Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

You seem to have gotten that backwards. Remember back on post #1185 when you said subjective morality is when the act is right/wrong according to the subject (person) rather than the object (act itself)? The reason they feel this way is because the moral act does apply to them or their situation.

I don't understand what you mean.

No, the consequences would be the backlash you receive from your neighbor who subjectively feels your act is against them or their situation

But why should they worry about the consequences when the moral act isn't really objectively wrong and only wrong to the person. By reacting to someone for doing wrong you are more or less saying they should not act that way. But the person who is acting that way doesn't think they are doing wrong so cannot help it.

Everyone would be going around having a go at each other and worrying about the consequences of moral acts each person thinks are OK and cannot help. Realistically under subjective morality people should be saying that's OK that you act that way as that's your moral POV that you think is good just like me. The moment you step in and start saying people shouldn't act a certain way you are being objective.

Survival of the fittest is about bacteria, insects, and other lower life forms; nothing to do with human morality. And don’t assume that because I am skeptical against your Christian beliefs that I’m not just as skeptical towards anything else; including science. A lot of Christians seem to make that mistake.

So if you don't believe in God then how did life come about if not by natural means. Why isn't survival applied to humans? They are just the end result of the same process that creates bacteria, insects and lower life forms. Why are humans so special as opposed to rats. Why should humans kill other species so they can survive? Isn't that survival of the fittest.

 

[Ken-1122]

But that case only determines your personal beliefs, view about whether the moral is right or wrong. Why should someone trust that you are ultimately right when its only your personal view.

I’m never ask anyone to trust that I am ultimately right, I ask them to determine.
Do you know what I’ve noticed to be the main difference between the truth and a lie? The truth never asks to be believed; that’s what lies do. Lies demand belief, they demand faith, and trust, because that’s all they’ve got! The truth asks to be tested. The truth asks to be investigated, studied, picked apart, analyzed; the truth asks to be verified! Because after you’ve done all of that, belief comes naturally.
So when I say by making a case for my moral position, I’m asking them to test, investigate, analyze, pick apart, and everything else usually asked by the truth.

The only way a person can be proven wrong with their subjective moral position is by an objective moral position. Just like the round earth proves the flat Earther's view is wrong. Yes, they can continue to hold onto their position but that's in the face of facts. But another person's moral subjective view is not an objective fact so it cannot really prove a person's morals are objectively wrong.

Just as all facts are also beliefs, all objective claims are also subjective.

No really. The west uses 4 to 5 Earth worth of resources which denies 3rd world countries and our children in the future resources. We kill millions of species to ensure our comfortable life and western nations enjoy glutenous lifestyles while poor nations starve yet we could save them by giving up our lifestyles. There are plenty of ways people don't feel obligated to do the right thing. Why should they when there is no God and this life is all they have. They want to enjoy it and live comfortably while they can.

I have no idea where you are getting your information; it sounds like you have been listening to too much anti-western propaganda.
Obesity Now a Bigger Problem than World Hunger, Study Shows

Obesity Now a Bigger Problem than World Hunger, Study Shows
According to the World Health Organization (WHO) since 2008 obesity has become a bigger problem than starvation! Never has too much food been more of a problem than too little; and western nations are mostly responsible for this.
Even Jesus (according to the Bible) fed the hungry, but he didn’t end starvation. He healed the leper, but he didn’t cure leprosy, he healed the blind, but he didn’t cure blindness. Western nations have shared their technology with the world with agriculture that prevents starvation in countries previously plagued with starvation every several years, medicine that cured many ills such as polio, leprosy, and countless other diseases. Western nations have done much to cure many of the ails other nations suffered from, to suggest we gain to the detriment of our neighboring countries is just a bunch of anti-western propaganda that refuses to look at the facts.
Don't just believe everything you hear; investigate.

 

[Speedwell]

Why should humans kill other species so they can survive? Isn't that survival of the fittest.

I didn't know that theists are all vegans.

 

[stevevw]

Just because a person dictates objectivity to their moral position, that alone does not make it the only correct moral position. People make claims all the time and are yet proven wrong

I agree but the fact that they are saying X is correct over Y and holding the position of Y is wrong they are taking an objective position that X is the only correct position.

Whaaatt??? How does an act determine right vs wrong? In order to determine right vs wrong, you must be capable of thought. Acts do not think, humans who are capable of acts are the ones who think.
Thinking people give acts a label. Labels are given definitions and it is these definitions that determine whether something is objective vs subjective.

