Is there Objective Morality?

[zippy2006]

So I assume you would answer my questions from post #737 as follows:

1. Do you believe rape is wrong?
2. Do you have an argument against rape?
3. Is your argument sound?
4. Is rape objectively wrong?

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. No
​

As I said in post #728:

Apparently many here think it is coherent for someone to possess an argument they believe shows slavery to be wrong, and at the same time believe that it is impossible to objectively know that slavery is wrong. That is very odd.

If you believe slavery is wrong, why is that? Do you have a good reason for your belief (a sound argument)? If so, then it is objectively wrong and can be demonstrated via the argument. If not, your belief that slavery is wrong is irrational.
​

If the premises are true then the argument is sound (assuming it's valid). So 'five lives are worth more than one'. That sounds like a premise that is true. But you might call it false and offer 'all lives have equal worth' and say that's true. And I'd disagree.

Both can be true. For example, five pennies are worth more than one and all pennies have equal worth.

You know you are right. But I know that I am.

Well, we can't both know we are right.

So the Godfather? S'not a hard question but it has important implications. So whenever you're ready.

Never saw it.

 

[Bradskii]

Never saw it.

Pick any two artisic endeavours that could be likely compared.

 

[Moral Orel]

Pick any two artisic endeavours that could be likely compared.

But wait! If morality is analogous to personal taste, then the statement "If we are capable of doing an act that results in only good outcomes and zero bad outcomes, then we should do that act" can't possibly be a true fact!

Or are you saying that it is a true fact that one of the Godfathers is better than the others?! Surely that couldn't be... I mean, we only rank movies by how much we like them. Likes and dislikes don't have anything to do with morality... do they?

Sounds to me like you're trying to hijack one of my arguments after you expressly disagreed with the analogy of comparing morals to taste in things not concerned with anything anyone would call morality. Surely, you jest.

 

[Moral Orel]

You don't think proof is persuasive?

Sadly, no. How many things can you think of that any reasonable person would agree with, but many don't?

No there isn't. Not unless we are changing topics. We've been arguing about the case where someone offers an argument that they believe to be fallacious (begun in post #677). Now you've switched to talking about sound arguments.

Regarding this new topic, I at least agree that some of the reasoning would be sound. Your emotivism makes things tricky, but for most people--such as those I tagged--slavery is morally repulsive, and the implication is that the slaveholder has done something (objectively) wrong. But if you can't make that last jump between human suffering and slavery, then you could never hold that the slaveholder has done wrong. Their position is nonsensical.

Here is a movie argument that I once had ('M' for movie):

M1: If a movie is fundamentally rooted in a logical fallacy, then it is a bad movie.
M2: Viciously circular causation in time travel movies is logically fallacious.
M3: Interstellar is a time travel movie that contains vicious circular causation.
M4: Interstellar is fundamentally rooted in a logical fallacy.
M5: Therefore, Interstellar is a bad movie.
Let's suppose--and it seems to me--that the arguments leading up to M4 are sound, and thus M4 is objectively true. Nevertheless, M5 is debatable because M1 is debatable. So it's a question of "that one last leap."

Same topic. My syllogism only had one bad premise just like yours. Out of curiosity, do you think you can provide an argument that shows M1 is true?

The point that I have been making is that if someone holds that M5 is objective, then they must also hold that M1 is objective. The atheists of #681 have heard someone claim that Interstellar is a good movie, and in response they berate him, inform him that it is a bad movie, and give argument M1-M5. When questioned, they affirm that M1 is subjective and not objective. My point is that they have no rational cause to berate him if they hold M1 to be subjective, and that they therefore should not berate him or argue with him over M5 if they believe M1 is merely subjective ("argument presupposes objectivity").

If they hold that M1 is objective, then we can deduce that they hold that M5 is objective. Sure.

P1 If I berate A, A will agree with me.
P2 I want A to agree with me
C I want to berate A

Sounds like a valid argument to me. For those in the know, P1 is almost always false, so it ain't sound. But that's one of them honest errors.

