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.