Where does morality come from?

[Tinker Grey]

peeked

*piqued

 

[Kylie]

No I asked are you claiming that there is no one best thing to do in that situation. Then I asked what do you think is the best thing to do according to your subjective morality.

Well, I don't think that's what you were doing, because in your post 1672 you were just stating that it is always morally better to ensure fewer lives are taken.

But anyway, to answer your questions here.

I do not think there is an objectively correct thing to do in that situation. Other people may have different ideas, and we can't say that one is objectively better than another. We may disagree with a different idea, but we can't say OBJECTIVELY that theirs is better or worse than ours.

As to what I would do, I've already answered that.

So the question needs to be asked is there anyway under a subjective moral position that an alternative choice can be made that is morally good.

I don't know. But since morality is subjective, it depends on what a person means by "morally good."

How can two people determine a different objective moral for that situation when objective morality means there is only one best moral choice. If two different people get two different outcomes then that's subjective morality. They may claim its objective but that's a paradoxical claim.

Are you suggesting that if you have a situation and two people are observing, they will ALWAYS reach the same conclusion about what the morally correct thing is?

Because you cannot make the wrong choice morally, it doesn't matter. The only reason you would be hesitant is that you can't make up your mind which option you like taste-wise. Just like choosing a new pair of shoes. There is no moral right or wrong which shoes you pick.

No, that would only be the case if I had no morality at all. You really don't seem to have any understanding of what I'm trying to say.

I could explain it a bit more but I have this feeling you will say that it is unreal anyway. So I guess it is what it is and sometimes that is just how God is, beyond our comprehension.

That beyond our comprehension thing is, I've discovered, just another way of saying, "Stop asking hard questions, you'll just have to trust me."

OK if it happened today I would ignore/reject the idea as I would know it was not God that was saying this.

Once again, you squirm out of the question.

No, it is not always wrong to kill someone as I also said we can kill in situations like self-defense. It will depend on the situation. There will be an objectively right and wrong thing to do in each situation.

What about in the trolley problem? Is it morally right to take an action that results in one death if that same action will save five lives?

How do you avoid not killing in your trolley scenario. You have ensured that. The morally best thing to do would be to take a single person out if there was no choice. The difference with subjective morality is that it doesn't matter which option you choose. Though you said you would take out the single person which lines up with objective morality another person who says they would take out the 5 people is not wrong either under subjective morality.

So you again agree that an action that results in one death is morally good if it results in five lives saved?

Yes, but don't you agree that it is important to figure out if the person in charge of controlling the tracks is fully responsible for what happened first before putting the entire moral wrong on him. Didn't the person who did not hook the train carriage up properly cause the problem in the first place which put the track controller in a difficult no-win situation. Doesn't that count in reducing his culpability.

They are fully responsible for deciding if they switch the tracks or not, yes?

But I am not the one complaining. There have been psychological assessments made of the "Trolley Thought Experiment and papers were written showing it is unreal and damaging to use to teach ethics. Mainly because it denied human agency which is an important fact in real-life situations.

How can you say it is unreal when it has actually happened in real life? I even showed you the specific example, for crying out loud! Stop saying it's not relevant to real life situations when it's actually happened as a real life situation!

So your saying people are not allowed to try and save people in these real-life situations.

No, I'm saying you are trying to squirm out of it by claiming it doesn't apply to real life when I've not only shown you how it is affecting the development of driverless cars, but also shown you a real life example of it actually happening!

But you do agree that a person can have a subjective view about something objective like the Flat earthers.

Yes.

But this is different. I'm not trying to justify a particular subjective viewpoint. I'm justifying that my objective viewpoint that "morality is subjective" is true.

Of course, it is only natural that people filter everything through their senses and have personal views on things. They will debate and reason about what is the correct interpretation of things. But the point this is usually details about things like creation, the historical accuracy of stories in the Gospels, revelations, etc. But mostly Christ's teachings are clear and no one can really dispute this. That's why God sent Christ to make it clear which way it is to God.