You are misunderstanding what the act represents.

Objective morality is anchored in the object and not the subject. Moral qualities are characteristics of the behavior themselves, not people's views. Rape isn’t wrong because I say its wrong or my culture or society says its wrong. It’s not wrong because my genes have tricked me into thinking it’s wrong. It’s not about the person who is perceiving the wrong (the subject). If rape is objectively wrong, then it is always wrong irrespective of what anyone else thinks.

The whole world could think rape is right for whatever reason but if it is objectively wrong it will still be wrong. It's like saying the grass is green or the earth is round. These things are true not because "I" the subject says they are. They are wrong because the objects themselves are that way in reality and fact. Therefore rape is not wrong because "I" the subject says it is. It is wrong because the object itself which is the "act" of rape is wrong.
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/05/how-do-moral-absolutes-prove-that-god-exists.html

Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between
As you can see from the above definition, an objective statement is based on facts that can be verified by a 3rd party.

But that link supports what I said. IE
Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. (no human view or opinion, the object itself is the verification of it being true, my emphasis)

Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. (human influence as with opinion and view, only true to the human. My emphasis added).

Read more: Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between

Fact - Wikipedia
As you can see from the above definition, facts are things that can be demonstrated as true.
Now in order to make your case that morality is objective, please provide an example of a moral act that can be proven wrong based on facts (demonstrable) that can be verified by a 3rd party. I eagerly wait for your reply.

So what if the 3rd party is also wrong about the moral act. As mentioned it is the act that is wrong to make it objectively wrong and not the person whether that be 1, 2, 3 or a whole world of people saying it is wrong.

 

[Kylie]

I never said I wouldn't. Just that it might be a few days.

Okay.

 

[stevevw]

I’m never asking anyone to trust that I am ultimately right, I ask them to determine.

Not really. In life, people react to situations. They don't take time to ask. If someone wrongs them they react like its wrong. People sitting at a table discussing an event that happened condemn the act and the person. They don't ask that person for the view as to why they did what they did.

But even when calmly discussing something people act like they are the only one who is right at times. They tell the other person not to be silly and that they are deluded as people say about Christians with their belief and as Christians do about sin sometimes.

Do you know what I’ve noticed to be the main difference between the truth and a lie? The truth never asks to be believed; that’s what lies do. Lies demand belief, they demand faith, and trust, because that’s all they’ve got! The truth asks to be tested. The truth asks to be investigated, studied, picked apart, analyzed; the truth asks to be verified! Because after you’ve done all of that, belief comes naturally.
So when I say by making a case for my moral position, I’m asking them to test, investigate, analyze, pick apart, and everything else usually asked by the truth.

I'm not too sure of that. I know of innocent people demanding justice.

Just as all facts are also beliefs, all objective claims are also subjective.

I don't know what you mean by all facts are beliefs. A fact is a fact supported by evidence. A belief is held despite any evidence. How can an objective claim be subjective when an objective moral for example about killing says it is always wrong regardless of the subject's views. The subjective views can make killing OK or even morally good. They contradict each other.

I have no idea where you are getting your information; it sounds like you have been listening to too much anti-western propaganda.
Obesity Now a Bigger Problem than World Hunger, Study Shows
According to the World Health Organization (WHO) since 2008 obesity has become a bigger problem than starvation! Never has too much food been more of a problem than too little, and western nations are mostly responsible for this.

Doesn't that tell you that people are being gluttons and that more could go to poor and hungry people. The question has to be asked is there inequality in the world or even in individual nations. The answer is yes. Then why don't people share to even things out?

It is said that if the more well off gave to the poor then everyone would be comfortable and have a good standard of living. But as it stands there are millions who live in poor standards. The fact is modern western society uses more resources than anyone. That is not propaganda but fact. They are mostly responsible for climate change and are destroying the future for our children.

The poorest 10% accounted for just 0.5% and the wealthiest 10% accounted for 59% of all the consumption.
Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the world's energy.
https://public.wsu.edu/~mreed/380American Consumption.htm
Climate change report card: These countries are reaching targets
Generation Screwed

Even Jesus (according to the Bible) fed the hungry, but he didn’t end starvation. He healed the leper, but he didn’t cure leprosy, he healed the blind, but he didn’t cure blindness. Western nations have shared their technology with the world with agriculture that prevents starvation in countries previously plagued with starvation every several years, medicine that cured many ills such as polio, leprosy, and countless other diseases. Western nations have done much to cure many of the ails other nations suffered from, to suggest we gain to the detriment of our neighboring countries is just a bunch of anti-western propaganda that refuses to look at the facts.
Don't just believe everything you hear; investigate.

