Where does morality come from?

[Kylie]

I will answer this one separately as it seems to be something I may have missed. Though please remember that some of these points are repeated or similar questions or objections and may have been addressed in other posts.

In relation to the appropriate action for your daughter taking $20 out of your purse. Isn't that about a penalty for a morally wrong act rather than the moral act itself? I guess most people would say taking money without asking is stealing and therefore morally wrong. The penalty for doing that is another situation.

Again you are trying to squirm out of it.

I'm sure we agree that executing her for this crime is morally wrong. Likewise, I'm sure we agree that rewarding her is also morally wrong. So what can I do to punish her that is NOT morally wrong?

 

[Kylie]

Then I have to go back to the logical argument I posted for how we are justified to believe based on our moral lived experience that there are objective moral values IE.

My claim is that we are justified in believing (2) 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.

So what is the defeater that will prove that our moral experience is fallible and does not show there is objective morality but is totally unreliable that we cannot realize any objective morals whatsoever?

The difference is that when we look at the world of physical objects, we are all in complete agreement. If I stood before you, you and I would agree on the distance between us, on the colour of the chairs we were sitting in, what country we were in, whether it was sunny or rainy, etc.

That same agreement does not happen with moral issues.

I used the example that objective morals have degrees of bad. IE telling a lie to the Nazi's at your door save the Jews is still morally wrong but not as big a wrong as giving them up to be taken away and killed in the gas chambers. So telling a lie in this situation doesn't make lying OK or good it is still bad. It is wrong but justified in relative situations. Remember relativity does not exclude there are objective morals.

So telling a little "white lie" as some call it to not hurt someone and cause them more harm is still wrong but not as wrong as a lie that causes someone harm or is motivated by greed etc. So the little lie though still wrong is justified in that relative situation. At no point does this change the fact that lying is objectively wrong.

And who decides which is more bad than something else?

The parts where you are appealing to qualities like hurt and empathy. Notice how you said I don't like and other people probably don't like it. Subjective likes and dislikes could mean anything. When you use "hurt and empathy" you have gone from "likes and dislikes" to qualifying a moral value and therefore not a "like or dislike".

Under subjective morality "hurt and empathy" have no moral value and meaning as there is no way to measure their worth apart from personal views. You have attempted to give your morals value through "likes and dislikes" but these do not have any moral value either just as saying someone "likes or dislikes" chocolate cake. You may not like being hurt but you cannot say that is objectively true for others. Some people like hurting others and some show no empathy as they like having everything for themselves as this makes them happy.

So what's the objective value of "like"?

They only have meaning for the subject (the person). So they have no meaning beyond that otherwise they would be objective (have the same meaning for all).

Exactly. Moral positions only have meaning for the person who holds them.

I never said that. I said people that claim subjective morals tell other people with subjective morals that their moral view is wrong and that theirs is right. When they do that they are saying my view applies to everyone else thus taking an objective moral position.

No, they say they disagree with that other person's morals. I have no moral problem eating meat, but I know there are plenty of vegans who disagree with me. We have different moral views because morality is subjective.

There is a big difference between someone telling me that they THINK I am wrong for eating meat and someone being objectively correct when they say I am wrong for eating meat.

I never said you cannot view morals through your own lens under subjective morals. I said the moment you go from viewing to applying them to others you are now taking a position that your moral position is correct for others.

How can you ever view morals except through your own lens?

So really you should be saying "the way I see things your moral position is wrong but you also have the right to have that moral position and it is not wrong to you. So neither of us is ultimately in the right position. You can hold your views and I can hold mine so lone as we don't impose them on each other.

Almost right. I'd have said, "You can hold your views and I can hold mine so long as we don't impose them on other people if they don't want them."

You don't have to have mathematical evidence for morals. You simply have to show that rape is wrong in itself and not because you or I say its wrong. I have already shown this. The fact that moral lived experience shows us that people know that rape is always wrong shows this.

Nah, you've just shown that most people hold the subjective opinion that rape is wrong. You've never shown that it's OBJECTIVE.

Argument from popularity is a logical fallacy, y'know.

So what if there are objective morals and the person changes their mind against an objective moral by being morally bad. Just because there are objective morals doesn't mean people are forced to always follow objective morals. They have free will. You are committing an "either and or" fallacy where if there are objective morals that people either have to stick or else.

If there are objective morals, then how can anyone go against them? My location is an objective fact, and so I can't just make myself appear in Milan for the weekend. My age is an objective fact, and so I can't just make myself younger. If morality is an objective fact, then how can people ignore it whenever they want?

