Where does morality come from?

[Kylie]

I have answered your version of the trolley scenario if you go back and read my reply.

Nah, you squirmed out of it by claiming it wasn't valid for various reasons which didn't hold up to scrutiny.

And doesn't determining right and wrong come down to whether a person is guilty or not of committing a moral wrong. Can they be blamed for it or were there mitigating circumstances? But if we look at your scenario we find that you have been changing things to make it more complicated as we go along. You said a driverless car can run over a person. I said that driverless cars will have automatic brakes. Then you said the car was going fast and the person dashed out from between parked cars almost in front of the driverless car. That changed the scenario.

That makes the pedestrian's role more complicit for who is responsible for any wrong. These factors are important as to who is to blame for any moral wrong. You seem to want to stack the deck in favor of ensuring the car hits the pedestrian but don't want to acknowledge that in doing that you are influencing the accountability for any moral wrong of each person.

Stop trying to move the goalposts.

Don't assign blame, show how the determination of what is right and wrong is made.

So what you are acknowledging is that there was mitigating circumstances and little time for anyone to avoid someone getting hurt. They were not intentionally directing the train into anyone. That makes a difference in culpability. That is a big difference to the original trolley scenario where the trolley driver made a conscious decision to run the single person down.

They intentionally sent the train into a housing area where they knew it would derail.

Stop trying to squirm out of it.

And if you read my last reply you would have seen my explanation IE
Either way, in your scenario someone is going to be killed. So better to kill one person than 5. Multiple killing is worse than a single killing.

That is not an explanation.

HOW do you determine this? You never say HOW.

Sorry, I'm getting a bit confused here. Weren't we talking about moral acts?

We are talking about concepts and ideas, not what people actually do.

I said I only have to show that objective morality exists once (1 moral act that is objective) to prove objective morality. Then you said I have to show that all moral acts are objective using the sheep analogy IE If I wanted to claim that all sheep are black, I can't just produce one black sheep and say it proves my point.
So if it is about morality as a whole why would I have to show each and every act is objectively moral as in each and every black sheep.

If you claim that ALL morality is objective, then you must show that each and every moral position is objective, because even a single example of morality that is subjective proves your point wrong.

This is not a difficult concept.

So what does all morality mean. Prove each moral act or morality as a whole.

Prove that there is an objective position in any moral situation.

And stop quibbling over wordplay. You're the one who's been claiming that all morality is objective, don't start pretending now that you don't know what it means.

Yes I know this form of argument. IE All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore, we can conclude Socrates is mortal. But that is not how we prove if something exists or not in the first place. I would only have to show 1 moral act is objective to show that objective morality exists. The same as if I said sheep exist. I only have to show you one sheep to support my claim. I will look into this more tomorrow as it's late and I am tired and may not be thinking straight.

Kind regards Steve.

Okay, so let's say you DO prove that one particular moral situation is objective. Then you've proven one situation. Congratulations.

But again, you misrepresent my position. I'm not asking you to prove that sheep exist, I'm asking you to prove your claim that ALL sheep have a particular quality. Showing me one sheep with that particular quality doesn't show that all sheep have that same quality.

 

[Moral Orel]

As you can see from the above definition, perception is the ability to experience things via your senses or of the mind. Since we are talking about morality, where do you think morality originates? from one of our 5 senses, or the mind.

Feelings are physical sensations, happiness, sadness, anger, dread, etc.

No, remember objective comes from non thought

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. "Comes from"? You said that you believe "Murder is wrong" to be correct, and "correct" refers to objective facts.

Do you really believe this stuff you are accusing me of?

There's a slim possibility that you're one of those rare humans that doesn't experience emotions, but you wouldn't be bothering to argue about morality if you were. Because I assume you have typical emotions, yes, I do believe you experience negative emotions in response to being treated unfairly like most primates do. Are you really telling me that you don't?

So tell me where exactly I'm wrong. You believe that "Murder is wrong" is correct. You justify this because you believe that "Treating people unfairly is wrong" is correct. That's what is implied by saying your justification is based on fairness. Why do you believe "Treating people unfairly is wrong" besides the fact that you experience negative emotions when you are treated unfairly and would prefer to be treated fairly?