If it really was as clear as you say, firstly God wouldn't have needed to have Jesus make it clear, since it would have already been clear in the first place. Secondly, we wouldn't have all these different moral viewpoints among Christians today.

No I gave an objective moral for the Trolley problem as you presented it. Any complicated solutions are not solutions but the real human behavior that should be included in the scenario. Even Nonreligious people who support subjective morality agree with this. Objective morality can accommodate any situation because as I said there is always an objective moral beyond human views for each and every situation regardless of how it changes.

Again, all you are doing is making claims. You have not backed them up.

I did remember IE
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 can be summed up by philosopher and atheist Louise Anthony
Any argument from moral skepticism is going to be based on premises that are going to be less obvious than the reality of objective morals values themselves.

So what is the defeater that our lived experience which tells us that certain moral wrongs are always wrong can show that this is totally unreliable and that there are no objective morals whatsoever?

So lemme get this straight.

You assume that morality is objective because people act like it is, and then claim I am the one who must prove you wrong, despite the fact that you are the one who has made the claim and all I'm asking you to do is prove it? Burden of proof is on you, m'bucko, and you are the one who needs to provide evidence to support it. No more of just making claims.

You forgot the fun part. Humm that's a tricky one. Not sure what I would do in that situation. How does someone abuse the child for fun when they're being forced.

Let's say that the person who is being told to abuse the kid is already a child abuser and they're happy to do it. Should they be congratulated for saving those 1000 people?

Funny how it has to be so strangely extreme to prove a point. If there were no objective morals couldn't you show this in real everyday situations? Can you give me a real-life example like you did for the Trolley Problem?

You're the one who made it extreme when you demanded I give an example of how child abuse could be moral.

But how do you know that objective morality cannot be found?

Because there are plenty of moral issues about which people disagree completely.

 

[Kylie]

We are justified in believing (that objective moral values 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

In other words, you assume that morality is objective simply because people act like it is objective.

As I've said before, people can act like their subjective opinions are objective. In particular, you can't claim moral objectivity on the basis of people's EXPERIENCES, which byu definition, are SUBJECTIVE. Your argument is not sufficient to show that morality is objective.

 

[Ken-1122]

I told you your morality is based on likes and preferences and emotions. You justified your belief that "murder is wrong", eventually, with likes and preferences and emotions. I said, "Gee, that's what I said your reasoning ultimately is" and you responded directly to that quote with, "And what's wrong with that?".

Not quite. I maintained morality was based on judgment. You Initially you said my morality was based on following my feelings and that’s never been a good way to arrive at true things.
Then you went to explain how feelings are likes, preferences, and emotions. Eventually I asked “what’s wrong with that” you said nothing. Are you still maintaining what you said about me following my feelings?

We got down to the brute facts.

Ken likes X.
Ken prefers X.
Not X causes Ken to feel negative feelings.

Those are objective facts. The only objective facts you have to ultimately justify your position on any given moral. We did the big one, "Murder is wrong".

“Murder is wrong” is a subjective claim; not an objective one. You keep claiming to believe morality is subjective yet you claim murder to be an objective moral issue. Which is it?

 

[Moral Orel]

Not quite. I maintained morality was based on judgment. You Initially you said my morality was based on following my feelings

I never stopped saying it. The last time I said it, you replied, "What's wrong with that?"

Then you went to explain how feelings are likes, preferences, and emotions. Eventually I asked “what’s wrong with that” you said nothing.

No. Look at what you quoted when you asked me "What's wrong with that?"

Are you still maintaining what you said about me following my feelings?

Yep. You justified your moral with them when we got down to brass tax, so there ya go.

“Murder is wrong” is a subjective claim; not an objective one. You keep claiming to believe morality is subjective yet you claim murder to be an objective moral issue. Which is it?

I never said "Murder is wrong" was objective. Stop making things up. You lost, get over it.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

What training in science do you have that scientific discovery is based on faith? The very nature of the scientific method works to eliminate faith.