Again this is mixing up objective and absolute moral values. To say morals are absolute is to say that they apply regardless of the situation you are in. So don't kill regardless of a crazed killer coming to wipe out your family or don't kill using the death penalty regardless of whether the crime demands that penalty to uphold justice.

Objective morality means in any given situation there is a moral choice that is really right and really wrong independent of human opinion. But that can vary depending on the circumstances. In some situations, it may morally OK to kill but in other situations, it may not be morally OK to kill. But that is different from absolute morality that doesn't take any circumstances into consideration and it is always wrong to kill in all circumstances.

And I think that is what you are confusing with objective morality. An absolute morality does not deny objective morality.

Okay, if there is some standard of morality that exists apart from humans, then where is it? What is the source of this morality? Where does this concept of right and wrong come from?

And how can a concept be an objective fact?

 

[Kylie]

No that supports an objective morality to show the existence of God. God Himself allowed killing in some situations when was regarded as justified. So God could not have supported absolute morality where it is never justified to kill in certain relative situations. Remembering that God is all good and there is no evil in Him.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

But what I keep saying is maybe not you but most others who support subjective morality do "IMPOSE" their version of empathy and other morals onto others.

So? That doesn't mean it's not subjective.

I said morality is subjective. I never said that people will act as though their morality is subjective.

As you have agreed by not doing so is a subjective position then you must also agree that actually "IMPOSING" a person's moral position onto others is, therefore, taking an objective moral position. Why because when the person "IMPOSES" their morals onto others they are saying their morals are correct for others as well and they know they are correct for all. That's an objective position.

How do you even do that? How do I impose my morality on to someone else?

I mean, that's like someone trying to impose upon me the belief that Turkish Delight tastes good.

But you only know an angle is crooked when measuring it when you compare it to a straight line. If there are no straight lines then it would just be on its own like some strangely shaped thing. Say there was no water then the state of being dry would not be called dry but rather just a state of being that is always the same, whatever you want to call it. But when we add water to the equation and people can get wet we can now come up with the idea of dryness when compared to being wet and visa versa. There is now a state of dryness only because we have wetness.

No, I'm not comparing it to a straight line. I'm measuring the angle.

Yes, but haven't I kept trying to explain that people don't react like that. When they impose their moral view onto others they act objectively. I think you are not differentiating when people impose morality onto others that it has moved from a subjective position and that is causing the confusion. You are attributing objective behaviour to a subjective moral position without any substantiation.

People can behave as thought their subjective opinion is an objective fact even though it's still a subjective opinion.

Trust me, I've seen enough of the Kirk vs. Picard arguments to know this.

What you are missing or perhaps it is my explaining is that when I describe how subjective morality works in that it has no way of measuring things like empathy and hurt and I am doing this to show how people contradict themselves because with their morally lived experience. They impose their subjective moral values and meaning onto others. Or they attribute meaning and value to their subjective morals beyond their personal views.

First of all, a person can have empathy even if it's not objective.

Secondly, of course they're gonna contradict themselves. Because it's SUBJECTIVE. It's not set in stone! A person's views can change!

This is the morally lived experience I am talking about that supports there being objective morals. People claim subjective morality but act/react like there are objective morals and I have given ample examples.

And once more: People can act like their morality is objective, but that doesn't mean it really is objective. It just means they're acting like it is.

Where going in circles again. Surely you haven't forgotten the support I have already given. IE Morally lived experience points to there being objective morals (I have given ample examples). Observable reacts and actions of how individuals, organisations and even societies impose certain moral values on others.

I have already explained and you have agreed that under a subjective moral system the meaning and value of morals even when agreed on by groups of people are just personal opinions and has no justification for being imposed on others and denying others their different subjective moral positions.
Therefore people, organisations and societies are reacting and acting like there are objective morals.

The evidence is in their observed behaviour towards others and acknowledging that some things are always good or evil, right or wrong. Behaviours whether agreed or not cannot explain why something is morally right or wrong through sociobiological processes including likes and dislikes which are also subjective and say nothing about why something is right or wrong.

Therefore if subjective morality cannot determine right and wrong objectively yet people live like there are objective morals there must be some independent measure of morality. So all that has to be shown is that there must be some independent grounding for morality beyond humans at this stage. Like I said that doesn't have to be a particular God and as Sam Harris says could be done with science and he's an atheist. So even atheist support objective morality.