 

[Moral Orel]

I'd extend it to, "I should not do this to that person because it would make me feel bad if someone did it to me, and I don't want to make the other person feel bad."

And why don't you want to make another person feel bad? I would hazard a guess that you have empathy, which means you would feel bad if you made someone else feel bad, right? So it still comes right back to, "I don't want to do this because it would make me feel bad".

 

[Moral Orel]

I thought under a secular worldview with subjective morality that a moral really gets its value from the group, the society who agree that an act is bad. Individually the view has little weight but as a group, it becomes more justified because of numbers agreeing. That's what subjectivists seem to use to explain how morality gets its value as opposed to objective morality independent of humans.

A moral gets it's value from the individual, it can get power from a group. If I like something, it has value to me. I don't need a group to cause me to like something, although social pressure can cause me to like something. I can like chocolate ice cream on a deserted island all by myself. If a lot of people like something, and therefore value it, then a lot of people can put forth more force for change than an individual.

 

[Moral Orel]

We are justified in believing that there are objective moral values 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.

This is known as "shifting the burden of proof". I don't know if someone else has already pointed it out. But saying, "It's true if no one proves me wrong" is a logical fallacy. And since I don't apprehend any objective moral values or duties, I don't know what you want me to say about my "moral experience".

 

[Kylie]

And why don't you want to make another person feel bad? I would hazard a guess that you have empathy, which means you would feel bad if you made someone else feel bad, right? So it still comes right back to, "I don't want to do this because it would make me feel bad".

I don't like feeling bad so I figure that other people don't like feeling bad. This is a perfectly justified assumption on my part, I think you would agree.

Your apparent hang up on using the words "correct" and "incorrect" seems to be one of those quibbling over wordplay things.

 

[Ken-1122]

Feelings are physical sensations, happiness, sadness, anger, dread, etc.

I said “senses” not feelings. Again; do you think morality originates from one of our 5 senses or the mind/thoughts?

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. "Comes from"?

Remember the definition of objective/subjective you provided? It said objective is having a reality independent of the mind (non thought); where as subjective is how it is perceived; not independent of the mind (thoughts). Your own definition agrees with me.

You said that you believe "Murder is wrong" to be correct, and "correct" refers to objective facts.

No; remember you asked me to quit using the term “right” to avoid confusion; to use correct instead? Well in this context, correct does not refer to objective facts.

There's a slim possibility that you're one of those rare humans that doesn't experience emotions, but you wouldn't be bothering to argue about morality if you were. Because I assume you have typical emotions, yes, I do believe you experience negative emotions in response to being treated unfairly like most primates do. Are you really telling me that you don't?

You said nothing about me being treated unfairly; you said when things are fair I feel good, when things are unfair, I feel bad. Again; I don’t.

So tell me where exactly I'm wrong. You believe that "Murder is wrong" is correct. You justify this because you believe that "Treating people unfairly is wrong" is correct. That's what is implied by saying your justification is based on fairness. Why do you believe "Treating people unfairly is wrong" besides the fact that you experience negative emotions when you are treated unfairly and would prefer to be treated fairly?

Where did you get the impression the entirety of my judging right vs wrong is based on fairness/unfairness?

 

[stevevw]

Science assumes that the universe as we know it had what might be called a beginning, but science does not assume that it was the beginning of material existence.

That doesn't make sense as the theories say that it was the beginning of space, time, and matter. Before that there was none.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I have another very important question to ask of everyone.

I am a firm believer in God and believe that morality is certainly derived from Him and Him alone... that being said, however, I'm wondering how a person would debate this with someone like an Atheist? Atheists do not believe in God, so telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.

If morality comes from God and God only, then there would obviously be no other answer to tell anyone who was asking since the truth is objective and not just some kind of malleable or subjective reality. But, even still, how would someone discuss this point with an Atheist who clearly does not believe in God and seems highly unlikely to cave in to the idea?

It’s unlikely you’ll convince an atheist there’s a God from this point. They’ll believe morality evolved for survival (although it usually works against survival) and will be blind to anything else.

 

[Moral Orel]

I said “senses” not feelings. Again; do you think morality originates from one of our 5 senses or the mind/thoughts?