Everyone (honest ones) who writes a grant BELIEVES their research will lead to advances in knowledge or at least understanding. They cannot know as it’s supposed to be a new project in some (usually small) way. No one writes a grant to get money to pursue a facet we already know everything about. This is faith. They do not KNOW ALL OUTCOMES.

 

[Ken-1122]

I never stopped saying it. The last time I said it, you replied, "What's wrong with that?"

No. Look at what you quoted when you asked me "What's wrong with that?"

I’m talking about when you said my morality was based on following my feelings and that’s never been a good way to arrive at true things. That's what I objected to, so tell me why that’s never been a good way to arrive at true things.

I never said "Murder is wrong" was objective. Stop making things up. You lost, get over it.

I’ll admit I made a mistake on that one. You didn't say murder was wrong, you said Ken likes X, Ken prefers X, Not X causes Ken to feel negative feelings.

That is what you claimed was objective; it is not.

 

[Moral Orel]

I’m talking about when you said my morality was based on following my feelings and that’s never been a good way to arrive at true things. That's what I objected to, so tell me why that’s never been a good way to arrive at true things.

You explained that those things are ultimately your justification for how you judge right and wrong. Now you want to ask why they're bad at discovering truths, which morals are not...

I’ll admit I made a mistake on that one. You didn't say murder was wrong, you said Ken likes X, Ken prefers X, Not X causes Ken to feel negative feelings.

That is what you claimed was objective; it is not.

Still wrong. I said "Ken likes X", "Ken prefers X", and "Not X causes Ken to feel negative feelings" are objective facts. For instance, I like chocolate ice cream. It is an objective fact that I like chocolate ice cream. So as long as we replace X with something you actually like, it is an objective fact. We can state some objective facts about things of a subjective nature, you get that right?

 

[Ken-1122]

You explained that those things are ultimately your justification for how you judge right and wrong. Now you want to ask why they're bad at discovering truths, which morals are not...

You said it has never been a good way to arrive at true things. Those were your words; not mine. Again; I’m asking you to explain your words.

Still wrong. I said "Ken likes X", "Ken prefers X", and "Not X causes Ken to feel negative feelings" are objective facts. For instance, I like chocolate ice cream. It is an objective fact that I like chocolate ice cream. So as long as we replace X with something you actually like, it is an objective fact. We can state some objective facts about things of a subjective nature, you get that right?

Subjective:
(adjective)
Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
I hate to break it to ya but Ken likes X, Ken prefers X are influenced by my personal feelings, tastes, or opinions IOW Subjective. If you disagree, perhaps you can provide objective proof that you actually like chocolate Ice Cream.

 

[Moral Orel]

You said it has never been a good way to arrive at true things. Those were your words; not mine. Again; I’m asking you to explain your words.

I smell a red herring. You'll have to convince me that it's pertinent.

Subjective:
(adjective)
Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
I hate to break it to ya but Ken likes X, Ken prefers X are influenced by my personal feelings, tastes, or opinions IOW Subjective. If you disagree, perhaps you can provide objective proof that you actually like chocolate Ice Cream.

lol What I like is based on and influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. That I like something is based on the fact that it causes dopamine to be released in my brain.

 

[Ken-1122]

I smell a red herring. You'll have to convince me that it's pertinent.

This was the main thing I disagreed with you on. Tap-out bruh you got choked out on this one! Let’s go to the next one.

lol What I like is based on and influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. That I like something is based on the fact that it causes dopamine to be released in my brain.

Lots of things causes dopamine to be released in the brain. Prove the dopamine release is the result of Chocolate Ice Cream instead of Cocaine, or just getting excited.

 

[Kylie]

Everyone (honest ones) who writes a grant BELIEVES their research will lead to advances in knowledge or at least understanding. They cannot know as it’s supposed to be a new project in some (usually small) way. No one writes a grant to get money to pursue a facet we already know everything about. This is faith. They do not KNOW ALL OUTCOMES.

You know there's a lot more to science that writing grant proposals, right?

And a grant proposal isn't, "Give me some money, and I'll go and find evidence to support this particular conclusion for you."

