Yes!  Exactly.  You can't prove it, but you feel comfortable with it.  The big leap is to accept that that is the best we can do, and that we don't need to be objectively correct in some absolute sense to carry on with our life.  We feel that people living is a good thing, and we're going to do what we can to make the rest of the world agree (or at least act as if they agreed).  It's our opinion, and maybe our opinion is no better than anyone else's, but it's all we've got.  The fact that it's our opinion doesn't mean we just give up and don't try to change minds or influence others.  We just keep in mind that what we say is just inside our heads.  It's sort of an odd combination of accepting self-importance and humility at the same time.  Self-importance because you're accepting that you're in control of your own situation, and the universe isn't going to make itself how you want it to be without you taking action to make it happen.  Humility because you realize that the principles you hold dear aren't true in any absolute sense, so when you start forcing them on other people, you'd better have a very, very good justification (and "I'm right, you're wrong!" isn't a very good justification).


Just because we accept that our principles are just our opinions, we don't need to accept that we can't push to get people to agree with them.  You don't have to say "well, anything goes, who am I to judge?"  You can just as well say "my opinion is just as valid as yours, and I'm going to stick up for it, and not let you do whatever you want to me or others who disagree with you."  You don't say "well, I think thats evil, but it's just my opinion."  Instead say, "I think that's evil.  That's my opinion, and here's what I'm going to do about it."

We have a tendency to think that we're not allowed to act on our opinions.  But this gets turned around backwards, and makes us think that everything we want to act on must be objectively true in some absolute sense.  It forces us to think "the universe is on my side on this one!" instead of just accept that it's something you're going to do something about simply because you care about it.

But there's a reason for that hesitancy. Basically I'm saying "I want X, you want Y, but I have the power, so you will do X".

Basically what it boils down to is might makes right.

No, because if I'm not wrong, it is not subjective at all.  I am either right or wrong; I am not giving an opinion.

Not necessarily.  Might gets its way sometimes.  But "might" can also take the form of persuasion, not just physical force.  If I'm bigger than you, I can push you around and get you to do what I want.  You probably don't like this.  You have a few options:
1.  assume the universe is going to work everything out on your behalf, and just go along with the situation until I get my karmic comeupance.
2.  assume the universe doesn't care about your situation, and take action to change the situation.  That "action" can be in many different forms.  You can try to convince me that pushing you around is wrong.  You can try to convince others that me pushing you around is wrong, and ask them to help you.  You can try to use force to make me stop using force against you.  And so on.  What you believe about right and wrong will influence that choice.

Note, this isn't a normative statement.  I'm not saying this is how the universe is supposed to be, or how it should be.  I'm saying that this looks like how the universe really actually is.  In other words, regardless of whether or not someone should say "I want X, and I can make you give it to me, so hand it over," they can say that.  The universe isn't going to stop them.  The universe isn't going to punish them for being a meanie.  The only thing that's going to stop them, the only thing that's going to punish them, is for people who disagree with them to stand up to them somehow.

Another way to look at it is this:  People can get away with doing things we consider bad.  How can we make the world more like the one we wish it were, where good people get rewarded, and bad people get punished?  We have to do something to make that happen, it doesn't just happen by itself.  If you don't want to live in a world where might makes right, you need to help make that world a reality.  Because the only thing stopping might from being right, is everyone else taking some action to prevent it.

If you are right then it's not an opinion, but if you are wrong then it is an opinion.

I don't understand what you are saying here because that is not what I said.


No, what I am saying is that principles are eternal and exist independently of God.  It is simply that God is the only one who is omniscient enough to implement them perfectly and reveal them to us.  Hence, it is not God's opinion.

I think what you are getting at is based on promises and covenants.  God makes promises to do things if we do things.  That is a different matter.


I'm not really sure what you are asking for here.  I pointed you to the Natural Law philosophies; I pointed you to the fact that we are all imperfect and therefore must rely on a perfect God to reveal things to us that we can't divine for ourselves.  An "opinion" is technically something different entirely.  I have a "position," so maybe you mean "position" instead of "opinion"?


If we are talking about revelations from God, then how would a believer go about saying that the God's revelation is just opinion?  Your comment makes no sense to me in the religious sense.  In the philosophical sense, since we are all imperfect humans, we use logic and reasoning to address this, and in those situations your comment makes more sense, I suppose.  So I don't know what you're looking for.


Again, that is not what I'm saying.  The principles are eternal, but it would not be fair to judge another by principles he cannot grasp.  Judgment and principles are two entirely different things.  Only a perfect being can perfectly follow the eternal principles.


No, it doesn't conflict at all.  What you are omitting is this thing called Grace, Forgiveness, and repentance.  Those who cannot grasp or follow the principles but do their best are subject to more forgiveness.  That does not effect the objectivity of the principles involved.


No, even outside the religious context, a judge can give leniency based on the circumstances.  That does not mean the principle behind the law is not clear or objective; it merely means there were mitigating circumstances.  This is why we have sentencing guidelines and discretion in our courts.



No, it just means the judge has leeway and discretion to take individual circumstances into account to levy a less harsh punishment.  The principles behind the law remain constant and objective.


I don't understand this comment.  The principles are eternal and lead to joy.  The "judge" is simply a teacher with power to forgive through what is known as the Atonement.  God didn't make up the principles any more than your teacher made up 1+1=2 in order to give you a good or bad grade.


We've had discussions about the Holy Ghost before...
We've had disussions about exercising faith...

Beyond that, as a father, you can test whether helping your child brings you more joy than neglecting your child.  These things can be tested.



I'm not sure if you are deliberately misunderstanding me or what...
Obviously, I repeat myself but what you say is exactly the opposite of the logical basis of what I said.  I said we go through life trying to discover objective truths and live our lives accordingly.  The opposite of this is going through life trying to mold reality to what we want it to be.  One is discovery and deduction; the other is opinion and pigheadedness.




No, what I am saying is that we live in a world of confusion and chaos, and separating the wheat from the chaff (in the sense of what is true) is part of our adventure in life.  That doesn't mean that everything you hear in the confusion is true and that all is subjective.  It merely means that we need to use every effort to get it right.

Which takes us right back around to the fact that you are right above that it's not about a bunch of people believing it.  That is why Christians believe the Holy Ghost exists.  It is a personal witness to truth.  There is no need to believe another single human being on this planet when you can determine if your beliefs are right or wrong through that channel.


That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying.  Indiana Jones did not subjectively find the lost idol in his mind.  He went out and put his hands on it and found it.  That is objective.  The same is true of truth.  It must be sought after, not rationalized.  What you are talking about is rationalization of beliefs to the extent of making all "truth" subjective to the individual.  It is human to do so, but that does not determine one way or the other whether any particular truth is subjective or objective...because it can never leave the mind of the individual and can never be wrong.  That's not how eternal principles work.