Your feelings are part of your 5 senses, again, they are a physical sensation. The same sort of physical sensation you get when you touch something, that's why you feel them and they're called feelings.

Remember the definition of objective/subjective you provided? It said objective is having a reality independent of the mind (non thought); where as subjective is how it is perceived; not independent of the mind (thoughts). Your own definition agrees with me.

I don't remember the words "Comes from" in either of the definitions I provided. What does it mean to "come from non-thought"?

No; remember you asked me to quit using the term “right” to avoid confusion; to use correct instead? Well in this context, correct does not refer to objective facts.

Correct always refers to objective facts. I have no idea where you got the idea it possibly couldn't. You provided a definition for "correct" for Pete's sake. If "Murder is wrong" is correct, then "Murder is wrong" is true. There is no other way to parse that.

You said nothing about me being treated unfairly; you said when things are fair I feel good, when things are unfair, I feel bad. Again; I don’t.

You don't experience negative emotions when you're treated unfairly? That's really your claim? Am I speaking to one of a handful of people on the planet that doesn't experience emotions?

Where did you get the impression the entirety of my judging right vs wrong is based on fairness/unfairness?

I never said anything of the sort. We're talking about one specific moral truth you believe is correct.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't like feeling bad so I figure that other people don't like feeling bad. This is a perfectly justified assumption on my part, I think you would agree.

I do agree. That's how you know what behaviors of yours might cause someone to feel bad. And causing someone else to feel bad causes you to feel bad. So it's how you know what behaviors of yours will cause someone else to feel bad which in turn causes you to feel bad. So ultimately, it's how you know which behaviors of yours will cause you to feel bad.

Your apparent hang up on using the words "correct" and "incorrect" seems to be one of those quibbling over wordplay things.

Whether some thing is "correct" or "liked" is a world of difference in the nature of that thing. You disagree?

 

[Moral Orel]

No because there is no subjective morality involved at all. If someone says I want you to turn left at the next corner and then park that has nothing to do with subjective morality.

Doing what you "like" and "prefer" is what subjective morality is. The robber likes robbing so he robs, the teller likes living so she gives up the money, the robber likes people doing what he says so he waves a gun around.

That's drawing a longbow. The teller isn't being forced to rob a bank and nor does the robber think that he is forcing his morals about stealing onto anyone especially the teller.

He isn't forcing his love of stealing onto people, no. He likes for people to comply with his orders, subjective morality is all about "likes", that's what he's forcing onto others. Morals can differ depending on who the moral actors are to each other. Even under objective morality, a child should do as their parents say, a child should not do as a stranger says.

The robber doesn't feel good about robbing banks. They are in a desperate state, often fearful and anxious in putting themselves in a situation they know is wrong and dangerous.

Now you're just making stuff up.

The only moral behaviour in this situation is the bank robber stealing and the fact that they are using force and worried about getting caught shows that they know they are wrong.

The robber knows that other people don't like what he's doing and will attempt to force him to comply with what they like. Being afraid of consequences isn't the same thing as feeling guilty.

 

[stevevw]

Hey, you're the one who said it's objective. Don't start complaining now that you can't describe it objectively.
Ah, but you can't claim it's an objective 100% true fact, can you?

But that's not how people live. They live like the physical world they live in is real and that's the point of the logical argument. They don't act live they are a brain in a jar because they are acting like what they see is real. So we can be justified to think that our physical world is what it is.

No, we can't. If people had subjective values, the idea works just as well.

Just like above how people live like their physical world is real the same goes for our morally lived experience. People live like there are objective morals. They don't live like there are subjective morals. they really believe certain things are always right or wrong. That is why I have been spending time showing examples of how people live like there are objective morals. So they are justified to believe there are objective morals based on that lived experience.

That's not how it works. I don't need to prove that we ARE brains in a jar in order to show that we can't be sure we aren't brains in a jar. I just have to point out that there is no test that will objectively show that the brain in a jar idea is wrong.

That's not what I am saying. I am saying people act like they are no brains in a jar and that is the support for thinking they are not brains in a jar. They act like they are really at a computer typing like they and the computer are really there. The way they act is proof. And until there is evidence that shows we are not brains in a jar we are justified to continue to believe and act like what we see and do is all there is.