 

[stevevw]

Well, I don't think that's what you were doing, because in your post 1672 you were just stating that it is always morally better to ensure fewer lives are taken.

But anyway, to answer your questions here.

I do not think there is an objectively correct thing to do in that situation. Other people may have different ideas, and we can't say that one is objectively better than another. We may disagree with a different idea, but we can't say OBJECTIVELY that theirs is better or worse than ours.

As to what I would do, I've already answered that.

So you have said that it is better to go down the track with a single person on it. What would be the other possible subjective moral positions people could have.

I don't know. But since morality is subjective, it depends on what a person means by "morally good."

So morally good would be up to the individual's own views of what is morally good. What I was saying in the trolley situation it is either run down 1 person or run down 5 people. As it can easily be shown that running down 1 person is the best option how can you say that the only other subjective position in running down 5 people is really morally good.

Are you suggesting that if you have a situation and two people are observing, they will ALWAYS reach the same conclusion about what the morally correct thing is?

Yes of course if they both support objective morality. It would not be objective morality if they had different views.

No, that would only be the case if I had no morality at all. You really don't seem to have any understanding of what I'm trying to say.

I am not saying that you have no morals but that you have more than one moral view to take under subjective morality and none are ultimately right or wrong.

So, though you have a particular subjective moral view about the situation you could theoretically choose another moral view without any comebacks. In that case, you don't need to stress over which view to choose because there is no right or wrong answer ultimately apart from deciding which one you like best.

That beyond our comprehension thing is, I've discovered, just another way of saying, "Stop asking hard questions, you'll just have to trust me."

I don't mind you asking the hard questions. I just cannot answer it. Not because it's too hard to answer but because I don't know the answer. Sometimes we just don't know.

Once again, you squirm out of the question.

Are you saying I must pretend that God is really asking me to kill someone? Like God's voice through a cloud or just a voice in my head? lol.

What about in the trolley problem? Is it morally right to take an action that results in one death if that same action will save five lives?

yes, it is the objectively right thing to do only if that is the situation. But you have made an unreal situation, so I must answer that unreal situation.

But unlike subjective morality, any alternative views like going down the track with 5 people, taking out old people old rather than young, taking out someone because you don't like them, because they are a particular ethnic group or because they have red hair, etc. are not allowed. Whereas under subjective morality, all these options are allowed.

They are fully responsible for deciding if they switch the tracks or not, yes?

Yes and does the person who didn’t hook the carriage up properly bear any responsibility for what happened.

The findings from the inquiry found that the cause was not the person switching the tracks but the lack of proper uncoupling of the carriages.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the derailment of the runaway cars in City of Commerce, California, was the failure of both the inbound train crew and the switching crew to properly secure the railcars as required by Union Pacific operating rules before the airbrakes were released on the cars. Contributing to the accident was the failure of the Union Pacific Railroad to enforce the application of its operating rules for securing freight equipment before locomotives are uncoupled.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAB0403.pdf

As the incident report showed that the Corridor Manager and Chief Dispatcher only had seconds to determine which way to go by the time they were told there were houses on track 4. They had no alternative or time to choose which way to go. They were put in that situation by the crew which allowed the carriages to get loose.

How can you say it is unreal when it has actually happened in real life? I even showed you the specific example, for crying out loud! Stop saying it's not relevant to real life situations when it's actually happened as a real life situation!

But the carriage example is different. Someone else besides the driver of the carriage caused it to be out of control. They didn’t hook it up properly.

No, I'm saying you are trying to squirm out of it by claiming it doesn't apply to real life when I've not only shown you how it is affecting the development of driverless cars, but also shown you a real life example of it actually happening!

OK so you need to tell me if these factors reduce the driver's accountability of running down the pedestrian and killing them.
1) No one drives driverless cars
2) Driverless cars have automatic breaks which will stop the car before anyone is hit.
3) The pedestrian ran out in front of the car from between parked cars making it hard for anyone to see them.
These questions would be asked in any inquiry about the incident.

Yes. But this is different. I'm not trying to justify a particular subjective viewpoint. I'm justifying that my objective viewpoint that "morality is subjective" is true.