Now if you want to point out that they're using bad arguments, I can see that. But they're using valid reasoning to get what they want.

Now here's the tricky part, and think about this one for a bit 'cause it's a trick question. If morality is subjective, why shouldn't they act in such a manner?

 

[Will Joseph]

I'd blame the designer.

Maybe. But He creates STIs and intersex, so I get a good laugh at when any man engages in fornication, adultery, and etc. He has designed consequences and punishments for men who have no control.

 

[Bradskii]

But wait! If morality is analogous to personal taste, then the statement "If we are capable of doing an act that results in only good outcomes and zero bad outcomes, then we should do that act" can't possibly be a true fact!

Or are you saying that it is a true fact that one of the Godfathers is better than the others?! Surely that couldn't be... I mean, we only rank movies by how much we like them. Likes and dislikes don't have anything to do with morality... do they?

No. They don't. But I think Zip is going to try to convince us that one film/painting/piece of music is objectively better than another.

 

[Bradskii]

Maybe. But He creates STIs and intersex, so I get a good laugh at when any man engages in fornication, adultery, and etc. He has designed consequences and punishments for men who have no control.

I'm not sure why it's always men that are mentioned in situations such as this. C'mon, Will. This is 2021, not 1921. Two to tango and all that.

 

[o_mlly]

If a word has two definitions, you can't use the second definition to show that the first one is wrong.

True. However, one can argue that an alternate definition better relates to the context in which the word is used.

My argument is not about whether it is moral or immoral. I think I have made it clear that I believe rape of any kind to be utterly reprehensible. The argument is about whether it is OBJECTIVELY so.

Do you hold that the earth is spherical is an objectively held claim?

 

[Ken-1122]

Sure, just like it's my opinion that 2+2=4.

No, 2+2=4 can be demonstrated as true, morality can’t; so it isn’t the same

It is an objective reality mediated by your mind. You have no access to the tree apart from your mind, and for all you know, it could be a robust hallucination.

That is the case with everything objective. The difference is when objective, it can be demonstrated as true

If it is completely subjective, then how in the world is it going to help you convince someone? You brought up fairness just a minute ago in a sentence where you were telling me that fairness is what you use to convince other people.

I believe fairness to be one of many attributes of morality. If you agree, then perhaps I can use that attribute to convince you.

I gave some authoritative sources in my OP that disagree with your sources.

Can you point to the source you provided that disagree with my source? I looked and everything you posted appears to agree with me and my sources IMO

 

[stevevw]

As I said before, morality is a result of my thoughts. My thoughts exist only in my head.

Yes but the fact that your thoughts are in your head doesn't mean that there is not an objective morality. People have thoughts that the earth is flat but that doesnt mean there is no objective fact that its round.

Consciousness is a description of an ability I have (awareness of my surroundings and the ability to think) So consciousness is not in my head

Wow you have just made a case for consciousness being objective (outside your head) and if a non-material thing like consciousness can be objective then certainly morals which are also non-material can also be objective with that logic.

Laws are in our heads. We write them down so there can be a consistency from person to person.

But shouldn't a law be consistent because it’s a fact outside people’s heads rather than it being written down to keep its consistency between people.

I’m not the one in this conversation trying to equate morality with science. Science is objective, morality is subjective; I’ve been consistent with this view.

What I mean is you keep thinking the way to measure objective morality is the same way you measure physical things with science and that is wrong. There are ways of measuring nonphysical things without science and that’s how we can measure objective morality such as through logicval arguements applied to moral situations IE Honesty is a requirement for truth seeking because it can be logical argued that you cannot find truth without being honest.

The rules of Mathematics are agreed upon by everyone; morality is not.

Agreement in Math is not how we determine their truth or fact. Otherwise people could agree that 2+2 = 5 and that would make it fact. Math is an independent fact regardless of what humans say. The facts of Maths were around before humans came along and are true even if there were no humans. 'Even' numbers are facts because they divide or add into 'even' and equal sets and odd numbers can't. That is a fact regardless of what human say or view math.