It is within US.
But we are all different. So the morality that is within ME is going to be different to the morality that is within YOU.
Hence morality is subjective.

When I say within us it is like a law. Like we all have a need for food through hunger. What food people like or dislike is what you call subjective. But the fact that we have a desire for food is the same for all. Apart from if you have a medical condition. But that's the same for moral right and wrong. If someone has a mental condition it will affect their ability to know right and wrong. But everyone has the inner knowledge of right and wrong.

Most people like living. That shared like that we all live is proof that like is objective.
Same exact logic you are using. If it works for you, then it works for me, and liking is objective.

But just like moral values that like doesn't determine if life itself is true or not. Liking life has nothing to do with whether life is objectively real or not. The same with liking a moral or not has nothing to do with whether it is objective or not.

And different people can hold different moral positions.
For example, some people can think that it's morally right for the state to execute a rapist, while other people can think that the same situation is morally wrong.

Yes that comes under subjective morality. But none of this is to do with whether that moral is objectively right or wrong. Just like some people may think chocolate cake tastes horrible and others like it. That says nothing about what chocolate cake is objectively horrible or not.

Is it moral to breed animals solely for the purpose of killing and eating them? Yes or no.

No because it is for food. If you don't eat you will die.

Except people can't.

But we can and people do. they say there are certain rights and wrongs that always stand despite subjective moral views. Like sexually abusing a child is wrong.

Why would I want to convince people to do that? Why would I want to force my morals on someone else?

people do it every day. I have given you examples. They will believe their moral position is right for everyone just like the UN thinks their human rights are right for everyone. Just like a company thinks their codes of conduct are right for everyone. Just like someone on social media or commenting on a forum thinks that certain morals are always right or wrong and tell others that what they did was wrong and they should not do that sometimes demanding they stop and have the same morals as normal people like them.

No you haven't. You've just SAID you;ve done it, but you haven't actually done it.

Yes,I have shown you this. The fact that all secular society supports subjective morality whenever they do what I just described with telling others they are wrong and should be more like them morally they are acting contradictory to their subjective moral position. They should not be condemning other people's moral positions and telling them to be more like them under subjective morality.

And that's perfectly explainable by subjective morality as well.

Yes to themselves but no telling others its wrong. they have their own beliefs about whether its right or wrong. Though it is hard to understand how a person one minute believes its wrong to steal one minute and then think its OK to steal the next. It sounds a bit unpredictable to me. They don't even know their own position at any one time. Would you trust someone in a position of trust like that?

God commanded soldiers to kill all the men and all the women who weren't virgins. But all the women who were still virgins, he told the soldiers to keep for themselves. Is that morally good?

God also killed the firstborn of all the Egyptians to make a point to Pharaoh. Was that morally good, killing babies for the crimes of another? [/quote] But what moral standard are you determining that any of this is wrong. Your subjective moral opinion. That cannot determine anything is really really wrong, can it? Plus you are stealing God's morals to want to judge it is wrong in the first place.

Surely all you;d have to do is prove that such objective morality exists.

Yes, that is one of the supports for God. If there is no God there is no objective morality. If there is no objective morality then there is no real right and wrong. Only personal opinion. That's, why people cannot claim something, is really wrong, like an act is really evil or another persons act is really wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Doing what you "like" and "prefer" is what subjective morality is. The robber likes robbing so he robs, the teller likes living so she gives up the money, the robber likes people doing what he says so he waves a gun around.

I understand your scenario. I just find it hard to make the connection between liking armed robbery and morality. I think most robbers know armed robbery is wrong so truthfully they would dislike armed robbery. They like the benefits of the robbery the money but I think they detest the method in getting that money.

I like my job and that's how I get my money. I would tell others that its a good job and that they should consider doing it. But a robber is not really going to like his job in that way. They live with a high risk of getting shot and ending up in jail. They have to look over their shoulders and this will cause them anxiety and stress which can cause other issues.

He isn't forcing his love of stealing onto people, no. He likes for people to comply with his orders, subjective morality is all about "likes", that's what he's forcing onto others.

But he isn't forcing his moral belief onto others. He is not saying to others that armed robbery is good and that they should abandon their beliefs that it isn't good and agree with him. That's the difference in that what you are talking about is not about subjective morality.