I will finish off the rest in another post
thanks steve.

But people DO act like that. The empathy one person feels is different to how the next person will feel it.

And ONCE MORE, people acting like their morals are objective doesn't mean the actually ARE objective. People act like subjective opinions are objective fact all the time.

 

[Kylie]

But there would be no such thing as 180 degrees if there were no crooked or bent lines. 180 degrees implies other degrees such as 45, 33 or 102 degrees which would be crooked to give 180 degrees its relevance. But remember there are no bent lines to compare with so, therefore, there is no such thing as 180 degrees.

I don't need a straight line to compare it to in order to measure it.

That's strange logic. It is objectively true that a cockroach will never be as tall as a human. You mentioned the average height. What is average. Say its 5' 6" for women and 6' for men. So anyone below these measures would be short and anyone above this would be taller than the average. You cannot subjectively have the view that an average short person is really taller than the average and visa versa. Those measures remain objective.

But you have missed the point. Are you saying there are no examples of how opposites or difference give contexts to each other like tall and short? I don't want to have to come up with more examples.

So when a child looks up at their dad who is only five foot eight and says, "Daddy, you're tall!" The dad's proper response is, "No I'm not! I'm four inches away from being tall! Stop talking nonsense!"

 

[Moral Orel]

Again you are trying to squirm out of it.

I'm sure we agree that executing her for this crime is morally wrong. Likewise, I'm sure we agree that rewarding her is also morally wrong. So what can I do to punish her that is NOT morally wrong?

Why do you guys still say "right" and "wrong"? Those are objective terms synonymous with "correct" and "incorrect". If morality is subjective, and I agree with you that it is, shouldn't you use subjective terms?

I think folks are conflating two different uses of the word "opinion". Morals are like the opinion that chocolate ice cream is good. But when you use "right" and "wrong" it sounds like you're making a guess, such as, "In my opinion, Trump is going to win the next presidential election". But see, in the second scenario, I would be making a guess about what will be an objective fact. Since morals are really akin to things like ice cream preference, isn't saying "good and bad" or "like and dislike" more appropriate? You certainly wouldn't say, "Chocolate ice cream is the right flavor of ice cream"; you would say, "Chocolate ice cream is a good flavor of ice cream".

It may sound like mere semantics, but I think clinging to objective terminology gives a mixed message, and I think it definitely adds to the difficulty in Steve seeing your point.

 

[Kylie]

Why do you guys still say "right" and "wrong"? Those are objective terms synonymous with "correct" and "incorrect". If morality is subjective, and I agree with you that it is, shouldn't you use subjective terms?

I think folks are conflating two different uses of the word "opinion". Morals are like the opinion that chocolate ice cream is good. But when you use "right" and "wrong" it sounds like you're making a guess, such as, "In my opinion, Trump is going to win the next presidential election". But see, in the second scenario, I would be making a guess about what will be an objective fact. Since morals are really akin to things like ice cream preference, isn't saying "good and bad" or "like and dislike" more appropriate? You certainly wouldn't say, "Chocolate ice cream is the right flavor of ice cream"; you would say, "Chocolate ice cream is a good flavor of ice cream".

It may sound like mere semantics, but I think clinging to objective terminology gives a mixed message, and I think it definitely adds to the difficulty in Steve seeing your point.

In this case, I'm using a technique in which I work from the assumption that the opposing point of view is true and then work through it until I get to a contradiction.

 

[stevevw]

Stop trying to get out of it.

OK so let's pretend you or I are the trolley driver so we can make it more realistic. You want us to not try anything and just choose to run over say the 1 person as that would be the best option. So we know we could try something else, our intuitions are nagging at us to try something else like pull the breaks, yell for the person to get off the track, tell someone to put a car on the track to stop the trolly, derail the trolley. But we ignore all that and just drive over the person. This is unreal as it just would not happen.

But hey let's go along with your scenario. As I said the best option would be to run over the 1 person than the five.

How is it a logical fallacy? Situations very much like this have actually happened.

Can you give an example. I cannot believe that no person in that situation would not try to avert the situation. From all the incidents I have seen I have never seen such a case. Even if the person driving the trolley didn't try something someone else would and use the examples above. If the trolley driver did nothing it is usually because they are in shock and have frozen up which is completely different from purposely driving into a person. They would be devasted and unconsolable which shows they knew they did something wrong.

and So tell me, if it's a logical fallacy, which one is it? Argument from incredulity? Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Which one?

Take your choice.