I wouldn't be using Jesus as an example of self-sacrifice as he gave his life to save the world. How many people are willing to do that.

 

[stevevw]

I didn't know that theists are all vegans.

The point is humans are quite willing to wipe out thousands of other species so that they can survive and live comfortably. Isn't that evolution survival of the fittest.

 

[Ken-1122]

So what if the 3rd party is also wrong about the moral act. As mentioned it is the act that is wrong to make it objectively wrong and not the person whether that be 1, 2, 3 or a whole world of people saying it is wrong.

I didn't say it’s about people saying it is wrong, I said it’s about the ability to DEMONSTRATE that it’s wrong. Again; please provide an example of a moral act that can be demonstrated as wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

Not really. In life, people react to situations. They don't take time to ask. If someone wrongs them they react like its wrong. People sitting at a table discussing an event that happened condemn the act and the person. They don't ask that person for the view as to why they did what they did.

But even when calmly discussing something people act like they are the only one who is right at times. They tell the other person not to be silly and that they are deluded as people say about Christians with their belief and as Christians do about sin sometimes.

That has nothing to do with what I said. Again; I don’t expect people to just take my word for it, I expect them to investigate and determine whether what I say sounds true or not.

I'm not too sure of that. I know of innocent people demanding justice.

Innocent people demanding justice? Did you actually read anything I said here?

I don't know what you mean by all facts are beliefs. A fact is a fact supported by evidence. A belief is held despite any evidence. How can an objective claim be subjective when an objective moral for example about killing says it is always wrong regardless of the subject's views. The subjective views can make killing OK or even morally good. They contradict each other.

Name a fact that is not also believed.

Doesn't that tell you that people are being gluttons and that more could go to poor and hungry people.

There are less poor and hungry today worldwide than there has ever been in history. The reason is because the people you call “gluttons” have created a world where the more poor are fed, more sick are healed, and more children are educated. Going by those standards, the world needs more gluttons.

The question has to be asked is there inequality in the world or even in individual nations. The answer is yes. Then why don't people share to even things out?

Inequality is not important. What is important is that the poor are fed, the sick are treated, and the poor are educated. If inequality leads to that, we need more inequality.

It is said that if the more well off gave to the poor then everyone would be comfortable and have a good standard of living.

The well off DO give to the poor, and even the poorest are more comfortable and have a better standard of living than ever before.

But as it stands there are millions who live in poor standards. The fact is modern western society uses more resources than anyone. That is not propaganda but fact.

And the entire world is better off because of it.

They are mostly responsible for climate change and are destroying the future for our children.

Are you better off than your grandparents? 100 years ago, starvation was common, a significant number of women died during childbirth, and the average person died at age 45. Would you rather go back to those days?

The poorest 10% accounted for just 0.5% and the wealthiest 10% accounted for 59% of all the consumption.

The wealthiest create wealth where it didn’t exist before. That’s good!

Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the world's energy.

https://public.wsu.edu/~mreed/380American Consumption.htm
Climate change report card: These countries are reaching targets
Generation Screwed

America generates more energy than any other country as well. We've also been responsible for creating technology that has driven more countries out of poverty than those countries that use less energy.

I wouldn't be using Jesus as an example of self-sacrifice as he gave his life to save the world. How many people are willing to do that.

Who cares about self sacrifice when nothing gets fixed? I’m talking about getting things done! When has self sacrifice given starving nations the agriculture technology to grow food in a way that prevents starvation? When has self sacrifice cured diseases like Polio, leprosy, and other diseases? When has self sacrifice cured many of the problems associated with maternal death? Or children dying during childbirth? Who cares about self sacrifice when nothing gets done?

 

[stevevw]

I didn't say it’s about people saying it is wrong, I said it’s about the ability to DEMONSTRATE that it’s wrong.

But what measure is used to demonstrate something is wrong.

Again; please provide an example of a moral act that can be demonstrated as wrong.

