Fallaneze

Objective morality is the view that statements like "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" are FACTS rather than opinions. Through rational intuition we know this to be a fact. So unless shown otherwise, objective morality is the status quo.

Free will means that you could've chosen otherwise. We believe that we can take alternative courses of action, so unless shown otherwise, free will is the status quo.

God, in the most basic sense, is a fundamental consciousness. Many philosophical arguments favor the existence of God. These include:

Kalam Cosmological argument

Argument from fine-tuning 

Prime mover

Natural telos (ends/purpose in the universe)

Moral realism

Etc.

Scientific evidence, from quantum mechanics, has also emerged showing that reality is indeterminate unless consciousness is observing/participating in it.

Purpose in the universe, or natural telos, is evident. Ask yourself if your heart has a purpose. Of course it does. The purpose of the heart is to pump oxygenated blood throughout the body. The only way a body structure like that could have purpose is if it has an intelligent designer (goals, like pumping oxygenated blood throughout the body, require intent -- to reach the goal, and knowledge -- of the goal itself).

Logically fallacious reasoning (red herring, ad hominem, etc.) prove that there are objectively more rational approaches to your beliefs. The parameters that define rationality are objective.

Moral truths are embedded in rationality and the parameters that define rationality are objective. 

The truth of moral propositions are contained in rationality and the standards of rationality are at least partially objective.

The statement in its entirety is prescriptive but not the term "innocent." The term innocent is descriptive. Prescriptive means that something should or ought to be the case. Descriptive means describing the way the thing is.

That does not make the truth of the statement subjective.

The term innocent is descriptive. The threshold for what constitutes an offense may be subjective but that does not entail that the statement is therefore subjectively true rather than objectively true.

"Evidence" means facts or information indicating whether something is true. We have evidence that there are objective moral truths. Rationally, intuitively, and empirically, the moral statement "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" has more evidence supporting the conclusion that it's factually true than not. It's erroneous to require a mathematical or physical measurement to evidence objective morality. 

That is an erroneous starting point. We begin by asking ourselves whether moral subjectivism or moral objectivism is the more rational belief. Then, we examine the evidence on both sides to see which moral theory the weight of the evidence supports. Whichever moral theory has more evidence to support it should be the accepted theory.

Not have a tangible "morality-o-meter" doesn't evidence moral subjectivism since this subject is abstract to begin with. Not having an empirical verification system an epistemic issue, not a ontological one. 

But we're starting to go down a rabbit hole. I was interested in discussing whether morality is objective or subjective.

I didn't see where you addressed my point that math is abstract and therefore not comprised of anything physical.

I'll wait for you to show that math is just a language.

Newton and Liebniz independently discovered calculus. By saying they drew similar conclusions because they used the same language of math is incoherent. Leibniz and Newton spoke different languages and arrived at their conclusions using symbology from their native languages. 

Under a correspondence theory of math, every number is accounted for by its correspondence with a physical object. Parts of a whole, like a shattered rock, would merely be a collection of "1's", not fractions. A. Negative number can't have anything to physically correspond to.

What you consider to be the threshold for having committed an offense is subjective but does that does not entail that the statement is subjective.

I don't find people arguing over whether punishing innocent people is immoral or not. Mere disagreement isn't indicative that there's no fact of the matter.

You can hold any position and be skeptical of it.

Reject implies falsehood.

Math doesn't come from the universe. Numbere are abstract concepts and therefore aren't comprised of anything physical.

Also, fractions and negative numbers can't be described by the theory that our knowledge of math corresponds with observation of material objects. You can't observe something that wasn't just a collection of positive "1's." 

Calculus was discovered simultaneously by Liebniz and Newton. If math is just an invention that wouldn't happen.

What makes it seem like there are no objective moral standards? It's apparent to me that the opposite is true.

It's okay to "reject" something until it is shown to be true if by "reject" you mean merely non-acceptant.

The default position is mere non-belief.

I await your case that there are no moral truths.

Yes I'm saying the relationships would still be there even if everyone died out. There would still be mathematical truths that could be described by language 

The mathematical relationships between things wouldn't disappear if humanity became extinct. 

The concept we're discussing is perfection. Yes, a perfect shape versus a perfect person are two different subjects but they both still refer to perfection. Perfect shapes are *theoretical* (not hypothetical) and derive from geometry. Scientists, architects, mathematicians, etc use geometry everyday. A person can have varying degrees of beauty, intellect, power, moral character, health, etc which all factor into the concept of them as a "perfect person."

Moral truths, likewise, are theoretical.

Perfect circle, perfect square... geometry.

There have been many disagreements over science's history. It doesn't mean they aren't arguing over interpretation of facts. Quantum mechanics still has about 7 interpretations.

I don't accept your view that perfection is wholly subjective.

Or morality doesn't disappear even if nobody existed, just as math wouldn't disappear even if nobody existed (2 + 2 would still equal four even if nobody were around).There just wouldn't be anybody around to cognize that abstract concept. The ability to cognize an abstract concept is different than whether that abstract concept is a fact-based truth or an opinion-based truth.