Here is a video explaining
Truth Values of Conditional Statements
Truth Values of Conditional Statements

It is the same with morality. To put it in terms of Math. A debate seeking truth + Honesty = a meaningful and coherent debate between humans in finding the truth. A debate seeking truth minus Honesty = a meaningless and incoherent debate between humans. Just like Math this is a fact beyond how humans view this. This is explained in the video above.

Philosophy is the study of knowledge and questions; it is not a means to ascertain the truth.

I think you will find in philosophy there are ways to determine truths such as through logical arguements with propositions (syllogisms). Otherwise your dicounting all the great philosophers like Plato and Aristotle.

Propositions
The term ‘proposition’ has a broad use in contemporary philosophy. It is used to refer to some or all of the following: the primary bearers of truth-value, the objects of belief and other “propositional attitudes” (i.e., what is believed, doubted, etc.), the referents of that-clauses, and the meanings of sentences.
Propositions (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Summer 2009 Edition)

Aristotle defines the syllogism as "a discourse in which certain (specific) things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so." ... (the truth my empahsis). The use of syllogisms as a tool for understanding can be dated back to the logical reasoning discussions of Aristotle.

Logical arguments and propositions can determine facts and truth claims. So if I say that Honesty is needed in debates that seek the truth this is a self-evident fact because you cannot find truth if people are dishonest. It logically stands that you need to be honest to find the truth for matters seeking the truth.

As I said before, debates are not about a search for the truth; so your proposition 1 is about something that never happens

That seems like a self-defeating claim. The fact that its called a debate means there are 2 opposing views about the facts or truth of something. Like you and me are doing to determine if morals are subjective or objective.

Nevertheless the question is “are there ever debates about seeking the truth”. So I only need to find one situation where humans engage with each other to seek the truth of a matter for my example of using Honesty as a necessary moral value that stands independent of peoples subjective views.

Proposition 2 is the claim that everybody will object at the sight of a man beating his wife or child. This is not true! In many cultures this is perfectly acceptable. You have Western values where this may not be acceptable, so you assume everybody shares your values; but not everybody does. Honor killings are perfectly acceptable in many cultures when a woman brings shame on her family. Whether you admit it or not, these people do exist.

So the question is are the actions of the culture that allows wife or child beating objectively morally wrong. We can determine this by another example of lived morality where even entire nations act like morality is objective by condemning the nation who allows child and women beating.

The example would be
if morals are subjective/relative why do western nations say that those cultures that do allow child and women beatings are morally wrong. If morality is relative shouldn’t western nations just accept that this is how other cultures sees things and therefore they are only acting according to their relative moral view and are doing nothing wrong in that cultures eyes.

So therefore we should not condemn them as it would be (you live your moral truth and we will live our moral truth).

But because western nations do condemn other cultures for their wrong actions shows that they don't really believe in subjective/relative morality but actually support objective morality (the idea that there are some moral wrongs (child and women beating) that apply to everyone and all cultures regardless of personal opinion or cultural relativity.

So in reality even the west cannot help but live like morality is objective by trying to force the world to follow their morality and insist that other cultures cannot have their own moral view because they comdemn it are morally wrong and rightly so.

The Nurenberg war crime trial is a similar example where many different nations (cultures) all condemned Germany for killing Jews. They didn't care how Germany viewed morality and said they were objectively wrong. But if subjective/relative morality is true then they had no right to condemn Germany as no moral view is ultimately wrong or right for that matter. They are just different.

That’s what you do before you disagree with someone and get into a debate. If you don’t know have an opinion on the issue, why are you arguing with someone else’s opinion?

People can fact check what people claim while debating. The fact that people disagree about what the facts or truth is shows that there must be some independent fact or truth to be found to settle the dispute. If people don't both agree to be guided by Honesty as a moral to find the facts/truth that will determine who is right then there is no way to determine what is a lie and what is a truth.