Yes, if I am right it is not an opinion.  If I am wrong, then it is simply a faulty conclusion.  It is not an opinion.  But it does not matter because I am not wrong. ;)

Hahah, that's a glorious piece of spin there Mr Heath.

Seems like we're struggling to understand each other here, Heath.  You're asserting that there are principles, which exist independent of God, and independent of what anyone thinks.  Okay, I say, how do we find these principles?  You talk about God, about judgement day, about the holy ghost, about finding joy.  All of those involve conscious minds.  They aren't principles, they're consciousness that have a position (I'll use your word here, since "opinion" seemed to cause trouble) about how they want things to be.  The holy ghost telling me what to do doesn't make it an absolute, eternal principle that's independent of God.  The holy ghost could tell me whatever it wants.  God judging me doesn't make his judgement eternal or independent of Himself.  He could judgement however he wanted, based on whatever qualities He felt like.  Finding joy in something doesn't make it true, it just means it causes joy.  And that's great, there's nothing wrong with saying "this causes me joy, so I'm going to keep doing it!"  But that's still just your position of wanting to get lots of joy.

You say that morality is like 1+1=2.  But I can test whether 1+1=2.  I can go into the physical world, away from anyone and anyone's opinion, and just experiment.  But if I do that with morality, the only thing I see in the real world that changes is how other individuals react.  And I include God, the holy ghost, etc., in "other individuals" there.  People can, and do, treat me differently if I do things they don't like.  God, should He exist, can and will treat me differently based on what I believe and the actions I take.  But that's true even if morality isn't absolute.  That's just God reacting to me.  That's just God having a position.  It doesn't make that position absolute, and it certainly doesn't make it independent of God.

You talk about God being the only one who can implement these principles.  If these principles are independent of God, they don't need Him or anyone else to implement them.  If they do need Him to implement them, they're not independent of Him.  Its like you're saying there's a magical book somewhere, that has all the principles written down.  But this book doesn't actually do anything, it just floats there, doing nothing.  God is the only one who can read the book, and he likes what He read, so enforces the principles in it.  But the fact that they're in a book doesn't matter!  The book doesn't do anything by itself.  If God didn't like what was in the book, he could just ignore it, and no one would be the wiser.  It would have no impact on anyone, because the book doesn't do anything.  Only God does, in this story.  He chooses to enforce the principles, he is not forced to do so.  He could follow them or ignore them as He sees fit.  He could even claim that there was a book when there really wasn't one.  But really it all comes down to what He decides to do.  All the impact is down to His actions.  The book doesn't do anything itself.

When Indy picked up the idol, yes, it was really, objectively, absolutely there.  He could feel it.  No matter how hard he tried to believe it wasn't there, it'd still hurt if he dropped it on his toe.  Morality doesn't seem to be like that.  People do bad things and get away with them.  Good people still get cancer.  The home team sometimes loses.  People don't always get what they deserve.  Sometimes they work hard, live honestly, act charitably and humbly, and then just get beat to death by some random thug in an ally.  And some times the evil guy doesn't get punished.  He gets more and more money, and all the people who stand up to him just get shot.  And he dies old and rich and content while people around him suffer.  We want it to be different.  We want everyone to get their just desserts.  We want good to be rewarded, and evil to be punished.  We want karma to be true.  But when we look at the real world, it just doesn't seem to be.  The inanimate portion of the universe just doesn't seem to care one way or the other about morality.  We all get rained on the same, whether we're good, evil, or in between.  But WE care about morality.  WE do something about it.  WE can try to cause good to be rewarded and evil to be punished.  We conscious minds are the things that enforce morality, to the degree that its enforced at all.  And again, I include God and the holy ghost and whoever else in that "we".  The trouble, though, is that we can (and do) enforce only what we think is "good".  You can enforce (or encourage, or lobby for, or whatever) for your view of what is right and wrong, and I can do the same for mine.  To the degree that we agree, our efforts combine and we're both more likely to see the world change for what we consider to be better.  To the degree that our views differ, we undermine each other and probably do a bit of cancelling each other out.  Or maybe one is better and persuading others, so they get their way and the other just has to deal with it.  But that doesn't make them "right" it just means they got their way.

You talk about the journey of trying to figure out what's true.  But the only source of information you give as ways to figure this out are conscious beings (e.g., the holy ghost).  So you're just finding out their position.  Or, at least, you can't tell the difference between just getting their position and getting an objective truth.  If you have to ask someone for the absolute truth, then it's no different from it just being their position.

To put it another way, how do you know God is right, and isn't trying to lead you away from these absolute principles that you feel exist independent of Him?  If the holy ghost said "the true principle is to pursue joy!" but in reality the true principle were to pursue oblivion, how could you tell that it was leading you astray?  Would the universe intervene somehow?  It sounds like you believe in absolute principles that God is subject to just like you and me.  But you also seem to believe that the only way to find out what those principles are is to ask God.  You seem to feel that you can't learn those principles independently from God.  That seems to imply that you can't tell the difference between a God that's leading you astray, and one that's telling you the truth.  If God tells you 1+1=3, you can get out your beans and try it, and see if He's telling the truth or not.  If God tells you "burn witches!" how can you test it?  How can you know that He's not just telling you what He wants, rather than what's really true?  Because if there's no way of telling the difference, then why believe there is one?  If two models predict the exact same thing in all cases, why not accept the simpler of the two models?

Let's try this:  What is the physical nature of the principles?  Do they exist like a rock or a tree or Indy's golden idol?  Can we look at them somewhere (perhaps in the afterlife) and point and feel them?  Or are they ideas?  Ideas that require a conscious mind to hold them?  If so, which mind holds them?  If only one mind can properly hold them, doesn't that imply that they are a property of that mind?

What I said was that we are all imperfect human beings and therefore cannot know perfectly if the principles we follow are correct, which is why, yes, we must rely on God and the tools He has put in place.

But how do you attempt to understand these things as conscious minds?  The same way we attempt to find any other truths.  We see them embodied in laws, in codes of conduct, in societies and in philosophical arguments.  The only thing I'm saying is that the only way we can know for sure is through someone who is perfect.


You are mixing two things and calling them the same thing. The principle can be learned through the Holy Ghost, but the principle is independent of it.  You are confusing the teacher with the truth it teaches.  1+1=2 exists regardless of the teacher, just as truths exist regardless of whether you get them revealed to you through the Holy Ghost or your own logical reasoning.