By "fact" I mean "true independent of opinion." 

All that matters is whether the proposition is factually true - it does not matter whether the proposition happens, can happen, has happened, will happen, or is likely to happen.

The moral proposition can be factually true while still having a subjective interpretation of what constitutes sufficient justification.

For the purpose of this thread, "objective morality" is the position that some moral propositions, like "killing someone without sufficient justification is morally wrong" are *factually* true. If morality is subjective, all moral propositions, such as the one mentioned above, can only be an opinion-based truth (not a fact-based truth.)

To answer your question:

"Can morality and perfection coexist? If yes, must they always coexist? What implications might this have for discussions of heaven and hell, for example."

Yes, and yes. A person's moral character is intertwined with the concept of "a perfect person." If a person is amoral or immoral, then they aren't as great, for example, as an identical person who is also morally good. Maximal greatness is the same thing as perfection.

 

Morality can co-exist in a perfect world if people choose to do good. Perhaps those who chose to do God's will here on Earth will be guaranteed a perfect world in Heaven and their "choice" was made during their years on Earth.

We each have our own pursuits. This is a bigger question about what purpose humanity has.

By "evolution" do you mean change over time? Do you mean naturally selective processes acting upon random mutations? Do you mean common ancestry? Do you mean abiogenesis? "Evolution" is a loaded word.

Either there's a purpose for us being here or there isn't. It doesn't seem like there's no reason for us being here.

To learn what though?

Love.

A test of character where our animal nature is pitted against our rational nature. A quest for self-expression. Discovering"God." To know good from evil. Redemption?

Theres an equal burden of proof between believing God does and does not exist. 

Lots of atheists (falsely) believe you can't prove a negative.

My list of errors was intended to be a list of errors. 

It seems that the current governmental policy is to not discriminate on the basis of race.This better aligns with a framework in which your race is irrelevant, not a framework in which all races are equal. When people say that all races are equal, what they're saying, almost always, is that everyone has equivalent moral worth as human beings.

Title VI of the Civil Rights of 1964 is what I'm referring to. I realize that there are also affirmative action policies.

Sure. First we need to agree on what evidence means.

Evidence means facts or information indicating whether something is true.

Agree?

Here are just some of the errors atheists commonly make:

If religion (X) is false, God doesn't exist.

Is you can't prove God does exist, God does not exist.

Atheism is just a lack of belief that a God exists.

Atheism isn't a worldview.

There is no evidence of God.

Atheism doesn't entail any implications. It's just lacking belief in God.

Anti-theism, not atheism, is the belief God doesn't exist.

Science evidences atheism.

You can't prove a negative.

Because the evidence is more in favor of God existing than not.

You've received education over the years, Hari, but you're still the same simple minded troll you've always been. It didn't take long before I just skipped over the things you wrote on DDO and regret not doing that now. Just a waste.

Funny thing is, Africans, in Africa, still lead more productive lives than someone who has nothing better to do than to create hateful diatribes on a platform almost nobody ever reads or listens to. Is that reflective of your self-worth? 

It's an open ended question and we will never truly know the answer. 

You aren't using the term "logically necessary" correctly if you're using modal logic terminology.

Something is "necessarily true" if the alternative is inconceivable. Dualism is conceivable. Therefore, monism isn't necessarily true.

You mean to say that dualism is logically incoherent because of the interaction problem, not that it's logically impossible. 

Why can't two fundamentally different substances interact? Doesn't the physical universe operature under certain abstract parameters? Is the physica universe not interacting with these abstract parameters (such as math and logic)?

Well first, monism isn't necessarily true. 

Second, we have evidence of a mental reality and no evidence of a non-mental reality. So why is physicalism a better explanation than idealism when idealism is evidenced by a mental reality whereas physicalism, which posits a non-mental reality, has no evidence whatsoever?

Then that leaves idealism..

Or is it dualism and physicalism that are in need of saving? We have evidence of a mental reality and no evidence of a non-mental reality.

So something independent does need to exist in order to be our shared reference point but that does not mean that this independent thing is non-mental. 

The thing that causes the shared perception of the rock is something that is mentally interacting with us. The term "rock" refers to an assimilation of mental properties and the term "rock" would have no meaning without these properties.

Another thing that's crazy is that "depth" and "space" can be understood without 3 dimensions. If you look at a picture at the right angle it can appear 3-dimensional while only being 2-D. Makes me wonder if depth and space are just illusions.

Here is the definition of idealism:

"In philosophy, idealism is the group of metaphysical philosophies that assert that reality, or reality as humans can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial."

The "external world'" that we all perceive is a mental construct. People share mental constructs, of rocks for instance, because we're processing the same information. But what really exists is the information that generates the appearance of the rock, not the rock itself.

 I believe he is making a deeper philosophical distinction. Dividing the environment into separate entities, like "leaf" or "tree", is something that only occurs in our minds. It's also important to keep in mind that our perception of anything is an assimilation of mentally processed and packaged information.