Meat.

23

Well he uses samurai code or christian code if he is a christian, or universalist if that etc, but adapts them. The ideal in ‘every landscape‘… is that they usually only apply in part, but sometimes it is necessary to do something unusual. For example in the 70’s show [on cbs currently] called shogun, the samurai lord says to the englishman; ‘if the dutch are fighting against their sovereign lord [the Spanish at that time] they are rebels and there are no exclusions to that’, the Englishman replied; except if we win! To which the samurai lord laughed and said quite right! You see he knew that there were strict rules to go by, but only until a new set of circumstances comes about ~ like a new lord who makes new rules.

Feudal japan during civil war was won over by a single samurai lord, because that lord did not adhere to the standards of the day. In fact it was he who said ‘the ethic does not exist until the situation arises’ seeing that they had changed over time and from region to region to some degree.

In amrican prisons they are coerced into work which is slavery by british definitions [they make most american army uniforms etc]. is it christian to put men in prison? I considered it as societal and not based on christian ethics. Aside from all that, these people have commited crimes, so punishment is not the same as slavery? Hence…

I don’t think that is christian or at least not how british justice sees it, as here you cannot work in prisons [except to make food for other prisoners]. it’s a kind of earthly purgatory I suppose?

Ha, indeed and its worrying. I often wonder what would have happened if hitler hadent become the proverbial bad guy so we all moved away from his example, when in fact we were all very similar.

24

Meatcube

we are destructible objects, to agree to ones destruction you would have to agree to your own on the same terms [suicide is not the same terms]. that one person doesnt want to be destroyed, so you have to impose your truth upon him/her, means the objective truth no’1 is to not impose ones will upon others.

Then you have serfdom? Bring on the peasants revolt lols. I suppose if you chose to be a slave, that in and of itself is something more than a slave.

shotgun

Nice one!

isn’t the objective truth that one of you are lying about something that we have no evidence of. Would be great if you can make that argument with something real.

25

When are good steaks rare?

It could be when they are slightly cooked…

Or it could be when cows are hard to come by…

In either case, if there is no objective standard to appeal to, then the question can never be answered.

26

Nearly, are we not just talking semantics about two kinds of rare.
:slight_smile:

27

How do you know which case is applicable without using more language? In a subjective world, all language is inherently ambiguous.

28

Are we not allowed to use more language? The meanings remain different without their descriptions, otherwise yes, the terms are ambiguous and hence are not showing us anything.

A description of a thing can change but the thing doesn’t.

i think if you keep going you will find one that doesnt suffer from semantics. :slight_smile: :sunglasses:

29

Either that, or you’ll realize that I, along with Sartre, Nietzsche, Camus, Derrida, and a host of others are actually right, and that language requires objective or otherwise transcendent standards.

Of course, you may be smarter than all of us and have something figured out that we don’t…

I’ll explain one last time for you…and if you don’t get the concept, then we’ll have to pick up the argument somewhere else.

Think of an apple:

You don’t experience “apple”…you experience roundness…redness…greenness…etc.

You also experience a succession of moments in which roundness, redness, greenness, ect are all consecutively close to each other.

These experiences all must be interpreted by your mind, constructed and fit together in order to form a coherent abstract thought.

You are “interpreting” your experiences.

Thus Derrida says: “All the world is a text!”

If there are no objective standards…no rules or guides that transcend your personal, subjective mental state…then you can never know about anything outside of your own subjectively interpreted abstract thoughts.

I hope that helps clarify for you.

30

“Big” and “little” are also subjective terms, so it’d be the same either way. Nobody is ever objectively “morally right” just as nobody is objectively “right” in your leprechaun scenario. A majority might agree with one person or another, but there lacks an objective standard for “Good/Evil” just as there lacks an objective standard for “Big/Little”. There is no objective “truth” in either scenario.

Could you convert someone’s standards to your own using force or coercion? Sure, but it changes nothing. Neither party is objectively right or wrong, once again, regardless of who the “stronger” person may be.

I’m not arguing that all of reality is subjective and that there are no objective rules that may be applied to anything, anywhere in the universe. I’m saying that moral objectivity does not exist. This does not translate to other areas of reality just as math principles do not translate into literature. Right and wrong are subjective terms, just like big and small, wide and thin, etc. These words have a common meaning, but the application of them involves subjective interpretation of the thing that they’re describing.

A building is a building. It is not tall, it is not short. It is a building. A person describing that building might label it as a tall building, while another person looking at the same building would describe it as short.

An act is an act. It is not evil, it is not good. It is an act. A person describing that act might label it as an evil act, while another person describing the same act might label it as good.