We're again talking in circles.  I think what you look for is proof.  But you don't get proof necessarily as an imperfect human being.  You can use your logic, but then you rely on its premises; you can use the words of philosophers but then you rely on them.

But just because imperfect human beings can't necessarily grasp every fundamental truth in the universe does not make them any less true...or objective.  Quantum physics existed long before our scientists ever knew about it.  They could discover it eventually, but otherwise would have had to rely on imperfect accounts, presumptions, etc.  Yet it is objective in nature.



This is a trust issue.  It does not pertain to the objectiveness of any principle.


Because 1+1=2 is easy.  We have easy things to test in the real world too.  Just look at murder.  Willfully killing another person based on malice is universally frowned upon as wrong, and objectively it is wrong.  Any intellect can grasp that.



Getting away with something in this mortal existence is irrelevant.  It is irrelevant as to whether something is right or wrong, and it is irrelevant as to whether the person was rewarded or punished...because again, it is based on imperfect parameters that are confined by an imperfect society and imperfect people.


All this is irrelevant as to the goodness or wrongness of a thing, particularly in this mortal life.  This is why using such parameters is like taking one small arc of a circle and claiming that there is no circle, just a curve.  I'm saying there is a complete circle once the parameters are enlarged.


Maybe not in this life, but in the next justice is served because we each fare well or naught based on what we do in this refiner's fire.  You are again looking with blinders on and seeing only the parameters of this life.  This life is not fair; this life does not serve justice.  But that is irrelevant as to whether an action is right or wrong.



The question doesn't make sense.  Principles are based on behavioral models with a goal.  You can't see them any more than you can physically see mathematical equations or physics, but they are just as real and have just as powerful effect on people.  And those principles are not properties of the mind.

But my issue is there's no such thing as a 'meanie', or a 'bad guy'. That guy over there is bad only because he disagrees with us (and we're obviously good). I can try to compel him with arguments or threats, but it only comes down to 'what does he get'.

Or think of it another way. You believe that eating animals is morally wrong; it's causing unnecessary suffering. But you can't make any argument that your position is right - it isn't. At best, it's logically consistent with values you hold. If I hold different values, or if I don't care to be logically consistent, the only advantage your position has is what you can offer me (or threaten me with).

The way you write it's like "we have to make the world we believe in through our own actions!" Which is true, but that's also just as true for every KKK member, neo-nazi,  fascist, terrorist, and fundamentalist. At best, our values are right because they support a more efficient and powerful society. At worst, our values are 'right' only because they support a more efficient and powerful society.

Yes, exactly.  Is your issue that this isn't true, or that you wished it wasn't true?  I'm happy to agree that it might be preferable for there to be some absolute morals somewhere to settle everything.  But looking around at the universe, it doesn't seem like there are, so we just have to make do with what is there.


Yes, that's pretty much exactly how the universe it works.  I am a vegetarian.  I can try to convince you to agree with me, but the universe as a whole doesn't back me up the way it does when I try to convince you that 1+1=2.  I might wish there was some absolute law written somewhere I could point to and say "see!  I told you so!" but there just isn't.  The ONLY thing I can do is try to change your mind, whether through reasoning, or threats, or bribery, or whatever.  But the universe isn't going to make you listen to me.  Again, we might wish it to be otherwise, but it simply seems to be that what you've described here is exactly how the universe works.


Yes!  Again, I'm making an argument about what is true out there in reality, not about what I wish were true.  If you look at reality, the KKK, the neo-nazi's, the facists, and so on, they all get to go about their lives and try to persuade or bully people into doing things there way.  The universe doesn't stop them.  We might wish it did, but it doesn't.  That's reality.  We can shake our fist at the sky and shout "It's shouldn't be like this!" but the universe won't listen.  This is how it is.  Once we realize that, we can ask ourselves "okay, that's how the universe is, what can I do to make my stay here pleasant as possible?"  The downside is that we don't get to be objectively right about morality.  The upside is that we're not required to sit back and do nothing about it.  Again, that might not be what we want to be true, but looking at the evidence it seems to really be true.

At the end of the day, it's not a question of being right in some absolute sense, it's a question of caring enough to do something to make a difference.  Other people will be going about their business, putting effort into things they care about.  You might agree with them, or you might not.  But the universe isn't going to sort it out for you.  The universe isn't going to pick a side.  Yes, the facists get to push for their point of view just like you do.  So you can either let them have their way, or try to offer an alternative.  If you don't actually feel like you've got a good reason to view your alternative as better, then sure, you can just accept the fascists point of view.  But I really hope that you do actually believe that your alternative is superior in some way.  You need to realize that you don't get your morals from some independent, objective source outside your own brain.  It comes from you.  They are part of you.  So make sure you've actually given them some good thought, and that you have some decent reasons for them, and live them.  If you don't have any good reasoning behind them, perhaps you should get rid of them.  Or perhaps you should do some more thinking about them to try to understand better why you hold them.  Morals by themselves don't do anything, it's what you do with them that has an impact, for better or worse.

Heath, I feel like we're struggling a bit here to understand one another.  I'll let you know how it's looking/feeling from my point of view, so you can perhaps tailor your argument a bit better to what I'm struggling with.  If you want to do the same for my argument, that'd probably be helpful.

Okay, so for me, I feel like you're not really making an argument, you're just repeating the conclusion over and over, and saying "but it's true!"  It feels like an argument by repeated assertion, rather than a reasoned case.  I'm not saying I don't think you have your reasons for believing your conclusion, but I feel like you're not showing them to me.  In order for me to agree with you, I can't just be told over and over again, by you, that you're right.  I need some evidence to back it up.

For example, you keep saying that these principles are testable, but don't tell me how to test them.  You tell me that "it's just like 1+1=2", but all I can see are the ways that they're different from that (I'll go a bit further on that in a moment).  You keep telling me they're independent of God, but then the only way we can learn them is through God.  You tell me that reality does intervene to enforce the principles, but don't tell me how, instead only giving examples of God doing the enforcing.  I'm sort of stuck, because you keep saying that this is all true without any evidence to back it up, and it just doesn't look true to me.  I think you need to show me how this is all true, not just tell me that it is.