What do you mean by a moral act demonstrated to be wrong? Do you mean shown to be wrong objectively, despite anyone's opinion? I have already given support for this when I posted a link to a good logical argument IE

We are justified in believing that objective morals exist on the ground of our moral experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience, just as we are justified in believing that there is a world of physical objects around us on the ground of our sense experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience. Such a defeater would have to show not merely that our moral experience is fallible or defeasible but that it is utterly unreliable, that we may apprehend no objective moral values or duties whatsoever. Our moral experience is so powerful, however, that such a defeater would have to be incredibly powerful in order to overcome our experience, just as our sense experience is so powerful that a defeater of my belief in the world of physical objects I perceive would have to be incredibly powerful in order for me to believe that I have no good reason to think that I am not a brain in a vat of chemicals or a body lying in the Matrix.
Are We Justified in Believing in Objective Moral Values and Duties? | Reasonable Faith

So we are justified to believe objective morality exists because of what we know intuitively and experience around us. We see how people act/react in an objective way and impose certain morals on others because they know they are right. We know this just like we know that the physical world exists and how it operates around us. To prove that there are no objective morals would take the same level of evidence to prove that the physical world around us is not reality as we perceive it.

As for examples well this would be based on lived experience. The way people apply and react to situations. Like the UN imposes certain moral values that form the foundation of human rights such as the right of a child not to be tortured. Like the way, society uses certain laws such as it is wrong to murder and rape. Or how a person despite saying that abortion is OK reacts like it's not when it happens to them.

 

[Kylie]

What do you mean by a moral act demonstrated to be wrong? Do you mean shown to be wrong objectively, despite anyone's opinion? I have already given support for this when I posted a link to a good logical argument IE

We are justified in believing that objective morals exist on the ground of our moral experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience, just as we are justified in believing that there is a world of physical objects around us on the ground of our sense experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience. Such a defeater would have to show not merely that our moral experience is fallible or defeasible but that it is utterly unreliable, that we may apprehend no objective moral values or duties whatsoever. Our moral experience is so powerful, however, that such a defeater would have to be incredibly powerful in order to overcome our experience, just as our sense experience is so powerful that a defeater of my belief in the world of physical objects I perceive would have to be incredibly powerful in order for me to believe that I have no good reason to think that I am not a brain in a vat of chemicals or a body lying in the Matrix.
Are We Justified in Believing in Objective Moral Values and Duties? | Reasonable Faith

So we are justified to believe objective morality exists because of what we know intuitively and experience around us. We see how people act/react in an objective way and impose certain morals on others because they know they are right. We know this just like we know that the physical world exists and how it operates around us. To prove that there are no objective morals would take the same level of evidence to prove that the physical world around us is not reality as we perceive it.

As for examples well this would be based on lived experience. The way people apply and react to situations. Like the UN imposes certain moral values that form the foundation of human rights such as the right of a child not to be tortured. Like the way, society uses certain laws such as it is wrong to murder and rape. Or how a person despite saying that abortion is OK reacts like it's not when it happens to them.

Please show that it is objectively wrong to smack a disobedient child.

 

[Ken-1122]

But what measure is used to demonstrate something is wrong.

That’s my point! There is no measure. Everything objective has a measure; math has calculations, distance has inches, & feet, weight has pounds, & tons etc in order for something to be objective there has to be a measure. So unless you can provide a measure for morality, you must admit it to be subjective instead of objective.

What do you mean by a moral act demonstrated to be wrong? Do you mean shown to be wrong objectively, despite anyone's opinion? I have already given support for this when I posted a link to a good logical argument IE

We are justified in believing that objective morals exist on the ground of our moral experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience, just as we are justified in believing that there is a world of physical objects around us on the ground of our sense experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience. Such a defeater would have to show not merely that our moral experience is fallible or defeasible but that it is utterly unreliable, that we may apprehend no objective moral values or duties whatsoever. Our moral experience is so powerful, however, that such a defeater would have to be incredibly powerful in order to overcome our experience, just as our sense experience is so powerful that a defeater of my belief in the world of physical objects I perceive would have to be incredibly powerful in order for me to believe that I have no good reason to think that I am not a brain in a vat of chemicals or a body lying in the Matrix.
Are We Justified in Believing in Objective Moral Values and Duties? | Reasonable Faith

That is a subjective opinion that has nothing to do with objective facts. Care to try again?