Because they agree to be guided by honesty when someone says you have created a logical fallacy or have misrepresented the facts and shows then the evidence they could just say so what I don't believe in 'Honesty’ so I can lie and make up things. Any debate would not last and would breakdown into chaos and be meaningless.

That’s nice. Now care to answer my question? Again; (in case you forgot) what proof do you have that a dishonest debate will always end up in a incoherent discussion, and honest will never lead to incoherency?

I have answered this question each time you asked but you keep ignoring it. It’s a self-evident support because to find the truth you have to be Honest. Theres no leaving Honesty out in those matters.

They go hand in hand. That fact or truth of the value of Honesty is not a subjective one that people can choose to ignore or claim it doesn’t apply. It applies whether they believe it or not. It’s a standalone fact otherwise the discussion cannot be coherent. Try taking Honesty our of a debate seeking the Truth and see how far you get. I have mentioned this already and you keep fobbing it off.

You said it always leads to a waste of time; I only acknowledge it may happen, but doesn’t always. You also said being honest always leads to a coherent discussion, I disagree; honesty isn’t enough for a discussion to remain coherent.

I wasn’t just talking about any discussion but a particular type of discussion which is "seeking the truth of a matter". As Honesty is a requirement to find the truth then it is always needed in these types of discussions. Its indesputable.

Even the guy who wrote the article knew better than to claim epistemic facts exist. That’s why he phased it “epistemic facts have been ARGUED to exist” He knew there is no proof it exists. Of course this isn’t gonna stop you from making such an empty claim now is it.

You have quoted the author out of context. He is saying that epistemic facts have been argued to exist (with a logical argument) and it’s not just based on an empty claim. The author is Terrence Cuneo and he has already argued that epistemic facts exist as that is part of his argument for why moral facts should exist. His argument is

Premise 1: If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
Premise 2: Epistemic facts do exist
Conclusion 1: Moral facts do exist.
Premise 3: If moral facts do exist, then realism is true.
Conclusion 2: Moral realism is true.

Notice premise 2 states that epistemic facts do exist and not maybe exist. So he has already made the argument that epistemic facts (Do Exist). If Cuneo didn't think epistemic facts existed then that would undermine his entire argument that moral facts exist.

 

[stevevw]

What we call 'right' is what works. What we call 'wrong' is what doesn't. In that sense, we ought to do what's right. And we ought not to do what's wrong.

So 'we ought not to steal' and 'we ought not to swim with sharks' have the same basis.

It still doesnt equate because what we use to determine what works or not can be subjective. It may turn out that killing all old people because there is not enough resiurces to go around become the workable solution for humankind and therefore is the right thing to do.

For morality to be truely determined as what is right or wrong has to be measured by something outside humans altogether regardles of what humans use to determine what is right and wrong.

 

[stevevw]

And if you and I were brought up in a different place and a different time where standards of behaviour varied significantly? Good grief, even my own personal socially developed sense of morality has changed drastically over the years.

I think people exaggerate the differences. I think you will find that we all have a fairly similar view on the core moral values.

People confused misunderstandings about how morality was/is applied by different cultures and time. Just because we may have had a different understanding in the past for example that 'slavery was OK' doesn't mean that was an objective right moral position. We have since come to understand better the truth of slavery being morally wrong.

It is exactly the same for science. In the past people may have thought that the earth was flat but have since come to understand better that the earth is roundish. The point is in each example there is an objective truth to be found but people misunderstood or could not see that truth for different reasons at that time so were objectively wrong.

So just because another culture has a different view of morality doesn't mean they are morally right and cannot be shown to be objectively wrong. They may just misunderstand the truth.

The fact that for example that all the different nations of the world agreed that German officiers were guilty of war crimes despite their pleas that they were only following the orders and thought they were morally right to kill the Jews shows that we all know there are certain morals that apply to everyone regardless of culture.