Huh, that doesn’t make sense. How can you have an objective viewpoint that morality is subjective? That would mean you know that your viewpoint is ultimately right that there is no objective morality. To know that you would have to know that every moral situation that has ever happened in the world has never been objective.

But I cannot see what this has got to do with the possibility that a subjective and objective moral view can exist at the same time. Plus remember I am only trying to prove that objective morality exists and that I only need to show it exists one. I am not trying to prove that objective morality exists in every single situation. I don’t need to do that to prove objective morality exists period.

If it really was as clear as you say, firstly God wouldn't have needed to have Jesus make it clear, since it would have already been clear in the first place. Secondly, we wouldn't have all these different moral viewpoints among Christians today.

Yeah there is a bit more to it than that. Christ was also a fulfillment of a New Covenant which needed to be made and could only be done by Christ coming to us. That New Covenant completes God's plan and creates a way to God. That’s why Christ says I am the way, the truth, and the life and no one can come to God unless through me.

So, looking at Christ's teachings and example of His life shows us how to live to get into heaven but also by accepting what He says gives us the power to overcome sin. Christ was God on earth and that helped ensure we knew the way as it was a flesh example before our eyes just like someone showing you by example what to do but also proving we could do it with his help.

So lemme get this straight.

You assume that morality is objective because people act like it is, and then claim I am the one who must prove you wrong, despite the fact that you are the one who has made the claim and all I'm asking you to do is prove it? Burden of proof is on you, m'bucko, and you are the one who needs to provide evidence to support it. No more of just making claims.

The proof is that we know that certain things are always wrong despite subjective morality. The only way a person can prove objective morals is by lived experience which I have already supplied. To make it simple do you believe that there are certain morally wrong acts (evil acts) that are never morally right to do regardless of someone’s subjective moral opinion.

Let's say that the person who is being told to abuse the kid is already a child abuser and they're happy to do it. Should they be congratulated for saving those 1000 people?

So, you're posing the idea that as a moral society that condemns pedophilia, we must now support pedophilia by getting a pedophile to abuse an innocent child. It is never right to abuse a child and asking a pedophile to do such an evil act makes society complicit and degrade us as a society.

It is not the person or society that is at fault if the terrorist kills 1000 people but the terrorist. It is them that decide and their hand that pushes the button on the bomb. If we started to give in to people who demand such things, we would slip into a sick society and this type of act would be commonplace. Give into one and then others do the same. It would affect our psyche as a community and cause much more harm than any terrorist act.

You're the one who made it extreme when you demanded I give an example of how child abuse could be moral.

Unlike the sick make-believe example to prove a point sexual child abuse is a reality of modern-day society as we have seen with the recent Royal Commission. But I have yet to see a real-life example of society asking a pedophile busted by that Royal Commission to sexually abuse a child on their behalf because of a threat to bomb a 1000 people. It's just wrong on every level.

Because there are plenty of moral issues about which people disagree completely.

But that doesn’t prove anything. You would have to know that every moral situation in the universe was not morally objective.

 

[Moral Orel]

This was the main thing I disagreed with you on. Tap-out bruh you got choked out on this one! Let’s go to the next one.

The main thing you disagreed with me on was that I knew what your moral judging process was all along. Turns out I was right, so you want to follow this red herring of a tangential point to distract from it. I won't fall for your red herring, and you call that tapping out. Go ahead, I don't care. I was correct about how you judge morals, that's all I care about.

When you say, "Such and such is right" all you're really saying is that you like it, you prefer it, and you would experience negative emotions if it wasn't so and positive emotions if it is so. When you say, "Such and such is wrong" all you're really saying is that you dislike it, you prefer to not have it, and you would experience negative emotions if it was so and positive emotions if it was not so. You want to use the words "right" and "wrong" because you want to draw an arbitrary distinction between things like chocolate ice cream and murder. Because I am correct about all of these things, I won the thread. Go ahead and think you're a winner because I won't fall for a red herring.