The most relevant is "Stacking the Deck" in your favor by ignoring examples that disprove your claim that there are no objective morals and listing only those examples that support your case. But also Faulty Analogy: Relying only on comparisons to prove a point rather than arguing deductively and inductively. One example that may show it is difficult to support objective morality doesn't prove your case as you still haven't produced a logical argument why there is no objective morality IE a (DEFEATER) of the logical argument I posted. Non Sequitur (literally, "It does not follow"): Just because you may get me to acknowledge on a complex and rare case that may show there are no objective morals doesn't follow there are no objective morals.

You are alleging that there are objective morals. I am asking you to apply them to this situation. And you are doing your best to squirm out of it.

I have now applied it to the situation so what has it proven. It certainly does not show that there are no objective morals. But like I said because you have had to revert to a rare, unreal, and complex example to even get one example and that there are many examples that show certain actions are always morally wrong it is more likely a logical fallacy.

Remember I only have to show one example that there are objective morals to prove there are objective morals.

 

[stevevw]

Why do you guys still say "right" and "wrong"? Those are objective terms synonymous with "correct" and "incorrect". If morality is subjective, and I agree with you that it is, shouldn't you use subjective terms?

I think folks are conflating two different uses of the word "opinion". Morals are like the opinion that chocolate ice cream is good. But when you use "right" and "wrong" it sounds like you're making a guess, such as, "In my opinion, Trump is going to win the next presidential election". But see, in the second scenario, I would be making a guess about what will be an objective fact. Since morals are really akin to things like ice cream preference, isn't saying "good and bad" or "like and dislike" more appropriate? You certainly wouldn't say, "Chocolate ice cream is the right flavor of ice cream"; you would say, "Chocolate ice cream is a good flavor of ice cream".

It may sound like mere semantics, but I think clinging to objective terminology gives a mixed message, and I think it definitely adds to the difficulty in Steve seeing your point.

I totally agree. But what we find from those who say they support subjective moral positions including individuals, organizations and even societies is that they label acts as right and wrong. This is what I have been trying to say for some time so I thank you for clearing this up.

 

[Moral Orel]

In this case, I'm using a technique in which I work from the assumption that the opposing point of view is true and then work through it until I get to a contradiction.

Oh, my mistake then maybe. I saw you say that you agree something is "wrong" and I didn't see that as hypothetical.

 

[Moral Orel]

I totally agree. But what we find from those who say they support subjective moral positions including individuals, organizations and even societies is that they label acts as right and wrong. This is what I have been trying to say for some time so I think you for clearing this up.

I don't. Maybe it's just habit / social engineering for those that do. Maybe that's the vernacular for talking about morality and it's totally appropriate, and I'm just a rebel, lol.

 

[Speedwell]

I totally agree. But what we find from those who say they support subjective moral positions including individuals, organizations and even societies is that they label acts as right and wrong. This is what I have been trying to say for some time so I thank you for clearing this up.

That a moral precept is widely, or even universally shared is not evidence that it is objective.

 

[Moral Orel]

That a moral precept is widely, or even universally shared is not evidence that it is objective.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that people widely talk about morals like they're objective even if they say that they're subjective. I think he does use that fact to promote the idea that we intuit objective morals, and I agree with you that isn't evidence for objective morality, but I agree with him that a lot of subjectivists talk about morals incorrectly for how they apply them.

 

[Ken-1122]

Why do you guys still say "right" and "wrong"? Those are objective terms synonymous with "correct" and "incorrect". If morality is subjective, and I agree with you that it is, shouldn't you use subjective terms?

Right and wrong is usually associated with (subjective) moral issues whereas correct and incorrect is usually associated with objective answers. Nobody would say killing somebody is incorrect, but they would say 1+1=2 is the correct answer.

 

[Ken-1122]

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that people widely talk about morals like they're objective even if they say that they're subjective.

Can you give an example?

 

[Kylie]

OK so let's pretend you or I are the trolley driver so we can make it more realistic. You want us to not try anything and just choose to run over say the 1 person as that would be the best option. So we know we could try something else, our intuitions are nagging at us to try something else like pull the breaks, yell for the person to get off the track, tell someone to put a car on the track to stop the trolly, derail the trolley. But we ignore all that and just drive over the person. This is unreal as it just would not happen.

But hey let's go along with your scenario. As I said the best option would be to run over the 1 person than the five.

I think you misunderstand what I am asking.

I am not asking you what you think I would choose, or what I think the best option is.