Morals can differ depending on who the moral actors are to each other. Even under objective morality, a child should do as their parents say, a child should not do as a stranger says.
Now you're just making stuff up.

But a child doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong and that's why their parents are their guardians in teaching them that. Strangers can teach them as well. They get their moral ideas from everything they see, another kid disobeying his parent, another parent disciplining their kid that they observe. Their teacher telling them something different about what is right and wrong. That is the nature of subjective morality.

The robber knows that other people don't like what he's doing and will attempt to force him to comply with what they like. Being afraid of consequences isn't the same thing as feeling guilty.

But if there is only subjective morality and everyone's own opinion of morality is correct then the teller should not try and force the robber to not rob. They should understand that the robbers "like"
of robbing are just a "like" and nothing to do with something being really wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

I understand your scenario. I just find it hard to make the connection between liking armed robbery and morality. I think most robbers know armed robbery is wrong so truthfully they would dislike armed robbery. They like the benefits of the robbery the money but I think they detest the method in getting that money.

I like my job and that's how I get my money. I would tell others that its a good job and that they should consider doing it. But a robber is not really going to like his job in that way. They live with a high risk of getting shot and ending up in jail. They have to look over their shoulders and this will cause them anxiety and stress which can cause other issues.

It can also be thrill-seeking behavior. The fear is exciting and fun, like sky-diving.

But he isn't forcing his moral belief onto others. He is not saying to others that armed robbery is good and that they should abandon their beliefs that it isn't good and agree with him. That's the difference in that what you are talking about is not about subjective morality.

He doesn't want other people to like robbing, that isn't what he's forcing on the teller.

But a child doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong and that's why their parents are their guardians in teaching them that. Strangers can teach them as well. They get their moral ideas from everything they see, another kid disobeying his parent, another parent disciplining their kid that they observe. Their teacher telling them something different about what is right and wrong. That is the nature of subjective morality.

The parent vs stranger scenario was to illustrate that depending on who is giving the child instructions, the child should act differently. I even assumed objective morality for the scenario so that it would be something we agree on. If a parent tells their child, "come with me", the child should go with them. If a stranger tells a child "come with me" the child should not go with them. Morals are different depending on who the moral actors are. I wasn't saying anything about where people get their morals.

So the thing being forced on the teller that the robber likes is doing what the robber says. Under subjective morality, morals are just "likes" so doing what the robber says is the moral being forced.

But if there is only subjective morality and everyone's own opinion of morality is correct then the teller should not try and force the robber to not rob. They should understand that the robbers "like"
of robbing are just a "like" and nothing to do with something being really wrong.

Under subjective morality there is no "should" but you keep telling me that "under subjective morality people should respect other people's likes and dislikes". The robber isn't incorrect to rob, the police aren't incorrect to try and stop him. It's just people doing what they want to do.

Let's try a different example. A positive one. Ralph likes giving to charity, Bob does not like giving to charity. Ralph convinces Bob that if he does give to charity, he'll feel a warm fuzzy feeling in his tummy that is very pleasant. Bob would like that feeling, so now he wants to give to charity to receive that warm fuzzy feeling. Ralph never once utters the word "should", but now they both prefer giving to charity as opposed to not giving to charity.

 

[stevevw]

Nah, you squirmed out of it by claiming it wasn't valid for various reasons which didn't hold up to scrutiny.

Gee do I have to do everything. Here is my answer from post #1566. You must have either missed it or dismissed it. You asked how To determined it was objective and I said. How is that not answering your question?
it would be more morally right to send the trolley down the track with the one person as there is less risk of killing more people. Either way, in your scenario someone is going to be killed. So better to kill one person that 5. Multiple killing is worse than a single killing.

Stop trying to move the goalposts.

Don't assign blame, show how the determination of what is right and wrong is made.

I have already done this. We are going around in circles again. First, for Christians, God's moral laws are the measuring stick for what is right and wrong. In every situation, there is an objective right and wrong that is outside human personal opinion. So in the situation, with the train, there had to be an objectively right or wrong thing to do associated with God's moral laws. This is similar to how any post-incident tribunal would have certain laws and standards to measure things.