Lots of things causes dopamine to be released in the brain. Prove the dopamine release is the result of Chocolate Ice Cream instead of Cocaine, or just getting excited.

People like chocolate ice cream because it causes dopamine to be released, people like cocaine because it causes dopamine to be released. Feelings, like feeling excited, comes as a result of the sensation of chemicals being released in the brain. Feelings don't cause the chemical release, gee whiz man. You like things that are associated with the dopamine release. That's why you like chocolate ice cream, cocaine, and feeling excited.

How much do you know about behavioral psychology and neurology that you think you're equipped to argue with me about this? I do know quite a bit about behavioral psychology, though I don't know a ton about neurology, I clearly know far more than you.

If dopamine is released in my brain after eating chocolate ice cream, and I haven't had any cocaine, then cocaine didn't cause the dopamine. If dopamine is released every time I eat chocolate ice cream, then chocolate ice cream causes a dopamine release.

 

[Ken-1122]

When you say, "Such and such is right" all you're really saying is that you like it, you prefer it, and you would experience negative emotions if it wasn't so and positive emotions if it is so. When you say, "Such and such is wrong" all you're really saying is that you dislike it, you prefer to not have it, and you would experience negative emotions if it was so and positive emotions if it was not so.

Not true. There are times when I prefer not to do what is right; where as if I did what I know is wrong it would be to my advantage, and that would make me feel better.

People like chocolate ice cream because it causes dopamine to be released, people like cocaine because it causes dopamine to be released. Feelings, like feeling excited, comes as a result of the sensation of chemicals being released in the brain. Feelings don't cause the chemical release, gee whiz man. You like things that are associated with the dopamine release. That's why you like chocolate ice cream, cocaine, and feeling excited.

It's not about you, it's about me, and what I like, what I prefer, what causes me to have negative feelings is subjective not objective.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's not about you, it's about me, and what I like, what I prefer, what causes me to have negative feelings is subjective not objective.

Again, what you like is subjective, that you like it is an objective fact. Come on man, try to keep up.

Chocolate ice cream is good. <--Subjective
I like chocolate ice cream. <--Objective

More distractions from the fact that I was correct about this:

When you say, "Such and such is right" all you're really saying is that you like it, you prefer it, and you would experience negative emotions if it wasn't so and positive emotions if it is so. When you say, "Such and such is wrong" all you're really saying is that you dislike it, you prefer to not have it, and you would experience negative emotions if it was so and positive emotions if it was not so. You want to use the words "right" and "wrong" because you want to draw an arbitrary distinction between things like chocolate ice cream and murder. Because I am correct about all of these things, I won the thread.​

What else matters after acknowledging I was right all along about this? Is anything more important than the very nature of what you actually mean when you praise or condemn some behavior? Nope. You should really bow out now instead of trying to cling to some scraps of something you'd have to fabricate me being incorrect about if you want to save some face. After losing the debate over the nature of morality, you're not going to score any points now. After I beat you so soundly over the huge topic of morality, you really think you can beat me now over these minor pittances?

 

[Kylie]

So you have said that it is better to go down the track with a single person on it. What would be the other possible subjective moral positions people could have.

Some people would say that they will NEVER take an action which would take a life, and so if they are true to that, then they'll take no action.

So morally good would be up to the individual's own views of what is morally good. What I was saying in the trolley situation it is either run down 1 person or run down 5 people. As it can easily be shown that running down 1 person is the best option how can you say that the only other subjective position in running down 5 people is really morally good.

Two problems here. This is a binary situation. Either the trolley is diverted or not. Also, once again, the fact most people would do the same thing does not make it objective.

Yes of course if they both support objective morality. It would not be objective morality if they had different views.

Then why doesn't it happen? Why do we see such differing views about things like the death penalty or marriage equality if there really is an objective moral position on these things?

I am not saying that you have no morals but that you have more than one moral view to take under subjective morality and none are ultimately right or wrong.

So, though you have a particular subjective moral view about the situation you could theoretically choose another moral view without any comebacks. In that case, you don't need to stress over which view to choose because there is no right or wrong answer ultimately apart from deciding which one you like best.