That’s all those words are good for. Subjective descriptions of a thing.

People may have common ideals about what constitutes a tall building, just as they might have common ideals about what constitutes and evil act. This does not mean that they are objectively right, but rather they are in agreeance. A separate group of people might have different ideals about tall buildings or evil acts. Neither one is right or wrong about their views as they are subjective.

31

Sorry, I happened to miss this little gem.

The question may be answered, but the answer cannot be considered “True” objectively as “good” is a subjective term. Other English speakers will know what the word “good” means, but its application when it comes to how to cook a steak will vary. Not everything can be objectively “True” or “False” as you seem to wish it to be.

32

Meat,

You say:

Not everything can be objectively “True” or “False” as you seem to wish it to be.

THIS is what I’ve been TRYING to get you to see!

For the relativist (or subjectivist, or existentialist or what-have-you) there can be NO objective or transcendent standards for ANYTHING!

If you want to adhere consistently to subjectivism…then you have to give up ALL transcendent standards.

This means that you either have to give up using language (or admit, like Sartre and Nietzsche that you cannot possibly convey meaning through language) or you have to give up your relativism.

Which will you give up?

33

You’re committing so many logical fallacies here I don’t know where to begin. Maybe I could break down a simple statement for you and explain it’s meaning.

Not everything can be objectively “True” or “False”.

The literal meaning behind the words should be fairly obvious. The implied meanings may not be. There are two possible implied meanings, in fact. The first being that “nothing” can be objectively true. Given my past statements, this should be a strange conclusion to draw and one that you’ve repeatedly made the mistake of drawing. Obviously the very statement is a paradox. If nothing was objectively true, than the very statement would be false, therefore something would be objectively true. This brings us to the second implied meaning, which would be the correct one. “Some things” can be objectively true. Reading my past statements should have brought you to this meaning instead, that is if you were actually reading them. This means that, while some things cannot be objectively true, others can. For example, a steak tasting good would be subjectively true or false, while the rate of a bowling ball falling to earth being 9.8m / s^2 is objectively true or false.

As for asserting that I should give up language or a relativist philosophy (that I never once stated existed), I have one task for you to do first. I want you to come up with an objective standard for the taste of a steak. Let’s be consistent in your objectively falsifiable world. If there is such a thing, then your task has no doubt already been done for you, right? Remember, though, that this steak has to taste just as delicious to everyone in the world, as anything else would clearly be a subjective standard.

34

If someone commits a fallacy in their reasoning, a good place to begin is pointing out the error.

You’re simply not getting the point that I’m trying to make to you. It’s not sinking in.

Oh well…

Maybe you’re more brilliant than all the philosophers I keep alluding to. Maybe you’ve figured out some way to reconcile partial objectivity with partial subjectivity in a materialist world? If so, I greatly look forward to your Nobel-prize worthy essay.

This conversation is over.

35

shotgun

My objective is not to think myself better or to outwit people, but to find the best arguments for ideas/ideals to the n’th degree I can. Usually yours and others arguments go into my future arguments so I think of it as a collaborative effort on the whole. :slight_smile:

With the idea of ‘apple’, must we not have the idea of roundness, redness etc prior to ‘knowing’ them ~ Or at least the cognitive tools to discern what they are? As a baby we would hold a ball and sense its parameters by light and touch senses, we must have the ability to know what this means when we put the experiences together, we would form some manner of notion about it and corroborate that via language, …and before we have language?

Ok, but what are you saying here; that there are no such objective standards or that our subjective standards are corroborated by the objective ones?

Whatever the case, there remains two or more meanings to the term ‘rare’. we have to match the meaning to the thing or we have cubed apples that are actually round so our language is simple wrong by all other standards or what roundness means.

please bare with me, i am trying to understand your exact meaning here.

Meatcube

Good/evil are simply vague terms we add to other objective standards, like e.g. we don’t want self or family etc to be destroyed or harmed, the objective is that the object should remain intact. This is arrived at by the comparative, I.e. that you would have to equally give an objective standard as to why the objects should be destroyed or harmed. The ideal that the object should not be destroyed stands unless there is an objective objection against it, as it is the norm that it would continue and not be destroyed.

Is there a reason why we have to have objective truths? Can we just do philosophy as like the ancients did, where you simple take a set of societal ideals and compare them, the one that is best wins.

36

As an existentialist, I’ll step up on this part…
None.

Existentialism itself is not an absolute.
It does not have to rule supreme with all variables in reality.
Instead, it only needs to be concerned with how man experiences life sensationally each from the other.
Hence the etymology of the term…existential; the word itself is ripped right out of Latin for existence, and that’s the key; each persons state of existence; the experience of it.