I am asking you to use the objective standards of morality that you claim exist to figure out the best course of action.

Can you give an example. I cannot believe that no person in that situation would not try to avert the situation. From all the incidents I have seen I have never seen such a case. Even if the person driving the trolley didn't try something someone else would and use the examples above. If the trolley driver did nothing it is usually because they are in shock and have frozen up which is completely different from purposely driving into a person. They would be devasted and unconsolable which shows they knew they did something wrong.

Well, there's the fact that autonomous vehicles (self-driving cars) will have to deal with this. If a pedestrian steps out in front of them, does the self driving car hit them or does it swerve into the next lane, hitting other cars and potentially causing a major accident in which people are killed? Self-Driving Cars Are Bringing The Trolley Problem Into The Real World

But apart from that, there was a real life incident in 2003. More than 30 railway freight cars came loose and were rushing towards Los Angeles. There was no way to stop them, and they were heading for the Union Pacific rail yards where a passenger train was thought to be. To avoid this, the shunters were told to redirect the cars onto Track 4, which lead through an area with lower density housing with mostly lower income residents. However, Track 4 was rated for only 15mph, and the runaway cars were traveling significantly faster. This would inevitably cause a derail. The train did derail and it crashed through several houses. Trolley problem - Wikipedia

And here's a report of the incident. https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-rel...fic_Rail_Accident_in_Commerce_California.aspx

There have also been experimental analogues to this problem. The Trolley Problem Has Been Tested In Real Life, And The Results Are Surprising

So again, I ask you, what (according to your objective morality) is the correct course of action? Is it morally better to take a direct action that kills one person, or is it morally better to not become a killer?

The most relevant is "Stacking the Deck" in your favor by ignoring examples that disprove your claim that there are no objective morals and listing only those examples that support your case.

Of course, you're guilty of this because you insist on using extreme examples, like saying murder or child abuse is wrong. As I've said before, if there really is an objective morality, then you should be able to demonstrate it with much less extreme examples.

But also Faulty Analogy: Relying only on comparisons to prove a point rather than arguing deductively and inductively. One example that may show it is difficult to support objective morality doesn't prove your case as you still haven't produced a logical argument why there is no objective morality IE a (DEFEATER) of the logical argument I posted. Non Sequitur (literally, "It does not follow"): Just because you may get me to acknowledge on a complex and rare case that may show there are no objective morals doesn't follow there are no objective morals.

Of course, you haven't followed a logical argument because you haven't shown where these objective standards are established. You've just assumed they exist and then try to fit the real world into your model.

I have now applied it to the situation so what has it proven.] It certainly does not show that there are no objective morals. But like I said because you have had to revert to a rare, unreal, and complex example to even get one example and that there are many examples that show certain actions are always morally wrong it is more likely a logical fallacy.

Remember I only have to show one example that there are objective morals to prove there are objective morals.

Nah, you haven't applied it. You just shown that most people would choose to take action to reduce the number of lives lost. That's consistent with what I've been saying, that people often share common moral ideas. It doesn't mean they are objective.

Now, here's a follow up question.

The one person who is killed is your spouse.

Do you still switch the trolley to the other track, knowing your spouse is now doomed to die? Or do you let five strangers die instead?

What does your obecjtive morality tell you about this case?

 

[Kylie]

Oh, my mistake then maybe. I saw you say that you agree something is "wrong" and I didn't see that as hypothetical.

Not a problem. I was asking Steve to use his objective morality idea to tell me what a morally acceptable punishment would be for my daughter if she stole $20 from my purse.

 

[Moral Orel]

Can you give an example?

When you say something like murder is subjectively wrong.

Right and wrong is usually associated with (subjective) moral issues whereas correct and incorrect is usually associated with objective answers.

I get that people use them that way. Steve, an objectivist, and I, a subjectivist, think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. If it's just an opinion, which it is, call it good or bad. Opinions aren't right or wrong.

Nobody would say killing somebody is incorrect, but they would say 1+1=2 is the correct answer.

You are saying that killing someone is incorrect if you're saying it's "wrong" though. When you say murder is subjectively wrong, you mean that you think I shouldn't. But why shouldn't I? Because you don't like it. So all you really mean is, "I think murder is bad and I wouldn't like it if you did it" and you're cloaking it in objective language of right and wrong. I'm going to cut and paste this next bit that you skipped over:

I think folks are conflating two different uses of the word "opinion". Morals are like the opinion that chocolate ice cream is good. But when you use "right" and "wrong" it sounds like you're making a guess, such as, "In my opinion, Trump is going to win the next presidential election". But see, in the second scenario, I would be making a guess about what will be an objective fact. Since morals are really akin to things like ice cream preference, isn't saying "good and bad" or "like and dislike" more appropriate? You certainly wouldn't say, "Chocolate ice cream is the right flavor of ice cream"; you would say, "Chocolate ice cream is a good flavor of ice cream".