So we are justified to believe objective morality exists because of what we know intuitively and experience around us. We see how people act/react in an objective way and impose certain morals on others because they know they are right. We know this just like we know that the physical world exists and how it operates around us. To prove that there are no objective morals would take the same level of evidence to prove that the physical world around us is not reality as we perceive it.

No. The physical world around us is objective and can be demonstrated as objective via shape, volume, distance and countless other measurements. morality is not, cannot be measured that way.

As for examples well this would be based on lived experience. The way people apply and react to situations. Like the UN imposes certain moral values that form the foundation of human rights such as the right of a child not to be tortured. Like the way, society uses certain laws such as it is wrong to murder and rape. Or how a person despite saying that abortion is OK reacts like it's not when it happens to them.

Then demonstrate how human rights and abortion is an objective moral issue based on fact. If you can’t then you must either admit morality is subjective, or you need to change the definition of objective to mean something else, because the current definition requires the ability to not only believe, but demonstrate as true.

 

[Ken-1122]

I agree but the fact that they are saying X is correct over Y and holding the position of Y is wrong they are taking an objective position that X is the only correct position.

People don’t get to decide whether their claim is objective or not; the ability to demonstrate as true decides.

You are misunderstanding what the act represents.

Objective morality is anchored in the object and not the subject. Moral qualities are characteristics of the behavior themselves, not people's views. Rape isn’t wrong because I say its wrong or my culture or society says its wrong. It’s not wrong because my genes have tricked me into thinking it’s wrong.

Your thoughts tell you it’s wrong. Thoughts are subjective by definition.

It’s not about the person who is perceiving the wrong (the subject). If rape is objectively wrong, then it is always wrong irrespective of what anyone else thinks.

The whole world could think rape is right for whatever reason but if it is objectively wrong it will still be wrong.

Rape is a legal term for nonconsensual sex.
Statutory Rape | Definition of Statutory Rape by Merriam-Webster
In the State of California the age of consent is 18 in the state of Nevada it is 16. If a 21 year old man has sex with a 17 year old girl in the state of California, it is rape; if he goes to the state next door to Nevada and has sex with her it is not rape. Are you sure you want to hang your hat on this idea that rape is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks?

It's like saying the grass is green or the earth is round. These things are true not because "I" the subject says they are. They are wrong because the objects themselves are that way in reality and fact. Therefore rape is not wrong because "I" the subject says it is. It is wrong because the object itself which is the

"act" of rape is wrong.
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/05/how-do-moral-absolutes-prove-that-god-exists.html

[/QUOTE]
The reason that argument fails is because the green grass and round Earth has a base in colors and shape. Rape is based on the law which varies from city to city, state to state, country to country.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't understand what you mean.

If you steal my property, your act is against me, and I will judge you based on that act

But why should they worry about the consequences when the moral act isn't really objectively wrong and only wrong to the person.

Because the person is the one they have to answer to

By reacting to someone for doing wrong you are more or less saying they should not act that way. But the person who is acting that way doesn't think they are doing wrong so cannot help it.

That’s where the discussion comes in and one person convinces the other who is wrong

Everyone would be going around having a go at each other and worrying about the consequences of moral acts each person thinks are OK and cannot help.

A lot of that going around in the real world ya know!

Realistically under subjective morality people should be saying that's OK that you act that way as that's your moral POV that you think is good just like me. The moment you step in and start saying people shouldn't act a certain way you are being objective.

Only if they can demonstrate why you shouldn’t act a certain way; otherwise it’s only subjective.

So if you don't believe in God then how did life come about if not by natural means.

Why would you assume life ever came about? How do you know live hasn’t always existed?

Why isn't survival applied to humans? They are just the end result of the same process that creates bacteria, insects and lower life forms. Why are humans so special as opposed to rats.

If you asked me whose life is more valuable; yours (a person I’ve never met) or my brother whom I’ve known my entire life and has built an emotional relationship with, even though I may SAY all humans are equal, if my brother died, my reaction of my brothers death compared to my reaction if you died would expose my claim as a lie, because it would be clear I find my brothers life more valuable than your own; even though I doubt your brother would agree.
If you asked me whose life is more valuable; a person I’ve never met, or a dog I’ve never met, because have an emotional connection to the human that I do not have with the dog, I will subjectively claim the human life is more valuable; even though I doubt my dog will agree.

Why should humans kill other species so they can survive? Isn't that survival of the fittest.