The people deciding which way the train would go either done the right thing or not according to God's law in that situation. But you have to determine if a wrong was committed and what wrong was committed first. OK, I will leave it there as I can see you have continued the scenario below.

They intentionally sent the train into a housing area where they knew it would derail.

It appears there were poor work practices that caused the incident. I think there was a moral obligation/duty to ensure the safety of others so if poor work practices were the reason then a moral wrong to uphold human life has been committed in this situation. Sometimes an unrelated act can lead to harm and the death of another and the person is still accountable. The point is though under subjective morality none of this would matter as there is no real moral obligation and duty to uphold life.

Stop trying to squirm out of it.


That is not an explanation.

HOW do you determine this? You never say HOW.

It seems the trolley scenario has been criticized for exactly the things I was saying. That it is an unreal situation that forces humans to forgo all empathy and attempts to do everything they can to save human life and turns them into a mathematical calculation like a robot who must act a certain way which is not being a human. This criticism is from the same place you got your so-called real-life trolley example from WIKI.

Criticism
In a 2014 paper published in the Social and Personality Psychology Compass,[25] researchers criticized the use of the trolley problem, arguing, among other things, that the scenario it presents is too extreme and unconnected to real-life moral situations to be useful or educational.[59]

Brianna Rennix and Nathan J. Robinson of Current Affairs go even further and assert that the thought experiment is not only useless but downright detrimental to human psychology. The authors are opining that to make cold calculations about hypothetical situations in which every alternative will result in one or more gruesome deaths is to encourage a type of thinking that is devoid of human empathy and assumes a mandate to decide who lives or dies. They also question the premise of the scenario. "If I am forced against my will into a situation where people will die, and I have no ability to stop it, how is my choice a “moral” choice between meaningfully different options, as opposed to a horror show I’ve just been thrust into, in which I have no meaningful agency at all?"[60]
Trolley problem - Wikipedia

We are talking about concepts and ideas, not what people actually do.
If you claim that ALL morality is objective, then you must show that each and every moral position is objective, because even a single example of morality that is subjective proves your point wrong.

This is not a difficult concept.

Ah, I see now. But I am not claiming that all morality is objective. As I said earlier there can be both subjective and objective morality. I am only claiming that there is objective morality independent of humans. That I only have to show once.

Prove that there is an objective position in any moral situation.

That's a different proposition than proving if there is objective morality at all. You are right that all situations should have an objective moral position. But proving objective morality in all situations is not necessary for proving that objective morality exists. But we have been going through some individual situations and I have been giving individual situations where people take an objective position. That would take a much longer time to do.

And stop quibbling over wordplay. You're the one who's been claiming that all morality is objective, don't start pretending now that you don't know what it means.

No, your attributing ideas and words to me. I have not said that all morality is objective. I said that there is also subjective morality. So both objective and subjective morality can exist. I have also said that in any given situations there will always be an objective moral right or wrong. Or that morality can only be determined objectively. But you are twisting what I said by saying that all morality is objective. I don't deny that there is subjective morality.

Okay, so let's say you DO prove that one particular moral situation is objective. Then you've proven one situation. Congratulations.

Morals can not operate in isolation just like laws. They need a system of morals. So proving one objective moral means there are others within a system of objective moral values. IE proving that moral kindness is objective true also proves that unkindness is true. It also proves other moral values like generosity, justice, love, etc as they are derivatives of kindness. You cannot be objectively kind while having injustice or hate at the same time. That would negate kindness. So proving one moral value automatically supports a system of moral values.

But again, you misrepresent my position. I'm not asking you to prove that sheep exist, I'm asking you to prove your claim that ALL sheep have a particular quality. Showing me one sheep with that particular quality doesn't show that all sheep have that same quality.

But I am the one who made the claim that I only need to prove one objective moral to prove that objective morality exists. I never said anything about proving objective morality exists in every single situation. You turned it into that and changed the goalposts.

 

[stevevw]

It can also be thrill-seeking behavior. The fear is exciting and fun, like sky-diving.

But it doesn't mean anything is ultimately right or wrong. Basing right and wrong on feelings says nothing. A person can feel good about doing wrong or right. Forcing others based on that is an unreliable grounding of morals.