The fact that you say you have come to change your moral values only shows that there must be a moral truth to measure that changing scale of morality. Otherwise its a meaningless thing as different morals in different times and places would just be 'different' and have no 'difference of value' because there wasn't any ultimate moral truth to use as the grounding.

 

[zippy2006]

No, 2+2=4 can be demonstrated as true, morality can’t; so it isn’t the same

But that's begging the question. You can't just keep asserting that morality is subjective and leave it at that.

That is the case with everything objective. The difference is when objective, it can be demonstrated as true

This question has been discussed at length in the thread, in part between Kylie and I, but my question is much more fundamental. If someone says that 2+2=5 you would argue with them. If someone says that purple is the best color, you would not enter into an argument with them, because color is subjective.

Since you think morality is subjective and cannot be demonstrated as true, why are you arguing with people over slavery? If it is subjective you shouldn't be arguing.

I believe fairness to be one of many attributes of morality. If you agree, then perhaps I can use that attribute to convince you.

Either morality follows from fairness or it doesn't. If it does then you can argue about morality and demonstrate moral propositions on the basis of fairness. If it doesn't then you shouldn't be arguing on the basis of fairness.

Maybe you think some people don't understand that morality follows from fairness, in which case you wouldn't argue with them. Just like you wouldn't argue with some flat Earthers. But just because someone can't see that the Earth is round doesn't mean the question is subjective.

Can you point to the source you provided that disagree with my source? I looked and everything you posted appears to agree with me and my sources IMO

My SEP source gives a number of different models of objectivity, but none of them are "whether it can be debated." We can debate whether the Earth is round, but it's not subjective.

 

[zippy2006]

Sadly, no. How many things can you think of that any reasonable person would agree with, but many don't?

I would say that if they don't agree with it then they don't accept what you have presented as proof, and if they accept what you have presented as proof then they will agree with it. So proof is persuasive, but we sometimes disagree on what counts as proof. Nevertheless, some proof/evidence is stronger than others, and is more universally accepted.

Same topic. My syllogism only had one bad premise just like yours.

Not the same. Your argument was intentionally fallacious; mine is not. It is that question of intention which you still aren't acknowledging. In this new topic there is no propaganda, lying, or trickery occurring.

Out of curiosity, do you think you can provide an argument that shows M1 is true?

I think in such discussions people need to concretize what they mean by "good" and "bad," and that once that is done the conclusions can be accessed. Essentially, yeah, I think if you had enough time you could offer strong arguments for M1. M1 is certainly rationally plausible (for anything fundamentally rooted in a fallacy will be bad insofar as fallacies and falsity are bad).

If they hold that M1 is objective, then we can deduce that they hold that M5 is objective. Sure.

Well my claim was the other way around, and the idea is that their actions (berating, contradicting, and arguing) show that they believe M5 is objective.

P1 If I berate A, A will agree with me.
P2 I want A to agree with me
C I want to berate A

Sounds like a valid argument to me. For those in the know, P1 is almost always false, so it ain't sound. But that's one of them honest errors.

But it's not sound, and our new topic is sound arguments. You are agreeing with me that they are not being rational, or that they are not *arguing* based on the definition of 'argue' that I have provided. Yelling at someone is not a rational argument.

Now if you want to point out that they're using bad arguments, I can see that. But they're using valid reasoning to get what they want.

Yes, I agree. They are attempting to cow someone into believing that M5 is true even though they do not believe M5 is (objectively) true. They are attempting to force their interlocutor to engage in an irrational act and hold an irrational belief, just like themselves.

Now here's the tricky part, and think about this one for a bit 'cause it's a trick question. If morality is subjective, why shouldn't they act in such a manner?

I would say that being irrational and forcing other people to be irrational is a bad thing. If morality were subjective, then presumably there would be nothing wrong with being irrational. But these atheists are only being irrational because they are ignorant of their self-contradiction. If they saw their self-contradiction, they would see that they are being irrational, and they would not continue acting in this manner, because they know that irrationality is bad, because they know that morality is not subjective.