I also want to hit on this idea that it's "just like 1+1=2" more, since I see many many differences between them.
-First of all, I can test 1+1=2.  I can grab some pennies, move them around, count them, and actually see, myself, without asking anyone else, that this is true.  It doesn't seem like these principles are the same.
-Second, the universe enforces 1+1=2 equally on everyone.  Rocks, trees, worms, chimps, babies, adults, and geniuses all have it imposed on them just the same.  You can't tell the universe "hey, I didn't know any better!" and expect leniency.  But from what you tell me about these principles, the universe does cut you a break just for trying.  That seems like a pretty huge difference between the two ideas, to me.  -Third, 1+1=2 is a statement about what IS true.  These principles are statements about what should or ought to be done.  That makes a big difference.  Because you can't do what ISN'T possible, but you can do what you SHOULDN'T do.  You don't have any choice but to obey 1+1=2, you do have a choice on whether or not to obey the principles.
-Fourth, I don't need to believe in God to learn 1+1=2, but all your discussion keeps referring back to God.  You say these principles are independent of Him, but you can't seem to discuss them without making mention of Him.  Is if fair to say that your belief in the existence of absolute principles outside of our own minds is part of your religious beliefs?  Could you describe them to me, and how they work, and why I should believe in them without any reference to God, the afterlife, etc?  Because you COULD do that for 1+1=2, right?  If you need to bring God into it for these principles, it would seem that's a big difference between the two things.




Yes, it's a trust issue.  And if it requires trust in God, it doesn't seem independent of God.  But you sort of avoided the issue I raised.  God could judge based on whatever He wanted, rather than the principles.  Not arguing that he does or that He would, just that it's something He'd be capable of doing if He wanted.  What would the consequences of that be?  Would we even be able to see that it had happened?  Would anyone other than God even know?  Would the universe do anything to stop it, or does it all come down to God doing what He thinks is best?


Ah, argument by insult!  If you don't agree with me, then you have no intellect!  Let me try one:  Principles exist only in our minds, and anyone who disagrees is a poopyhead!  ;)
More seriously, though, you've just assert that this is true, but not given any evidence that it's objectively true.  The evidence you have given (that its universally frowned upon) fits just as well with my model (that the principles just exist in our minds), so doesn't support your model (that principles exist independent of our minds).  Even your insult actually fits better in my model, since any intellect grasping it is more or less what I'm saying.  You have to show that it's true regardless of what any intellect thinks.

Also, you've already stated that this isn't a universal principle, but one that depends on circumstances.  You've already said you can't apply it to a tiger.  And you've said that we shouldn't judge a mentally challenged person for doing it the same way we'd judge someone else.  I agree with that, but I think that's pretty strong evidence that the principles are things in our minds, not absolutes in the universe the way 1+1=2 is.


Okay, then why do you assert that there is more than that?  What is your evidence that absolute morals exist, when all the stuff that we can see (ie, reality) seems to fit better with a model that doesn't involve them.  Why is society imperfect if these absolute morals exist?  Why don't we all know and agree on what is right or wrong if these principles exist?  Despite our imperfection, we all seem to be able to figure out that 1+1=2.


Yes, you're saying it, but you're not showing it.  I'm happy to listen to your reasoning and evidence, but I really need you to give me some in order to be convinced.  Just repeating "It true!" doesn't work.



Okay, that's actually the third time you've referred to the afterlife when responding to my examples.  Should I take this to mean that the evidence for these principles only comes in the afterlife?  Or that the effect of these principles occurs only in the afterlife?  Are you making a religious argument here?  Because I'm not trying to.  My position is consistent with the existence of God, or the non-existence of God.  It's a statement about reality that doesn't require a position, on way or the other, about God, the afterlife, etc.  It's sounding like your position is pretty closely tied into your religious beliefs, and can't really be examined separate from it.  Is that fair to say?


Okay, here you've asserted that these principles have "just as powerful effect on people" as does mathematics or physics.  Note that math and physics have effects in "this life," and that the effects are testable, and independent of what anyone thinks or feels (ie, we don't have to ask someone else to tell us what math and physics say are true, we can test it ourselves).  You asserted this, but haven't shown it.  Please show it.  I'm open to being convinced here, but you have to give me something to work with, something to consider.  Just telling me it's true, and that it's "just like" something else isn't working.

Back in my long post where I laid out my views on evil, I gave a bunch of examples of why I didn't think of evil something that existed outside our minds.  I gave a bunch of "if evil DID exist outside our minds THEN we should see..." examples as evidence of why I thought that was wrong.  Those were sort of tests of that theory.  Can you give something similar for what you're saying?  Something like "If the principles existed only in our minds then we should see..." that shows that my model doesn't match what we observe?  Or, if it's a faith thing, where it's really more "you'll find out that I'm right in the end," can you just say so explicitly?

Another potential tack to try:  I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that we both agree that people have things they approve of and disapprove of, and that they can act on those positions.  I think we both agree that people can have different reasons for their views even when they agree, and also that people can and do disagree about what they disapprove of.  That's what I assert exists.  I feel like you're not telling me I'm wrong in what I think exists, but rather you think there's more beyond that, whereas I don't think there's evidence for anything beyond that.  Is there something, then, in this world ("this life") that we see that is inconsistent with my model?  Is there something that my model doesn't explain about the observable data that justifies the assumption of there being more to it than that?  If so, what is it?  If not, why make the additional, non-explanatory assumption?

Final one:  Let's imagine a hypothetical situation, in which you're wrong, and the absolute principles don't actually exist, and what's in our heads is all there is.  In this situation, say God says "hmm, I'll tell people this is the way I want them to behave, because I happen to want them to experience Joy, and if they act this way, they'll get it."  So God sets out some principles, gives hints through the holy ghost on what they are, and then when we die, judges us based on how well we followed them (but also gives us credit for trying, and difficult circumstances, etc.).  What could we observe in this scenario that wouldn't observe in the scenario you say is true (in which principles exist beyond or outside of God)?  Could we do a test to tell if this scenario were true rather than yours?  Would we schmoes down here on Earth be able to notice any difference at all?  Would we even know when we got to the afterlife?  Would anyone be the wiser other than God?

Let me try another tack.  I don't have much time this week, but this should help clarify:

With any science, you must determine the units and the nature of the thing.  In physics, you might have atoms or energy or something that you measure, and its nature is determined by mathematical measurements and its contents.

NATURE OF HUMANITY
With the science of morality, you have to look at what is human nature.  Humans make every action out of either instinct or morality (but can even override instinct with morality sometimes).  Every "choice" we make is a moral choice (whether good, bad or neutral morality).  Unlike animals, that have no moral conscience or understanding, our every action is dictated by our perception of morality--even if we know we are doing wrong or think we are doing right.

The fact that people have a moral nature is evidenced by the need for people to replace traditional values like modesty, patience, and excellence with the "new"
values of tolerance, ambition, and freedom. For example, the gay rights community often rejects the traditional notion that homosexual unions are morally wrong. They are usually very quick; however, to point out that it is very wrong indeed for people to be intolerant of their lifestyle. Apparently the old virtue of tolerance is still objective and binding, while the moral condemnation of the gay lifestyle is antiquated hate speech.