He doesn't want other people to like robbing, that isn't what he's forcing on the teller.

What are you trying to prove? That moral can be equivalent to likes or feelings. Similar to the Shemp example is that right.

The parent vs stranger scenario was to illustrate that depending on who is giving the child instructions, the child should act differently. I even assumed objective morality for the scenario so that it would be something we agree on. If a parent tells their child, "come with me", the child should go with them. If a stranger tells a child "come with me" the child should not go with them. Morals are different depending on who the moral actors are. I wasn't saying anything about where people get their morals.

But I don't think you are talking about morals here. How does determining whether a child should go with a parent or stranger have anything to do with morals. The child doesn't have a moral obligation to go with their parent in a moral sense. If they don't go with them it isn't morally wrong.

So the thing being forced on the teller that the robber likes is doing what the robber says. Under subjective morality, morals are just "likes" so doing what the robber says is the moral being forced.

I think I see what you are trying to say. That a person can still tell others what to do based on their likes or dislikes therefore that negates claims that people are acting like there are objective morals by imposing or forcing their moral values on others.

Under subjective morality there is no "should" but you keep telling me that "under subjective morality, people should respect other people's likes and dislikes". The robber isn't incorrect to rob, the police aren't incorrect to try and stop him. It's just people doing what they want to do.

Yes, but isn't the robber forcing the teller to do something a "should", you should go along with what I like or else. He is saying you should do what I do, what I want you to do. That is now taking an objective position.

Your situation isn't really about "likes and dislikes" as though everyone is living free and allowing everyone to freely choose to do whatever. There are "shoulds and "oughts" smuggled in when you say someone has to conform to your like. Even so, if you find a situation here or there that may show this that doesn't mean that primarily people are not acting like there is objective morality. When a person protests that rape is wrong or demands justice you cannot apply a "like" in those situations as they are full of "shoulds and oughts". Applying a 'like or dislike" is unjustified as a person could not demand that others not do something based on a "like". They cannot condemn a "like or dislike".

Let's try a different example. A positive one. Ralph likes giving to charity, Bob does not like giving to charity. Ralph convinces Bob that if he does give to charity, he'll feel a warm fuzzy feeling in his tummy that is very pleasant. Bob would like that feeling, so now he wants to give to charity to receive that warm fuzzy feeling. Ralph never once utters the word "should", but now they both prefer giving to charity as opposed to not giving to charity.

But none of that shows that it is really the right thing to do, thus morally right. In a different situation Ralph could say to Bob giving to charity sucks, You give up your money which could have been spent on a great fishing and hunting trip which will make us feel really good and relaxed. Let's not give our money away and keep it for ourselves so we can feel better about life. In another situation, a cult leader convinces his group that sex is something that expresses one's self and gives everyone a good feeling, and therefore it is good for children as well. This has actually happened.

 

[stevevw]

I do agree. That's how you know what behaviors of yours might cause someone to feel bad. And causing someone else to feel bad causes you to feel bad. So it's how you know what behaviors of yours will cause someone else to feel bad which in turn causes you to feel bad. So ultimately, it's how you know which behaviors of yours will cause you to feel bad.

But another person will not feel bad. They will not feel anything or even may feel successful or thrilled that they got away with something if it benefited them. It happens all the time. So none of this is a justified measure of morality. It is harder for a person to self-sacrifice and easier to be selfish and put self first. So if there is no ultimate moral accountability why should someone not look after themselves first if all there is only one short life and this world.

 

[Kylie]

I do agree. That's how you know what behaviors of yours might cause someone to feel bad. And causing someone else to feel bad causes you to feel bad. So it's how you know what behaviors of yours will cause someone else to feel bad which in turn causes you to feel bad. So ultimately, it's how you know which behaviors of yours will cause you to feel bad.

Whether some thing is "correct" or "liked" is a world of difference in the nature of that thing. You disagree?

As I've already said, saying that morals are "correct" or "incorrect" is applicable IF AND ONLY IF morality is objective.

 

[Kylie]

But that's not how people live. They live like the physical world they live in is real and that's the point of the logical argument. They don't act live they are a brain in a jar because they are acting like what they see is real. So we can be justified to think that our physical world is what it is.