So? I make a decision based on my own subjective morality. That doesn't mean I see both options as equal, and it doesn't mean I won't find it a difficult choice.

Why are you confused by this?

Are you saying I must pretend that God is really asking me to kill someone? Like God's voice through a cloud or just a voice in my head? lol.

Then let me put it as simply as I can.

You are told by some entity which is God (not claiming to be God but actually IS God, and you are utterly convinced that it is God) that you are required to kill a particular person.

Would you do it or not?

yes, it is the objectively right thing to do only if that is the situation. But you have made an unreal situation, so I must answer that unreal situation.

You keep saying it's an unreal situation. Once again, I will point out that this issue is one that is facing the people developing driverless cars. It has also ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Your claim that it is unreal is demonstrably false, and your continued insistence that it is unreal only serves to show you are ignoring me. If you continue to ignore what I say, I don't see how a rational discussion is possible with you.

But unlike subjective morality, any alternative views like going down the track with 5 people, taking out old people old rather than young, taking out someone because you don't like them, because they are a particular ethnic group or because they have red hair, etc. are not allowed. Whereas under subjective morality, all these options are allowed.

So your objective morality tells you that it is better to kill a five year old rather than 5 ninety year olds?

Yes and does the person who didn’t hook the carriage up properly bear any responsibility for what happened.

The findings from the inquiry found that the cause was not the person switching the tracks but the lack of proper uncoupling of the carriages.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the derailment of the runaway cars in City of Commerce, California, was the failure of both the inbound train crew and the switching crew to properly secure the railcars as required by Union Pacific operating rules before the airbrakes were released on the cars. Contributing to the accident was the failure of the Union Pacific Railroad to enforce the application of its operating rules for securing freight equipment before locomotives are uncoupled.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAB0403.pdf

As the incident report showed that the Corridor Manager and Chief Dispatcher only had seconds to determine which way to go by the time they were told there were houses on track 4. They had no alternative or time to choose which way to go. They were put in that situation by the crew which allowed the carriages to get loose.

So what? Someone was still being faced with the trolley problem. What set the events in motion does not change the fact that SOMEONE had to make the decision whether to reroute or not.

But the carriage example is different. Someone else besides the driver of the carriage caused it to be out of control. They didn’t hook it up properly.

Again, what set the events in motion does not change the fact that SOMEONE had to make the decision whether to reroute or not.

OK so you need to tell me if these factors reduce the driver's accountability of running down the pedestrian and killing them.
1) No one drives driverless cars
2) Driverless cars have automatic breaks which will stop the car before anyone is hit.
3) The pedestrian ran out in front of the car from between parked cars making it hard for anyone to see them.
These questions would be asked in any inquiry about the incident.

1. But there are people responsible for controlling what actions the car will take. The only difference is that the person who programs the control software of the car must do so in anticipation of the situation. But the same choice must be made.

2. And trains have brakes that are set to come on in emergencies as well. Also, brakes can fail. And brakes don't stop the vehicle instantly. The vehicle will move some distance after the brakes are applied before it comes to a stop.

3. But once the pedestrian was detected, the decision still had to be made.

Huh, that doesn’t make sense. How can you have an objective viewpoint that morality is subjective? That would mean you know that your viewpoint is ultimately right that there is no objective morality. To know that you would have to know that every moral situation that has ever happened in the world has never been objective.

I think Star Trek is better than Star Wars. My preference for Star Trek over Star Wars is subjective, but the fact that I prefer Star Trek is objective.

Star Trek is better than Star Wars = Subjective statement.

Kylie thinks Star Trek is better than Star Wars = Objective statement.

But I cannot see what this has got to do with the possibility that a subjective and objective moral view can exist at the same time. Plus remember I am only trying to prove that objective morality exists and that I only need to show it exists one. I am not trying to prove that objective morality exists in every single situation. I don’t need to do that to prove objective morality exists period.

Is there an objective morality that applies to every single moral situation?