That’s what is subjective; that and all perceptions therein.

Other things are also subjective; we have found. For instance, light is subjective.
In fact, that light is subjective depending on gravity, distance, speed of object in question, and any refractions involved, creates a very large problem in doing anything beyond localized observers objectivity for measurements.
Basically…our measurements are only useful to anyone here and no where else.
To use our measurements somewhere else, we have to do conversions.

When we do conversions, it’s because the currency of our medium is not objectively transferable.

So there’s a great deal that we find is subjective, but only man’s experience of existence itself is existential.

Does this negate the possibility of an objective force or existence?
No.

I already mentioned at least one that seems to be fairly objective; gravity.
We have a calculation of gravity that is seemingly objective regardless where we “plop” down in the universe.
We also have a calculation on the speed of light which also seems fairly objective.

No philosophy has all the answers, no thought all considerations, no religion all souls.

37

Good and evil are as vague as big and little. They are simply comparative words that describe one thing in relation to another. The word “big” is meaningless without it’s opposite “little”. The same goes for “good” and “evil”. The application of these words is completely subjective. There is no standard that exists that says “the building must be this height before the word ‘big’ may be used to describe it” just as there lacks a standard that states “an act must have this specific amount of a negative impact before the word ‘evil’ may be used to describe it.” That’s what I mean by objective standards, not that there is a goal involved anywhere. As for your example of “we don’t want self or family to be destroyed or harmed,” that is also subjective. There are those individuals that either don’t care about themselves or their families or even those that wish their family to be destroyed. How would you reconcile suicide with this line of reasoning?

There are very few objective truths in reality, but they do exist. As far as philosophy is concerned, much of it lacks inherent objective truth, so we must rely on subjective “truths” on which to base our arguments. If there were truly objective truths in everything in reality, philosophy would be dead, if it existed at all. I never once stated that we have to have objective truths about everything, least of all philosophical discussions. You’d best direct that argument toward shotgun.

38

I understand exactly what you’re saying. I’m not stupid. Your argument is that if we are to deny objective truths in morality, we are to deny it in all aspects of reality, correct? Hence there would be no mathematics, literature, language, or communication whatsoever, right? I’ve been pointing out time and again that you’re simply wrong. Denying objective truths in morality does not equate to denying it everywhere. I don’t really care what other philosophers have said about it. What you ask of me is to “be consistent” in “my” relativism and apply subjectivity to everything to see that it doesn’t work.

Well no shit, really? You mean we have to have objective truths in language, math, and science?

Seriously, be consistent with your objective standardization and apply it to social sciences, specifically the legal systems that exist today. After all, if there is an objective standard for laws, it’d have to have been applied the same way, transcending cultural boundaries, right?

39

Meatcube

Perhaps we could begin with the object of the universe is big, everything else is less than that and hence is smaller. Or infinity [if an object] is big and everything else is small. Once you have a standard everything else are exponents of that. With building we have the biggest buildings and use that as the comparative, it is subjective however as we already have an objective meaning in out minds we may use that subject as given credence by the original object comparative. Or once you have a standard we may use its perimeters subjectively as long as they work by the same principles, in fact big is always bigger than anything smaller than whatever we decide that is, the meanings can be vague and yet objective comparatively.

You didn’t answer as to ‘having to add an objective gives an objective or base truth’ btw.

By free will going against the objective reasoning, I can jump against gravity but gravity remains objective. probably not the best argument tho.

.

I see, ok. May I add that really there are no absolute objects nor subjects, so philosophy has a permanent home in truth ~ or lack of it. :slight_smile:

40

As I said, the words have understood meanings, and that is all that is objective about them, just as in any language. The application of the words are determined subjectively, meaning that each individual person has a set of standards that are used when determining whether or not something is to be labeled as “big”.

I think you may be misinterpreting the meaning of the phrase “objective truth.” An objective truth is something that is true no matter who is experiencing it, such as the pull of gravity or the weight of a bowling ball, by which I mean the ball is 10 pounds regardless of who is holding it rather than labels such as “light” and “heavy.” A subjective truth is something that is true only on a personal level, such as religion and morality. What is “Good” for you may be “Evil” to another. The meanings of the words aren’t changing, just the application of them. Adding an objective doesn’t give an inherent “base truth”, just a goal to be reached.

Self preservation is a goal, not an objective truth. It is a very important goal, granted, but it is not universally held. Otherwise we’d have a lot less fire fighters and police officers than we do today, as they’d be more concerned with their goal of self preservation than that of preserving the lives of others.

I don’t really get what you’re saying here, but I’ll politely nod at it anyway.