What does “survival of the fittest” have to do with humans?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point is humans are quite willing to wipe out thousands of other species so that they can survive and live comfortably. Isn't that evolution survival of the fittest.

You appear to misunderstand what "survival of the fittest" means. "Fittest" refers to those most fit to survive in the current environment. It is all but a tautology since it is something that is obviously true. Sometimes "the fittest" can mean the smallest members of a population, for example when resources are limited. It takes more energy to power a large body so smaller members may do better than larger members of a population at times. People often think it refers to only the largest or the strongest. That is oversimplified and therefore usually wrong.

 

[stevevw]

That’s my point! There is no measure.

Of course there is a measure. The measure is in the act itself. When people say that rape or child abuse is wrong, they are not saying it is OK to rape and abuse a child sometimes. They are saying it is never OK. That is the measure, peoples lived moral experience.

Everything objective has a measure; math has calculations, distance has inches, & feet, weight has pounds, & tons etc in order for something to be objective there has to be a measure. So unless you can provide a measure for morality, you must admit it to be subjective instead of objective.

Yet you claim that with subjective morality you can convince someone else about your moral position using some sort of measure like reason.

As mentioned earlier the measure for objective morality is lived moral experience. I posted a link for this before. Have you not read the article. It will make sense if you read it.
Just as we believe in the world of physical objects around us because we can know them with our senses, so we can believe in objective moral values and duties on the basis of our moral experience.
Are We Justified in Believing in Objective Moral Values and Duties? | Reasonable Faith

That is a subjective opinion that has nothing to do with objective facts. Care to try again?

It's not a subjective opinion but rather lived moral experience. Things can also be verified through observation. IE I using our sense we can see, hear, smell, feel something which gives us experience. Our experience of the physical world tells us it is what it is and not some matrix or hologram existence. Our lived experience in how people act, react and impose morality tells us that there is objective morality.

No. The physical world around us is objective and can be demonstrated as objective via shape, volume, distance, and countless other measurements. morality is not, cannot be measured that way.

I agree and these measurements are experienced through our senses. They tell us that the physical world is what it is and we are not some brain in chemicals being fed that reality. There is no counter-evidence to say we are a brain living in some vat or living in some hologram world.

The same with objective morality. Despite what people claim subjectively we live and react like there is objective morality. There is no counter-evidence to suggest otherwise. We are justified to believe that our moral experience is just as real as our physical experience. The way we measure objective morals is the lived experience we observe people doing. The evidence to dispute our experience would have to be as powerful as any evidence that would defeat our experience that our physical world was not real. Because both are lived experience and experience is powerful support for what is real or not.

Then demonstrate how human rights and abortion is an objective moral issue based on fact. If you can’t then you must either admit morality is subjective, or you need to change the definition of objective to mean something else because the current definition requires the ability to not only believe but demonstrate as true.

This has already been done as mentioned earlier. It is based on lived moral experience. This is an observation and observations are one way of validating something. When people act, react and live like there is objective this is one a good way to support objective morality.

The UN imposes moral values on people and everyone accepts these because they know it is objectively right. They are saying people cannot have any subjective views on rights and they must abide by these rights as they stand as the law for all. A person who says there are no ultimate moral truths reacts like there are ultimate moral truths when they are wronged by condemning the wrongdoer and telling them they are objectively wrong. This is our lived moral experience and it is real because we live it and observe it all the time.

 

[stevevw]

You appear to misunderstand what "survival of the fittest" means. "Fittest" refers to those most fit to survive in the current environment. It is all but a tautology since it is something that is obviously true. Sometimes "the fittest" can mean the smallest members of a population, for example when resources are limited. It takes more energy to power a large body so smaller members may do better than larger members of a population at times. People often think it refers to only the largest or the strongest. That is oversimplified and therefore usually wrong.

True and there are many different ways a creature can survive to reproduce. It seems humans are changing and destroying environments and other species have not been able to adapt quickly enough.

 

[stevevw]

Double post

 

[stevevw]

People don’t get to decide whether their claim is objective or not; the ability to demonstrate as true decides.

The point is people react similarly. They all seem to say that x is right when they react even when they have previously said they believe their moral position was Y. This shows that there is a common understanding of what is truly morally right and wrong despite their subjective moral claims.

Your thoughts tell you it’s wrong. Thoughts are subjective by definition.