Agreed, because we can measure what we perceive to be the real world, and we all get the same results, from the biggest things to the smallest things. From the most significant parts of the universe to the most insignificant parts. That's why we consider it to be objective.

If morality was objective, we should get the same absolute consistency of results, from the biggest moral quandaries to the smallest issues of morality. And yet we don't.

Just like above how people live like their physical world is real the same goes for our morally lived experience. People live like there are objective morals. They don't live like there are subjective morals. they really believe certain things are always right or wrong. That is why I have been spending time showing examples of how people live like there are objective morals. So they are justified to believe there are objective morals based on that lived experience.

People live as though there are objective morals. So what? The fact that people live like morality is objective doesn't mean it is objective. I've said this to you so many times I've lost count. Are you deliberately ignoring me?

When I say within us it is like a law. Like we all have a need for food through hunger. What food people like or dislike is what you call subjective. But the fact that we have a desire for food is the same for all. Apart from if you have a medical condition. But that's the same for moral right and wrong. If someone has a mental condition it will affect their ability to know right and wrong. But everyone has the inner knowledge of right and wrong.

Yes, and that inner sense of right and wrong is SUBJECTIVE.

But just like moral values that like doesn't determine if life itself is true or not. Liking life has nothing to do with whether life is objectively real or not. The same with liking a moral or not has nothing to do with whether it is objective or not.

So? Just because liking is subjective, doesn't follow that what is liked is objective.

Yes that comes under subjective morality. But none of this is to do with whether that moral is objectively right or wrong. Just like some people may think chocolate cake tastes horrible and others like it. That says nothing about what chocolate cake is objectively horrible or not.

Of course, the issue is how you define "horribleness."

In the same way, how do you define "rightness" when it comes to morality? Your response to the trolley problem seemed to suggest you think it's about saving the most no matter what. But how have you determined that is the best way to do it? You've NEVER explained your procedure for reaching those decisions.

No because it is for food. If you don't eat you will die.

There are plenty of people who eat just fine without killing animals to do so.

So given that we do not need to eat animals, is it moral to breed animals solely for the purpose of killing and eating them? Yes or no.

But we can and people do. they say there are certain rights and wrongs that always stand despite subjective moral views. Like sexually abusing a child is wrong.

And once again you are ignoring me. How many times have I told you that an idea does not become objective just because lots of people happen to share it?

people do it every day. I have given you examples. They will believe their moral position is right for everyone just like the UN thinks their human rights are right for everyone. Just like a company thinks their codes of conduct are right for everyone. Just like someone on social media or commenting on a forum thinks that certain morals are always right or wrong and tell others that what they did was wrong and they should not do that sometimes demanding they stop and have the same morals as normal people like them.

No, people are not capable of seeing things without seeing things through the lens of their own life.

Yes,I have shown you this. The fact that all secular society supports subjective morality whenever they do what I just described with telling others they are wrong and should be more like them morally they are acting contradictory to their subjective moral position. They should not be condemning other people's moral positions and telling them to be more like them under subjective morality.

That doesn't show what you claim it shows because that kind of behaviour is perfectly possible with subjective morality.

Yes to themselves but no telling others its wrong. they have their own beliefs about whether its right or wrong. Though it is hard to understand how a person one minute believes its wrong to steal one minute and then think its OK to steal the next. It sounds a bit unpredictable to me. They don't even know their own position at any one time. Would you trust someone in a position of trust like that?

Wow, I don't know how you figure this, but it's just wrong. Subjective morality does not mean people are going to change their opinions about morality every five minutes.

But what moral standard are you determining that any of this is wrong. Your subjective moral opinion. That cannot determine anything is really really wrong, can it? Plus you are stealing God's morals to want to judge it is wrong in the first place.

So killing babies is morally right, is it?

Yes, that is one of the supports for God. If there is no God there is no objective morality. If there is no objective morality then there is no real right and wrong. Only personal opinion. That's, why people cannot claim something, is really wrong, like an act is really evil or another persons act is really wrong.

And here we go.

You believe in God and so you think that if there is a God, there MUST be objective morality. And so you go out of your way to try to show there is an objective morality, even though you keep repeating things I've said are wrong.