UNIT OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR/MORALITY
Why is this?  Because the "unit" of morality is "values."  Our individual values guide which choices we make (unlike inanimate objects or animate objects that cannot hold values).  Values usually break down into "good," "bad," or "ought."

So I have been looking at whether there are any objective "principles" that should guide our personal "values" -- i.e., whether there is an "objective morality."

The problem with the conversations above is that they tend to mix up values, principles, and morality.  We can have different values that are still based on the same objective principles, and we can have different moralities based on the same objective principles.

The question is whether there are, in fact, objective principles.

GOD AND OBJECTIVE MORALITY

Christian Belief:  Typically, the religious understanding/belief is that because the "nature" of Man was created by God, any morality must also be created by the same one who created the nature.  This is typically known as the Kant Imperative.  (I think that's what it was called...but I'm straining my memory.)  This is one valid explanation that can neither be refuted nor proven.  The Kant Imperative essentially reverts to the argument that "God created Man, so God also created the nature and morality for Man."

My Argument:  I went a step further and stated that God may have created us in his own image (i.e., our nature), but that the nature/morality is based on principles that are objective--i.e., he didn't invent them from scratch.  To some extent, this exists in things that are derived from philosophical arguments for the Natural Law and exists in our legal system.

Subjective Morality:  This argument, which Tycho seems to espouse, is essentially that there is no objective "good" or "bad," and that if we each follow our own individual "values" for what we believe is "moral," we can do no wrong.  This is essentially the same as amorality because it can never exist outside an individual (or group through adoption of values).  Subjective moralism essentially states:  "I like/dislike..." since they do not pass beyond the individual.  Otherwise, this leads to contradictory statements both being true (e.g., "homosexual behavior is wrong" and "homosexual behavior is not wrong").  So a subjective moralist can never say with certainty that something is right or wrong.  Subjectivist theories can also therefore never be "normative" theories because each subjectivist's theory cannot be used as a prescription for someone else.  It is essentially useless.  You could never say that Nazi Germany was wrong or right, for example.  In fact, the subjective moralist would come along and say those who fought Nazi Germany were wrong because they attempted to change the cultural morality of Germany, which could not be morally wrong.  In other words, there is never any room for "moral reform."

THE PROBLEMS OF ARGUING MORALITY

The problem of arguing morality lies in the ignorance of the arguers.  For example, one person will say, "Embezzlement is wrong," and the second will say, "Why?" and the answer would be "Because it is stealing," and the second asks, "Why is stealing wrong?"  And when the first person doesn't know the answer, they will assume there must not be objective morality.  The problem is that two people cannot argue from ignorance and expect to reach a conclusion that is accurate.  It is just as imperative that the subjectivist be able to "disprove" morality as it is important for the objective moralist to "prove" morality.  Then they do not argue from ignorance, and the subjectivist will not have a phyrric victory.

BASIS FOR OBJECTIVE MORALITY

Facts:
1) People make moral judgments (everyone, every day)
2) People have moral disagreements with each other
3) Objectivism allows for moral disagreement without denying there is a correct moral position on a given issue (i.e., unlike subjectivism, you can actually debate objective morality)
4) Objectivism supplies a consistency that is satisfying to human "nature" (i.e., it tends to lead away from confusion and chaos and toward law, order, and cohesion)

5) It is impossible to rid oneself of moral inclinations (which would be like trying to rid yourself of your ability to reason or think)
6) Our moral decisions are based on consequences (what we want or think will happen from our choices)

In "The Poison of Subjectivism" C.S. Lewis wrote:

"Correct thinking will not make good men of bad ones; but a purely theoretical
error may remove ordinary checks to evil and deprive good intentions of their
natural support. An error of this sort is abroad at present. I am not referring to the Power philosophies of the Totalitarian states, but to something that goes deeper
and spreads wider and which, indeed, has given these Power philosophies their
golden opportunity. I am referring to Subjectivism.
...
[The subjectivist moral reformer] usually has at the back of his mind the notion
that if he throws over traditional judgment of value, he will find something else,
something more 'real' or 'solid' on which to base a new scheme of values. He will
say, for example, 'We must abandon irrational taboos and base our values on the
good of the community' - as if the maxim 'Thou shalt promote the good of the
community' were anything more than a polysyllabic variant of 'Do as you would
be done by' which has itself no other basis than that old universal value judgment
he claims to be rejecting.
...
The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of planting a
new sun in the sky or a new primary colour in the spectrum. Every attempt to do
so consists in arbitrarily selecting some one maxim of traditional morality,
isolating it from the rest, and erecting it into an unum necessarium."


THE FIRST PRINCIPLES
So the issue I am arguing is that there are "FIRST PRINCIPLES," which are the basic principles upon which values and morality rest, and these are eternal, in that they are based in the nature of Man and cannot be changed.  "Objective" morality flows from human nature.

This is why we almost universally condemn the "Holocaust," even though we may condemn it for different reasons (different values or moral reasons).  But there is a "FIRST PRINCIPLE" relating to the evils of the Holocaust that we understand by human nature.  If you are a subjectivist, you must necessarily state that the Holocaust was not wrong.  This is a hard argument to make.

This lack of human nature is also why I said you cannot blame the animals or hold them to the same standard.  They lack the moral nature, and therefore the principles do not apply to them any more than they apply to the planets rotating around the sun.  Applying morality to other creatures is like applying Newtonian physics at the Quantum level.
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:43, Mon 06 Jan 2014.

In reply to Heath (msg # 398):

That was really good, Heath!  Much clearer that way (to me at least, maybe it's only me that struggled with the other stuff), so cheers for that.  I now realize that we're in closer agreement than I had thought.  I'm with you on the few paragraphs, and really think there's just two parts where we disagree.

1.  You assert that objective reality allows us to argue/debate/discuss what is right or wrong.  And I could agree with that to some extent, but for me that doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter if it would have some nice property (such as letting us say objectively "I'm right, you're wrong!"), what matters (to me) is whether it's really true.  I can agree that if there were objective moral principles, then we'd be able to discuss things in absolute terms.  But that doesn't mean there are objective moral principles.  You seem to tacitly be arguing along the lines of "it'd be much more convenient if it were true, therefore it must be true."  But that reasoning doesn't work for me.  I need to see evidence of these absolute moral principles to believe in them, not just see what the benefits would be if they did exist.  Also, your position on this fits in very neatly with what I offered as the reason that our language doesn't match what I propose is the correct model.  If absolute moral principle did exist, we'd be able to assert that we are correct in some absolute sense, which we'd all like.  I think we speak that way, and act as though it's true, is because we want to feel like we're on unshakable ground.  But wanting it to be so doesn't mean it is so.  I think that's a main point where we diverge.  You assert that it must be true, because if it's not, we can't say X, Y, or Z with absolute authority.  I say, yeah, you're right, we can't say those things without absolute authority, because it doesn't look like it is true.  You're not giving evidence for the truth of your claim; your just showing that the alternative is undesirable in some way.