That's right. According to evolution, it is biological processes such as genes that cause people to come up with moral subjective thinking. But biology cannot explain morality as morality is immaterial. It can only give an explanation for how we know something is good or bad but not why something is good or bad.

Rape is a legal term for non-consensual sex.
Statutory Rape | Definition of Statutory Rape by Merriam-Webster
In the State of California, the age of consent is 18 in the state of Nevada it is 16. If a 21-year-old man has sex with a 17-year-old girl in the state of California, it is rape; if he goes to the state next door to Nevada and has sex with her it is not rape. Are you sure you want to hang your hat on this idea that rape is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks?

But none of that has anything to do with rape being objectively wrong. All those states agree that rape is wrong. They all agree a person can be taken advantage of. They just disagree about what the age of consent is for a person to realize they are being taken advantage of. That's because there is debate about when a person can have enough understanding that they are being taken advantage of.

The thing about statuary rape is that all parties more or less consent to sex. There is no forced sex like people imagine rape. But people can be tricked into being taken advantage of. Still, all states agree that this is not good. They just disagree about what age a person can fully understand the situation they are in.

The reason that argument fails is because the green grass and round Earth has a base in colors and shape. Rape is based on the law which varies from city to city, state to state, country to country.

The law varies but they all agree that rape is objectively wrong. They never have a law that says rape is OK or good. It is like how one nation may greet people with a handshake, another with a kiss and another with a bow. They have different conventions about how to greet someone. But they all objectively agree that it is important to be nice and respectful in greeting people.

Every state has laws that say rape is wrong. No state says rape is OK and it is good to rape so the law that rape is objective wrong stays the same in all states. Like styles of greeting some states have different ways of applying their laws.

 

[Kylie]

Of course there is a measure. The measure is in the act itself. When people say that rape or child abuse is wrong, they are not saying it is OK to rape and abuse a child sometimes. They are saying it is never OK. That is the measure, peoples lived moral experience.

That doesn't mean it is objective.

Yet you claim that with subjective morality you can convince someone else about your moral position using some sort of measure like reason.

Why not? I convinced my husband that Star Trek is a pretty good show. Do you think Star Trek is objectively good and those people who prefer Star Wars are just objectively wrong, or do you think I was able to make an argument that changed my husband's subjective opinion?

As mentioned earlier the measure for objective morality is lived moral experience. I posted a link for this before. Have you not read the article. It will make sense if you read it.
Just as we believe in the world of physical objects around us because we can know them with our senses, so we can believe in objective moral values and duties on the basis of our moral experience.
Are We Justified in Believing in Objective Moral Values and Duties? | Reasonable Faith

I believe I've said before that our subjective experiences do not define an objective reality.

It's not a subjective opinion but rather lived moral experience. Things can also be verified through observation. IE I using our sense we can see, hear, smell, feel something which gives us experience. Our experience of the physical world tells us it is what it is and not some matrix or hologram existence. Our lived experience in how people act, react and impose morality tells us that there is objective morality.

It's only objective if people can verify our results. There is so much regarding morality that can NOT be verified in this way.

The same with objective morality. Despite what people claim subjectively we live and react like there is objective morality. There is no counter-evidence to suggest otherwise. We are justified to believe that our moral experience is just as real as our physical experience. The way we measure objective morals is the lived experience we observe people doing. The evidence to dispute our experience would have to be as powerful as any evidence that would defeat our experience that our physical world was not real. Because both are lived experience and experience is powerful support for what is real or not.

Very well. Please tell me, objectively speaking, what is a suitable punishment for me to give my daughter when she talks back to me?

This has already been done as mentioned earlier. It is based on lived moral experience. This is an observation and observations are one way of validating something. When people act, react and live like there is objective this is one a good way to support objective morality.

Just because most people agree on something doesn't make it objective.

Most people agree that the original design for Sonic in the recent Sonic movie was terrible, but that's still a subjective opinion.

The UN imposes moral values on people and everyone accepts these because they know it is objectively right. They are saying people cannot have any subjective views on rights and they must abide by these rights as they stand as the law for all. A person who says there are no ultimate moral truths reacts like there are ultimate moral truths when they are wronged by condemning the wrongdoer and telling them they are objectively wrong. This is our lived moral experience and it is real because we live it and observe it all the time.

No, they do it because they can show that certain actions cause demonstrable harm.