I think these atheists know that slavery is wrong and that irrationality is bad (and therefore hold to at least two instances of objective morality), and that if they managed to see their inconsistency they would opt for objectivism over subjectivism. They are more certain of the objectivist premises than the subjectivist premises.

 

[Will Joseph]

I'm not sure why it's always men that are mentioned in situations such as this. C'mon, Will. This is 2021, not 1921. Two to tango and all that.

Of course sex can be dangerous for women too; with unplanned pregnacies, rape, and more. One might say that some women have enough more reason to avoid sex, since they can also get STIs or accidentally sleep with a transgendered person. But I mostly study and know the dangers affecting men because I'm a man.

 

[Ken-1122]

But that's begging the question. You can't just keep asserting that morality is subjective and leave it at that.

I didn’t just leave it at that, I explained why also. Again; addition can be verified and demonstrated, morality can’t.

This question has been discussed at length in the thread, in part between Kylie and I, but my question is much more fundamental. If someone says that 2+2=5 you would argue with them.

Not only would I argue with them, I would provide objective PROOF that they are wrong.

If someone says that purple is the best color, you would not enter into an argument with them, because color is subjective.

true.

Since you think morality is subjective and cannot be demonstrated as true, why are you arguing with people over slavery? If it is subjective you shouldn't be arguing.

Because I view slavery to be a moral issue worth arguing over, the color purple is not. Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it isn't important enough to argue over.

Either morality follows from fairness or it doesn't. If it does then you can argue about morality and demonstrate moral propositions on the basis of fairness. If it doesn't then you shouldn't be arguing on the basis of fairness.

Maybe you think some people don't understand that morality follows from fairness, in which case you wouldn't argue with them. Just like you wouldn't argue with some flat Earthers. But just because someone can't see that the Earth is round doesn't mean the question is subjective.

Fairness is purely subjective. If morality were objective, it wouldn’t be based in something subjective like fairness.

My SEP source gives a number of different models of objectivity, but none of them are "whether it can be debated." We can debate whether the Earth is round, but it's not subjective.

I said demonstrated, not debated.

 

[zippy2006]

Because I view slavery to be a moral issue worth arguing over, the color purple is not. Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it isn't important enough to argue over.

It's not a matter of importance. If something cannot be shown to be true, then you should not try to show people that it is true. It's that simple. You can argue about purple until you're blue in the face. If the best color is subjective then it won't matter, even if you think it is really, really important. Of course, usually when you think something is important it is also not merely subjective.

If "slavery is wrong" cannot be shown to be true, then you should not be trying to show people that it is true, and you should not think they have done something wrong in saying it is false rather than true.

I said demonstrated, not debated.

Your source talks about debate.

 

[durangodawood]

Is murder combinatorily wrong?

If you dont say yes, youre probably a psychopath.

 

[Ken-1122]

It's not a matter of importance. If something cannot be shown to be true, then you should not try to show people that it is true. It's that simple.

I'm not talking about what's true or false, I'm talking about what's right or wrong. Nobody debates the issue of slavery by debating if the phrase "slavery is wrong" is a true statement or not, they just debate the issue of slavery.

Your source talks about debate.

Yes; in a debate (which we are having) in order for a moral issue to be objective, you have to be able to demonstrate the action as moral or immoral. I'm saying this can't be done, thus all moral issues are subjective.

 

[zippy2006]

Yes, it is possible to argue over things that are purely subjective. How many times have we seen arguments about whether pineapple should be put on pizza?

The simpler answer to this is: so what? People are irrational.

If pizza preference is subjective then rational people won't argue about it. If it is not true that a pineapple pizza is better than a non-pineapple pizza, then you shouldn't argue that a pineapple pizza is better than a non-pineapple pizza.

It is not possible to argue about purely subjective things and simultaneously be a rational human being (or be engaging in a reasonable act).