2.  You seem to feel that if there aren't absolute moral principles, we have to say "everything's okay, anything goes."  I disagree.  We can still have opinions, even if they're subjective.  We can still care, and care deeply about our beliefs and positions, even if they're not true in an absolute sense.  Even if I accept that my moral position isn't true in some absolute sense, I can still care enough about it to take action based on it.  We're so used to speaking of these things as though they were absolute, objective truths, we fall into the trap of thinking that if they're not, then we're not allowed to have a view at all.  But other things that we accept as being subjective we act on all the time, and don't feel wrong for doing so.  At a restaurant you look at the menu and pick what meal you think you'll like best.  You don't think "well, I might like it best, but that doesn't make it best in some absolute, objective sense.  I guess I can't pick any option at all."  Likewise, you love your wife and kids.  I imagine you don't have a problem saying that's a subjective thing.  But you presumably don't have a problem with it being subjective.  You don't think to yourself "well, I love my wife, but it's not true in any absolute objective way that she's superior to everyone else, so I guess I shouldn't treat her as special in any way."  With things that we acknowledge as being subjective, we act on them naturally, and don't think twice about doing so.  Its only when we're used to thinking of something being objective that treating it as subjective gives us such headaches.

To make it clear, lets look at your claim that if morality is subjective, we can't say the holocaust is wrong.  Obviously that's not true, since I clearly can (and do!) say the holocaust is wrong, despite viewing morality as subjective.  To be accurate, I have to say that it's wrong in my view.  I can accept the fact that other people can (and some do!) disagree with that.  But just because they disagree with me, we shouldn't conclude that I'm obligated to do nothing about my position.  I think I have pretty good reasons for thinking the holocaust is wrong (which we can get into if you like, but I imagine we'd be in pretty close agreement on them, so I'll leave them out for now), and thus I'm willing to act on those reasons.  Whether I'm correct in some absolute sense isn't the issue; it's whether I'm acting on the values that are important to me.

You see, accepting that values are important to me is all I need make moral decisions.  They don't need to be important in an absolute sense.  They don't have to be important to everyone.  I don't control everyone, I only control me.  So the only values that come into it are the ones that matter to me.  And that's true regardless of whether they're important in an absolute sense or not!

"But wait," some will say, "if it's only important to you, why should anyone listen to you?"  Good question.  The answer is that I need to convince them that it's important to them too, otherwise they won't listen to me.  If I have a good, logical reasoning behind my principles, then it's much more likely that I'll be able to convince someone else to view the same things as important.  If we can start with some share assumptions of what is important to us, it gets even easier.  It doesn't matter if our shared assumptions are universal or absolute or the like.  If some group of people can agree that those values are important to all of them, then they'll end up with similar moral decisions.  Some other people might disagree with that group, because they don't share some of those assumptions.  That's frustrating, but it's what we see in reality.  We'd like to be able to say "Hey, you guys are wrong!" and know that we're right in some undeniable, absolute sense.  But we don't need that to continue making moral decisions.  All we need is to know what's important to us, regardless of whether or not its important to everyone else.

So if we were to tell each other why we thought the holocaust was wrong, we'd probably say a lot of the same things, because we probably share a lot of the same values.  Many of the things that are important to you are also important to me.  That doesn't necessarily make them "true" in some absolute sense, and we don't need them to be.  As long as they're important to us, we can (and will) act on them.  It's sort of like if you and me go to get some ice cream, and have to decide on a flavor to buy (we're buying a tub here, so need to pick just one between us).  We both like different flavors different amounts, so we may have to come to some compromise.  But it's a task we could manage pretty easily, I imagine.  Even though our tastes are subjective, and neither of us (I assume) would try to argue that there were bedrock principles in the universe that made rocky road superior to rum raisin.  We'd pick something we both enjoyed at least somewhat.  But we wouldn't just sit there and say "Oh no!  How can we ever decide on this, when our tastes are subjective and there is no objectively correct flavor!  Why don't we just pick this one we both hate, since who are we to say we don't like it?"

Okay, I know I said there 2 things we disagreed about, but I'm going to throw in a third, but this one's comparatively minor:
3.  You mentioned the idea of human nature coming from God, and said you added an extra assumption that God didn't pick the principles Himself, but rather was constrained but existing principles.  I didn't see any reasoning or evidence for this, it just seemed to be an assumption.  Is that all it is, or is there more to it that you haven't mentioned?


By the by, thanks again for the clarification in your last post.  As I said earlier, I really found that much easier to understand and digest.  It was much easier to follow your reasoning when it was expressed that way.

Wow, a couple of great posts that explain their positions in detail. Such a nice break from the quoted and requoted posts that are so hard to follow.

Tycho: I don't think your analogies work very well, but I bet you could come up with some more relevant ones. The ones you picked seemed to support Heath's case more than your own. If Heath loves his spouse and you love yours, you disagree but recognize and accept each other's choices. (Ditto for ice cream flavors.) Ethical conclusions are different, in that (like Kant) you "will them to be universal." You want others to agree with them, and are unaccepting of those who come to different conclusions. (Perhaps I used "you" too often here. I don't mean to single you out.)

As to Tycho's question #3... I'm with Aquinas on this one, in that moral principles are not objective. Aquinas rejected objective morality because it would violate God's omnipotence. Moral principles are created by God for humanity, and do not apply to God himself.

There's still another option. God can be objective, and so can morals.

God is good, and the morals He made are objective.

He's not saying something is good, and therefore it becomes good. He's saying it is good because it is good, as His nature is good.

Begging the Question fallacy... among many others.  You're making a lot of assumptions that cannot be proven.

You're shooting blanks on your logical fallacies recently Cain.

Begging the question requires that you prove something is true by the example itself.

Example, The Genesis creation is metaphorical because there's a contradiction if literal in the Genesis Creation by looking at the two stories, how do we know it's a contradiction, because I think it's metaphorical, and there fore cannot be literal without being a contradiction.

That would be an example of a begging the question fallacy.

And that's a red herring fallacy, as we'll as in incorrect example.