 

[Ken-1122]

When you say something like murder is subjectively wrong.

Nobody talks that way. Nobody says murder is subjectively wrong, they say murder is wrong. The statement is subjective because it can’t be demonstrated, not because they used the word subjectively wrong.

I get that people use them that way. Steve, an objectivist, and I, a subjectivist, think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. If it's just an opinion, which it is, call it good or bad. Opinions aren't right or wrong.

Steve has a flawed idea of what it means for something to be objective. He erroneously believes when you say something is wrong regardless of opinion, that you are making an objective statement. I’ve even provided outside sources over and over that proves this belief wrong, yet he still clings on to it.

You are saying that killing someone is incorrect if you're saying it's "wrong" though.

No; incorrect is a wrong answer. Nobody says killing is incorrect; nobody speaks that way.

When you say murder is subjectively wrong, you mean that you think I shouldn't. But why shouldn't I? Because you don't like it. So all you really mean is, "I think murder is bad and I wouldn't like it if you did it" and you're cloaking it in objective language of right and wrong.

Right and wrong is not limited to objective language.

I'm going to cut and paste this next bit that you skipped over:

I think folks are conflating two different uses of the word "opinion". Morals are like the opinion that chocolate ice cream is good. But when you use "right" and "wrong" it sounds like you're making a guess, such as, "In my opinion, Trump is going to win the next presidential election".

No. When you say “in my opinion Trump will win” Because you made it clear you were just voicing your opinion, that is not the same as saying “X” is wrong.

But see, in the second scenario, I would be making a guess about what will be an objective fact. Since morals are really akin to things like ice cream preference, isn't saying "good and bad" or "like and dislike" more appropriate? You certainly wouldn't say, "Chocolate ice cream is the right flavor of ice cream"; you would say, "Chocolate ice cream is a good flavor of ice cream".

There is a big difference between morals and ice cream preferences. We don’t attach ethical judgments to ice cream flavors, ethical judgments are reserved for moral actions; I find it absurd to try to compare the two. Like/dislike is more appropriate for ice cream flavors, good/bad, right/wrong is appropriate for ethical judgments AKA morality.

 

[Moral Orel]

There is a big difference between morals and ice cream preferences.

Ahh.... Therein lies the problem. No there isn't. I feel more strongly about hating murder than I do about loving chocolate, but the intensity of my feelings is the only difference. Tell me why I shouldn't murder without ultimately appealing to emotion.

 

[stevevw]

"Evil" is a subjective judgement no matter how many people share it in any particular instance. It is not an ontological entity.

Once again there is a big difference between ideology and lived moral experience. People live, act and react like evil is a real thing in the universe and not some product of sociobiological processes.

The examples of people protesting against evil, wanting to stop evil and condemning an evil act do not show they don't like or think that act is out of fashion. They really react like it is an act or behaviour that should never be done or allowed and represents a definite wrong. They want the person who has done the act arrested, locked up and even put to death in some cases. This doesn't make sense if there is no real evil.

And we are trying to explain to you--without much success, apparently--why it does not. It is possible to believe that one moral precept is superior to another without requiring that it be objective.

OK, maybe I am not explaining things properly. You say it is possible to believe that one moral precept is superior to another without requiring it to be subjective. I agree with you and if that's all your explaining then I am not disputing this.

What you don't seem to be understanding is that believing in something is a personal thought you keep to yourself which is perfectly OK to do under subjective position. But that is different from applying, imposing or forcing other people to conform with your own beliefs about morality which is what most people do. That's when you are taking it from your personal thoughts to forcing others to follow your moral beliefs. In doing this you are now saying my morals are the only correct one and yours are not.

Apparently I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that we agreed with your argument in the previous paragraph. Of course, subjective morality says nothing about whether a moral precept is "really good or bad" (i.e., objective). It's a tautology.

At last, we are halfway. So if someone then takes their subjective moral position and imposes it on others by saying their subjective moral position is wrong and mine is right and you should follow mine isn't that now taking an objective position. Are they not saying my moral position is the only correct one and others should follow what I believe.