The proof is that we know that certain things are always wrong despite subjective morality. The only way a person can prove objective morals is by lived experience which I have already supplied. To make it simple do you believe that there are certain morally wrong acts (evil acts) that are never morally right to do regardless of someone’s subjective moral opinion.

Once again you are repeating arguments which I have already disproved.

Your lived experience argument is wrong because lived experiences are SUBJECTIVE, and you can't prove objective fact with subjective opinion.

And I can't answer your question because I can only respond from my own subjective view of morality. There are things that I believe are morally wrong and I could never support. But that doesn't mean that they are objectively wrong.

So, you're posing the idea that as a moral society that condemns pedophilia, we must now support pedophilia by getting a pedophile to abuse an innocent child. It is never right to abuse a child and asking a pedophile to do such an evil act makes society complicit and degrade us as a society.

It is not the person or society that is at fault if the terrorist kills 1000 people but the terrorist. It is them that decide and their hand that pushes the button on the bomb. If we started to give in to people who demand such things, we would slip into a sick society and this type of act would be commonplace. Give into one and then others do the same. It would affect our psyche as a community and cause much more harm than any terrorist act.

Unlike the sick make-believe example to prove a point sexual child abuse is a reality of modern-day society as we have seen with the recent Royal Commission. But I have yet to see a real-life example of society asking a pedophile busted by that Royal Commission to sexually abuse a child on their behalf because of a threat to bomb a 1000 people. It's just wrong on every level.

Irrelevant. You are attempting to cloud the issue by making it about blame. Earlier you said that it was objectively morally right to sacrifice one life to save many. Now you are saying you would rather sacrifice many lives to prevent the abuse of one life.

But that doesn’t prove anything. You would have to know that every moral situation in the universe was not morally objective.

Ah. So when it supports your position, you only need one example. But when I present one example to support my position, all of a sudden I need to prove it for every single possible situation in the universe.

What a horrific double standard you have.

 

[Kylie]

What about in the trolley problem? Is it morally right to take an action that results in one death if that same action will save five lives?

yes, it is the objectively right thing to do only if that is the situation. But you have made an unreal situation, so I must answer that unreal situation.

I'd like to talk specifically about this for a bit. But first, to clarify:

Are you saying that killing one person to save five people is the objectively right thing to do? If that one person's death will save five people who would have otherwise died, we should let the one person die.

 

[Ken-1122]

Again, what you like is subjective, that you like it is an objective fact. Come on man, try to keep up.

Chocolate ice cream is good. <--Subjective
I like chocolate ice cream. <--Objective

In order for that to be true, you would have to change the definition of Subjective to mean something that it does not. That’s why your argument fails.

More distractions from the fact that I was correct about this:

When you say, "Such and such is right" all you're really saying is that you like it, you prefer it, and you would experience negative emotions if it wasn't so and positive emotions if it is so. When you say, "Such and such is wrong" all you're really saying is that you dislike it, you prefer to not have it, and you would experience negative emotions if it was so and positive emotions if it was not so. You want to use the words "right" and "wrong" because you want to draw an arbitrary distinction between things like chocolate ice cream and murder. Because I am correct about all of these things, I won the thread.​

What else matters after acknowledging I was right all along about this? Is anything more important than the very nature of what you actually mean when you praise or condemn some behavior? Nope. You should really bow out now instead of trying to cling to some scraps of something you'd have to fabricate me being incorrect about if you want to save some face. After losing the debate over the nature of morality, you're not going to score any points now. After I beat you so soundly over the huge topic of morality, you really think you can beat me now over these minor pittances?

If what you said were true, I would never be tempted to do wrong. There are times when cheating, or lying, or being deceptive works to my advantage and makes me feel better when I do it even though I know it is morally wrong. Again; your argument failed.

 

[Moral Orel]

If what you said were true, I would never be tempted to do wrong. There are times when cheating, or lying, or being deceptive works to my advantage and makes me feel better when I do it even though I know it is morally wrong. Again; your argument failed.

Nope. At this point, I can justify my claim by quoting you, buddy. I don't need to argue for it anymore.