"Willing" them to be universal is different from them actually being universal, though.  We can also accept others moral choices (we often have to, really).  For example, I'm a vegetarian.  I think the world would be a bit better of a place if people cared more about an animal's life than they do about how tastey their meal is.  But at the same time I accept that I can't make them care about it, other than by talking to them about it.  And I know from my own experience as a meat-eater that people telling you it's wrong to eat meat usually just makes you rationalize why you do it, rather than convincing you to give it up.  People just sort of come to realization themselves, in my experience, so I don't push it on people.  I'd like them to agree with me, but I accept that they don't have to, and trying to force them to follow my rules against their will would violate some of my other values, so I don't try to do that either.

It's true that usually we care more about other people's moral decisions than about most other decisions what we acknowledge as being subjective.  Part of that, I think, is due to the fact that their moral decisions are more likely to have an effect on us than their other ones.  If Heath and I can each choose are own ice cream, then his decision doesn't affect me much.  If we have to pick one tub and share, then it effects me a bit, but at the end of the day it's just some ice cream so we won't let it stress us much.  But if they decide its okay to kill people, that can have a big impact on me, so I'm going to do a lot more to convince them to change that view.  One case of a purely subjective thing being taken very seriously by some is sports teams.  A small subset of people are willing to carry out acts of violence against people just because they support a different football team!  It all comes down to how much you care about things.  If you don't care about them much, you'll be happy to let people do their own thing, whether it's ice cream or morality.  If you care deeply and passionately about something, whether it's a sports club or a moral issue, you'll be less willing to just agree to disagree.

I'm not understanding you.  You want to see something that your nature already tells you.  Do you want to see smells?  Do you want to see what your taste buds taste?  I feel you are mixing apples and oranges here.

The point is that morality is invested in the nature of the being.  Humans are a type of being and have a nature.  We can argue moral codes and philosophies, but these all point to the same thing: that we are striving to understand the principles that are behind our nature.

Without using the quote function, here's where I see the major issue lies:

Subjective moralists tend to deny objective morality because they deny one or both of the following:  context and/or consequences.  Context is how we apply the moral/ethical codes to individuals.  Because you cannot take context out of a moral decision, you cannot have an "absolute answer" for every individual.  The mentally retarded person or child has a different context, and therefore a different application of moral principles.  Similarly, moral conduct is based on consequences of behaviors.  Moving your fist quickly through the air may be totally fine in most circumstances, but if you do it so that it hurts another person, then it might be morally incorrect, but if it is to defend yourself, then the consequence is justified.

These are all contexts and consequences.  They cannot be separated for purposes of absolute application.  But the underlying principles exist.  A willful being, for example, ought not to harm another without just cause.  These are all part of moral codes developed by religion and philosophy to narrow down the First Principles that guide us.


So in this case, we are either arguing in ignorance, which does not lead us to an answer either way, or you should put up proof why there is no objective morality.

Also, something being "undesirable" is very important in morality, since it is based on optimizing the best of human nature.

I guess I don't know what you are looking for beyond what I've stated, because then we get into the whole library of ethics, morality, and principles that have been developed over millenia.  Obviously, I can't recite each one.  Part of your human nature, and your morality, should be to seek the truth, though.  So hopefully that principle will guide you to maximize your potential as a moral creature.


No, what I'm saying is that what you are describing here is a belief that morality exists, but that its application is different based on context. So I think you agree with me.  It's just that what you call "subjective," I call "contextual application."

But if you are saying there is not under any circumstance ever a single thing that can be considered objectively moral, then my position is right that there is no such thing as morality at all, and that we would be wrong to judge any individual who chose what our personal morality thought was wrong.


This is a very good example of context.  The principle here is to love your wife; the other things are all context or irrelevant to the moral question.  Morality is not about superiority of people; if anything, that would be immoral because we all have human nature.

This last sentence illustrates my point that morality is also "consequence" driven.  The unit or morality is values, and to be moral you have to act in ways that will be consequential to those values.  But ultimately principles drive values.  So yes, we may have different "values," but the principles underlying them are objective principles.

But I didn't say "values" are objective, but instead that they are based on objective principles.


But again, we agree on the "values" thing.  But the issue is the principles upon which values are based.


EXACTLY!  You are trying to convince them of the principles to then effectuate their own value and consequence system of behavior.  I think you believe in objective morality; you are just looking at it from a different perspective.


This is cultural morality that I discussed above.


But this seems to be arguing from the point I mentioned that arguing from ignorance provides no answers.


Granted, this is true because this is again about values, not principles, and values are merely the unit of morality.

So let's take the general principle:  The Holocaust Was Wrong.  Is there any way in which you believe that this is incorrect?  If it can't be proven incorrect, then it is an objective statement of morality.  Remember that morality is about "right," "wrong" and "ought."


But would you ever say a flavor is "wrong" "right" or "ought"?  If not, you are not talking about morality.



My point is that while the Kant Imperative is a valid point (whether true or not), my belief is that "principles," like math, are "eternal."  "You ought to do what is right" is an example of an eternal principle that does not change.  How that is applied in individual applications relies on values, context, and consequences, and therefore will not have a concretely same answer in every single situation, even with two different people in the same situation.

This butts up against our terminology problem from before, I think.  If you mean "applies to everyone equally, regardless of situation," then sure, God's morals could be objective (though your answer about murder being okay if God tells you to do it seem to indicate that you don't take such a view?).

But if He's saying something is good because it objectively, independent of His own view of things, is good, then the rules don't come from Him, they come from whatever it is that made the rules "good" in the first place.  For him to be able to say "it's good" because it really is good in some way that isn't just His opinion, there has to be some way independent of Him to determine what is good or evil.  This, as Hakootoko mentions, means He's not omnipotent (he can't make something good just by calling it good), and more importantly in my view, it means we don't need God to "do" morality.  We can just use whatever this proposed system for judging goodness is (the one that you use to say that God calls it good because it IS good).  Morality doesn't come from God in such a system;  He's just passing the message along, not actually writing the message (metaphorically speaking).

Basically, there looks like only two options:
1.  God decides what is right or wrong, and morality is subjective (as I've been using the term, and as I've been arguing is actually the case)
2.  God doesn't decide what is right or wrong, but just tells us what is right or wrong.  In such a case morality would be objective (in the sense I've been using it), but God becomes just a messenger of morality, not the source of it.  The main implication of this is that we don't need God to know right from wrong, because we have claimed to have some way of telling that God (and His rules) are objectively good.

Actually, in that case, morality is objective as to human beings.  Your logic to its extension would mean that everything in creation is subjective just because God created it.  Then all we can say is, "I think; therefore, I am." and fall back to Descartes.


I disagree with this as well because of the unstated premise:  your conclusion relies on a premise that humans are omniscient or capable of knowing all truth.  Since we can't, we need an omniscient being to help us.

