[Updated] Are blog posts by Gene Callahan Objectively Real? Perhaps not
[Update: Happy news! The subject blog post, once non-existent, has (been) resurrected! Discussions, with a decided acerbic philosopher-king, continue!]
[Update part Deux: Unfortunately, as noted elsewhere, our ill-humored host has closed out his blog post, after deleting my response to a string of comments and adding a coda of his own.]
In a blog post in mid-May, libertarian wisdom-lover Gene Callahan articulated the thesis that there is an objective moral reality. I copied here my discussion on the comment thread with Gene. In the ensuing months, Gene has maintained strict radio silence, despite a few subsequent efforts by me to engage him.
At last however, it seems that on July 10, Gene posted a follow-up post, entitled “Morals Are Not Objectively Real and Neither Is …”.
“It seems”, I say, because the blog post, which I distinctly recall, no longer exists. Google reports faint emanations from the post in various web pages, including the following cache of the apparent post:
Morals Are Not Objectively Real and Neither Is…
My friend laughed. “If morals
are objectively real, where are they?”
“Hmm,” I thought, good point. “So, the only things that are
objectively real are those located in space and time.”
“But, wait… the physical universe is not located in space and time,
so…”
“The physical universe is not objectively real!”
posted by Gene Callahan @ 3:35 PM
(emphasis added)
The contents of the non-post, and the lack of its current existence, lead me to wonder, as I wander out under the sky, the thoughts pondered in my post title.
I note that my Gmail inbox contains messages from the Twilight Zone, which indicate that I, Bob Murphy and Gene might have made the following comments on Gene`s non-post:
TokyoTom has left a new comment on the post “Morals Are Not Objectively Real and Neither Is…“:
Gene, thanks for revisiting this topic, but it doesn`t seems you`re
really exerting yourself, other than to make light of what you purport
to take seriously.
You might be the only guy chasing his tail who fooled himself into thinking he caught it.
Our
existence is proof that the universe exists in space and time. But
where do morals objectively exist, apart from the individuals thinking
about them? Do other species have “morals” that govern their behavior,
or is there no objective moral order apart from man? Is the human
“objective” moral order universal, for all individuals, across all
history?
Inquiring ants want to know!
Bob Murphy has left a new comment on the post “Morals Are Not Objectively Real and Neither Is…“:
TT, I don’t think most physicists (at least most cosmologists) would agree with you. The physical universe itself does not have particular space-time coordinates; relative to what?
Gene,
rather than giving such a grandiose example, can’t you pick something
easier, like the Pythagorean Theorem or a pun? I grant you, no matter
what you pick, TT or other critics will find some reason to throw out
your remark as silly, but still it might be helpful.
For the
record, folks, I used to be a materialist and Gene talked me down from
the ledge. I didn’t even realize how much importance I was vesting with
the physical world until I debated him about it on anti-state.
TokyoTom has left a new comment on the post “Morals Are Not Objectively Real and Neither Is…“:
Bob, the fact that the universe itself is not a turtle sitting on the
back of another doesn`t mean that the universe and matter/phenomena
within it are not OBJECTIVE.
The
question, assuming Gene is not asserting the lack of objectivity of the
universe, is just what the heck Gene MEANS by “objective”, and just how
it is that there is an moral order to the universe that exists just as
objectively as, say, Saturn, the Tokugawa bakufu ot Gitmo.
Gene Callahan has left a new comment on the post “Morals Are Not Objectively Real and Neither Is…“:
“Our existence is proof that the universe exists in space and time.”
Tom,
that’s ridiculous. Think about what you’re saying — the universe
cannot be “in” space! Just where in space do you think it’s located?
back of another doesn`t mean that the universe and matter/phenomena
within it are not OBJECTIVE.”
Exactly right, Tom — the fact that something is not located in space and time does not mean it’s not objective.
Gene`s implication appears to be that, just as the universe does not
exist in space or time, but is objective, so there exists an objective
moral order, that does not exist in space or time.
If so, inquiring minds want to know (1) whether the objective moral
order is a part of the universe, (2) what methods can we apply to
confirm the existence of and explore the objective moral order, (3)
whether such methods are distinct from the scientific method, and (4)
just what the heck Gene means by “”objective”, anyway.
I`m not half as smart as I think I am, but I am now thoroughly
befuddled, not only as to what Gene believes is “objective”, but also
how to continue a non-existent discussion.
Recent Comments