From the fact that a lion kills its offspring it does not follow that morality is subjective. It follows that the lion does not act according to what we call morality. Morality may very well exist in an objective way, and the lion does not know it, and therefore does not act according to it. Why do you say, "morality is subjective"?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
There are precious few APODICTIC (logically necessary) TRUTHS.
Most logical truth is purely tautological.
There are precious few claims that are PROVABLY FALSE.
MOST claims hold no "truth-value" (either OPINION or GNOSIS).
Here's a hint, if a claim is emotionally charged, it's OPINION (neither "true" or "false").
Click to watch 23 seconds,
You're right.
I explained why in the follow up comment but I'll clarify. There's obviously a spectrum: GOOD (morality) BAD (immorality). Then there is by default PERPETRATOR (the BAD deed actor) VICTIM (the SUFFERER (that we essentially view as VICTIM) of the act.
The EVENT/ACT which we are deeming/judging (from PERSPECTIVE of OBSERVER) as BAD is ultimately determined by how each SUBJECT is placed on that spectrum. THE ACT alone can't be judged on this spectrum unless those two parties are realized.
LION attacking/destroying CUB (of rival) is THE ACT. So the natural sympathy which we have for VICTIM is how it ultimately exists within the confines of SUBJECTIVITY. Because conversely, to have sympathy for perpetrator is essentially deemed again to be immoral.
OBJECTIVELY it was one life form ending another life form. PHYSICALITY: matter interacting with matter. Energy transforming.
I disagree. The act/event is bad/evil because, on the one hand, the "perpetrator" is doing an evil, and on the other, the "victim" is suffering an evil, thus making the act evil. Evil is not only something that is suffered, but also something that is committed. It not only has to do with us feeling empathy and putting ourselves in the place of the "victim", we can also put ourselves in the place of the "perpetrator" and see what he did as a mistake that we would not want to make.
Also, objectively it does not refer only to that which exists as matter, it also refers to that which exists independently of the observer (subject). I could then say that objective truth does not exist either, because it does not exist materially, which is a self-contradictory argument because by saying that objective truth does not exist I am affirming that it is an objective truth that objective truth does not exist.
You're very confused on the meaning on OBJECTIVITY. You even identify that the ACT of EVIL occurs between two, which are. SUBJECTS.
Thus: SUBJECTIVITY.
Give me one example of "EVIL".. NOT viewed from human perspective and tell me WHY it would be deemed EVIL?
I also make clear that OBJECTIVITY is VIRTUAL VIEWPOINT. Why are you confusing it and saying "it doesn't just exist with matter". Matter (physicality) and judgement (which is what all this is) are not the same thing.
That's precisely why OBJECTIVITY doesn't respect EVIL/GOOD. Because it never existed until Human came along and created the viewpoint.. WITHIN HUMAN MIND... SUBJECTIVITY.
Maybe we speak two different languages.
It is not possible to do what you ask of me, to give an example seen from a non-human perspective, not because it does not exist, but because I am human and I am inherently limited to giving an answer from a human perspective. Even if you think you can give an answer like that you will not be able to, and it will only be an illusion. Everything you can say is limited by your vision, your hearing, your olfaction, your taste, your haptic perception, and your intellection (perception of ideas), tell me something that exists objectively that is not seen from this point of view, something that exists objectively but not from a human perspective in which you use any of these senses. You cannot give me an example of something that exists beyond your senses because you are limited, you can only see the world from a human perspective. There is nothing beyond this for us, it even still exists.
Objectivity refers to all those things that are related to the object, and not to the subject, (in the subject-object dichotomy), that is, what exists in itself. When we say that something is objective, we say that it exists in itself, that it exists independently of me (the subject).
I never said anything remotely like that.
We don't judge something as good or bad by pure arbitrariness of us, we perceive good or bad in something and that is why we put that label on it, if there was no good or bad in it, we would not put that label on it, and affirming the latter is to say that the human is in such a state of madness, that he sees things where there are none. The same would happen with other ideas such as justice, it does not exist according to you, beauty, truth, etc.
You speak as if the human were something alien to their environment. As if these two things had nothing to do with it at all, when the opposite is true, the human and the environment in which he lives, the human and the universe, are a unit.
Saying this is like saying that we see it through the eyes only exist in our eyes and not objectively, there is a difference between what is perceive and what is perceived.
No but we can talk about cosmology can't we?
That's actually talking about something outside of the human perspective.
THAT'S OBJECTIVITY.
You CAN'T speak of evil/good outside of human MINDSET because that's SUBJECTIVITY... which you agree is not possible. I already knew that. That's the VERY POINT.
We also ARE ALIEN to the rest of life on earth because we've figured out (although we don't know how) SELF AWARENESS.
SEEN IT THROUGH HUMAN does not mean SEEN THROUGH EYES. Because we can also see it OBJECTIVELY.... VIRTUAL EYES. Again, think of cosmology. We use complex mathematics as our "eyes" and computer models generate that "visual" environment. NO HUMAN did that with physical eyes. Not yet.
You continue to mix the two views and this is now just making you look bad. (Not EVIL BAD lol... Or Michael Jackson Bad!) It's just not something you can mix and then expect me to take serious. I appreciate this discussion though but I think you need to study the VERY DEFINITE difference between subjectivity and objectivity.
Everything we know about the cosmos is simply information that we extract mainly from images, and to a lesser extent from our other bodily senses, there is nothing we know about the cosmos that escapes from what we can perceive with our body. Machines and telescopes, etc., have served as extensions of our body, yes, but they only seek to ultimately provide us with images, sounds, and other things that, in the end, we perceive with our body, from a human perspective.
We cannot "see" things objectively, because vision is only a subjective trait. If you imagine the cosmos and you believe that this image is how the cosmos is objectively, you are wrong, because that is a subjective perspective based on your vision.
Also, not because humans are the only ones (as far as we know) who can perceive good and evil, does it mean that it is a human construct. Humans can perceive good and evil unlike others animals because they have higher intelligence.
Man I really think you need to study the words I mentioned because AGAIN.... you're speaking falsehoods. It's like you're stubborn at this point because if you knew the meaning you wouldn't speak such foolishness.
Mathematics is our VISION OF THE UNIVERSE.
That is completely OBJECTIVE TRUTH.
Evolving with greater intelligent minds adding to the discovery (assisted by technology of measurement and computer models) but the entity of mathematics is truly objective.
Vision DOES NOT MEAN eyes only.
Answer this (and if you can't answer it.. Just don't try rush it)
How do we know about the CMB?
How do we "visualize" the CMB?
(and if you needed to g00gl it, type in subjectivity v objectivity and just get deep into studying it all. I'd rather a reply back from you in 2 weeks with an intelligent response than in 2 hours with nonsense. This might be a little condensing but honestly, you need to be educated better.)