Hmm, seems like we took two steps forward and one back here, Heath, but let's push on.  The previous post gave me confidence we might reach some level of agreement in that, if the the most recent one makes it seem a bit less likely.

First, when I ask to "see evidence" of something, I mean it a broad sense, not necessarily literally with my eyes.  If the evidence is something I have to "feel" instead of "see", that's fine, though anything I need to "feel" will tend to seem much more likely to be subjectively, since I can only know what I feel, not what other's feel.  And I can also know that several people can all feel something similar without it being universally true.  So when I'm asking for evidence, I'm just really asking for something in the real world that backs up your case (or makes mine look impossible).  I tend to take an empirical approach.  What I want to be true isn't necessarily true, so wanting it to be true isn't a good reason (in my view) to believe it.  Likewise, you telling me that it's true doesn't convince me by itself.  If you're going to convince me about a claim about reality you'll need to point (in a metaphorical sense) to something out in reality that backs the claim up.  Hopefully that makes sense?

You say that humans are a type of being and have a nature, and I would agree.  Though, to me trying to understand human nature points to the principles being not universal, but instead applying only to a very limited slice of reality (the human part).  Absolute, objective principles wouldn't just apply to humans, it'd apply to everything (the way that gravity doesn't care if you're a human, a hippo, or a rock, it just cares if you have mass).  Also, while there are huge overlaps in the "nature" of one person and the next, I'm not convinced that all of us have the exact same "nature".  Perhaps that is part of the problem?  Is that a necessary assumption of your reasoning?

I think part of the problem is that you've labelled me a "subjective moralist," which seems to have a particular meaning to you, and then assumed that's what I'm arguing for, when it's not.  While I think morality is subjective, that doesn't have anything to do (in my view) with context or consequences.  I totally agree that moral decisions should take into account both context and consequences.  When I say morality isn't objective, I'm not talking about whether what's wrong in one situation is always wrong in other situations or not.  Instead I'm talking about whether it exists outside our own minds.

I think I'm understanding better your differentiation of values and principles.  And to the extent that I understand them, I think I can largely agree.  We each have principles, and those principles give rise to our values, and our values (and the context) will guide or moral decisions.  I'm with you on that, I think.  Where we diverge, I think, is that you assert that the underlying principles are objectively true in some sense, and I don't think you have (or can) demonstrated that.  What makes me disagree with the idea, is that it's possible to violate a principle in a way it's not possible to violate 1+1=2.  You can believe that 1+1=3, but when you try to take an action based on that belief, the universe steps in and sets you straight.  Contrast that if you believe that "do what is wrong" is the principle to follow.  The universe lets you go about your merry way.  The only things that try to stop you are other conscious beings that don't approve of what you do (whether that be you or me trying to convince the person to change their ways, or God dishing out some punishment).  The principle of "1+1=2" doesn't need anyone to enforce it, because it's impossible to violate it.  These principles that you assert exist, on the other hand, seem to need conscious beings to enforce them.  That makes them seem to me that they exist only in the minds of conscious beings, not as a law of nature or mathematics or the like.

I think another sticking point is that you seem to feel that if the principles aren't objectively true, then we have to give up and can't make any decisions at all.  As I said in my last post, all that is necessary to make moral decisions is something you care about.  To put it into your terms, all we need is to have principles, and then we can make moral decisions.  Those principles don't have to be true.  We just have to care about them.  If someone adopts "always try to obscure the truth" as a principle, you and I might find them a bit mad, and might try to convince them to do otherwise, but they'd still be able to make decisions based on that principle.  It doesn't need to be true for them to use it.  From what you've said, it sounds like you think something like "well, if that's the case, what's the point?  Why even bother discussing this, and trying to figure out what's right or wrong, if everyone can just make up their own principles?!"  And I would answer that because regardless of whether or not our principles are true, they're our principles and we do really care about them.  And we feel like we have good reasons for caring about them.  And if discussing them, and trying to figure out what our principles tell us the right thing to do, makes the world a better place in our view then why not do it?  Why eat your least favorite flavor of ice cream just because you can't prove objectively that any other flavor is better?  You like one better than the others, and that's enough for you to say "I ought to eat this one rather than the others".  I doesn't have to be a universal, absolute preference for that particular flavor for you to take action on it.  You seem to take the view of "how can I judge someone's actions if my principles aren't objectively true?"  And I say "the same way you judge ice cream, even though your flavor preferences aren't objectively true.  You decide what kind of world you want to live in, and take the action that brings you closer to that."  Also, one thing I feel I should point out, is that I'm not just making a normative statement about what you should do.  I'm also saying that this is already what you do!  So you don't have to do anything differently than before, you just keep on doing as you did before, just with the realization that all this time you've been acting on personal principles rather than universal ones.

One thing that jumped out in your post to me was that you said that having to convince someone that my principles are right implies that I believe in objective morality.  I would argue that the fact that I have to argue my case at all shows that the principles aren't objective.  If I have to convince someone of my principles, then it seems that they don't hold them, which implies it's possible not to hold the principles, which seems to indicate that they're not universal and absolute.  It does seem possible that we're having some issues with terminology, and using the same words to mean slightly different things.  But I think we are on slightly different pages about whether the principles need to be objectively true in order for us to make use of them.


I've tried to avoid quoting so far, but the next bit I'll quote to make sure we're thinking about the same thing:

A few thoughts.  First "the holocaust was wrong" doesn't seem like a "general" principle to me, more of a very specific judgement.  As to whether it's correct or incorrect, I guess I'd say I agree with it, but that I don't think it's something that's objectively true or false.  It was wrong according to my values.  Some people will have other values and view it as right (neo nazi groups, for example).  I disagree with them, and will try to change their minds.  But I don't think the non-conscious part of the universe is on my side or theirs.  The only effect of their view is how I (and others) react to them.

You feel if it can't be proven wrong then it's objectively true, but that's not what objectively true means to me.  I can't prove that "vanilla ice cream is best" is wrong, but I'm sure it's not objectively true.

Put another way, I think people should/ought to view the holocaust as wrong.  But the universe doesn't force them to.  They are capable of viewing it as not wrong.  That doesn't make them correct, it just means the universe doesn't stop them from having principles that I disagree with.

The important thing is that it doesn't have to be objectively true for us to care about it and take action based on it.  If we consider the holocaust to be wrong, then we can make moral decisions regarding it.  Whether it was objectively wrong in some sense outside our own minds is sort of besides the point.  It was wrong to us, and we care about it.  That's all we need to make our moral decisions.  We don't need to be right, we just need to care about it.  Of course, if the action we're taking is trying to convince others to change their principles to match ours, we'll have much better luck if we can make a good case for what we care about.