Is there Objective Morality?

[Ken-1122]

So therefore you have used a make believe example to explain how the tax system has affected each person and the land you both own. But this is not the point. People use made up scenarios to explain things.

Actually this IS the point because when the scenarios are presented as truth, but exaggerated for effect, that exaggeration is not being truthful and honest. You asked for an example of when untruthfulness and dishonesty in a debate does not lead to incoherency; I just provided you with one.

If for example you take the moral values of 'truth and honesty' out of your scenario then there is no way any of you can find the truth about who should pay the land tax.

I just gave you an example of being dishonest in a debate! What are you talking about? Being completely truthful is not necessary in a debate; I just gave you an example.

 

[Ken-1122]

That's not the question. The question is: Do you have anything? You know, like an example of a "good" rape?

If "there is an infinite variety" of circumstances for any act as you claim, surely it would be an easy task for you to provide just one "good" rape case.

How about a 17 year old and a 19 year old in the state of California having consensual sex? Because the 17 year old is below the age of consent for that particular state, it is legally called rape even though it is consensual.

 

[Bradskii]

That's not the question. The question is: Do you have anything? You know, like an example of a "good" rape?

If "there is an infinite variety" of circumstances for any act as you claim, surely it would be an easy task for you to provide just one "good" rape case.

Of course, the claim, "As with any act, there is an infinite variety", is nonsense.

So, do you have anything?

I gave you one. You just responded to the very post in which I mentioned it. And here's a definition to take into account:

'Consent occurs when a person freely and voluntarily agrees to sexual intercourse. Sexual assault occurs when someone is unable to and/or does not give consent. The law says that a person is unable to give consent when:
asleep or unconscious
significantly intoxicated or affected by drugs...' What is sexual assault

 

[o_mlly]

I gave you one. You just responded to the very post in which I mentioned it. And here's a definition to take into account:

'Consent occurs when a person freely and voluntarily agrees to sexual intercourse. Sexual assault occurs when someone is unable to and/or does not give consent. The law says that a person is unable to give consent when:
asleep or unconscious
significantly intoxicated or affected by drugs...' What is sexual assault

And the law is correct. If morality is subjective then there is no human act that is objectively immoral.

Your example of a purportedly "good non-consensual and non-spousal rape" (remember, as defined?) does not apply.

Note that the efforts to shoehorn extreme fringe examples (eg., statutory rape and spousal rape) rather than discuss the garden variety of rape betray your difficulty in defending the claim that all morality is subjective.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Facts:

• Unlike other animals whose social structure is determined by the instincts of the species, human societies are voluntarily formed and conventionally instituted.
• The forms of human governments are products of rational and free, not instinctive, determination.

Not Facts.

 

[o_mlly]

Not Facts.

Psychologists have treatments for those suffering from denialism.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Psychologists have treatments for those suffering from denialism.

Believing that a concept of liberty -- that's only been instantiated anywhere in the world maybe a century ago, and still not everywhere today -- is a fact is more like a delusion. Psychologists have treatments for that, too.

 

[o_mlly]

Believing that a concept of liberty -- that's only been instantiated anywhere in the world maybe a century ago, and still not everywhere today -- is a fact is more like a delusion. Psychologists have treatments for that, too.

Better dig out your history books. The ancient Greeks understood the idea of political freedom.

That some render others into slavery still today does not make slavery moral.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Better dig out your history books. The ancient Greeks understood the idea of political freedom.

That's why they had slaves, I bet.

 

[partinobodycular]

Due to time constraints I'm going to focus on just parts of your post.

Actually intuition can be quite reliable as a basis for believing what we know about something because it’s not an unsupported feeling or subjective opinion but based on experience and constantly assessing and testing that experience which allows us to form pretty strong beliefs about what’s going on.

What you're describing as intuition others would call bias, and people rely upon this intuition/bias because unsurprisingly it tends to confirm their preexisting beliefs. So yes, it seems as if intuition is a reliable means of judging what's true, when in fact it's probably the exact opposite, it's a deep-seated means of avoiding what's true, or at least avoiding admitting that one doesn't know what's true.

Now we as humans tend to remember the times when our intuition was right, and forget all the times when our intuition was wrong. And then voila, our view of intuition becomes self-reinforcing. We intuitively think that our intuition is reliable.

It's not.

For example our intuition tells us that the physical world is really true (our reality) as we experience and we are not living in some simulation experiment or part of a multiverse.

This is where you and I are completely different, I make no such assumption. I am in fact an epistemological solipsist. I try very hard not to make unnecessary assumptions, although in the quest to have meaningful conversations with others a certain degree of assumption is unavoidable. However, I try to keep it to a minimum.

My point...stop relying on your intuition. Stop letting it be self-reinforcing. Always question it, and when doing so always be careful to avoid confirmation bias. This doesn't mean stop being a Christian, it simply means that you should differentiate between what you can know to be true, and what you've simply been conditioned to believe is true.

If you can do that. If you can stop deceiving yourself about what you "know", then you may have a whole different perspective on what it means to walk by faith. It doesn't mean to self-deceive yourself.

Anyway, enough preaching. You're smart enough to figure this out on your own, so forget that I said anything.

 

[partinobodycular]

That's not the question. The question is: Do you have anything? You know, like an example of a "good" rape?

This is what I like to refer to as linguistic sleight of hand. You take the word "rape" and then ask for an example of a good rape, when it's implicit in the word itself that it's an illegal and immoral act. It's like asking if someone can give an example of illegal sex, that's not illegal. Of course you can't, because it would be self-contradictory.

What you should really be asking for, and has already been given, is an example of a sexual act that some people would consider to be rape, and other people wouldn't. But instead you choose to live in denial, and just keep repeating the same irrational claims over and over again.

 

[o_mlly]

That's why they had slaves, I bet.

Hmmm, an atheist that does not believe in evolution?

This is what I like to refer to as linguistic sleight of hand. You take the word "rape" and then ask for an example of a good rape, when it's implicit in the word itself that it's an illegal and immoral act. It's like asking if someone can give an example of illegal sex, that's not illegal. Of course you can't, because it would be self-contradictory.

What you should really be asking for, and has already been given, is an example of a sexual act that some people would consider to be rape, and other people wouldn't. But instead you choose to live in denial, and just keep repeating the same irrational claims over and over again.

This is what I like to refer to as selective reading in a thread. And, perhaps also an unwillingness to do any research.

Aren't you the one who wrote "Google is your friend" and then threw up links to articles that not only did not support your claim but actually refuted it?

Google "human act". Now read at least one of the definitions and then get back to me.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Hmmm, an atheist that does not believe in evolution?

Non sequitur much?

Anyway, you claim there is a natural right to liberty, and Aristotle claimed that some men were natural slaves. How are we to determine which of these 'facts of nature' is objective?

 

[o_mlly]

Anyway, you claim there is a natural right to liberty, and Aristotle claimed that some men were natural slaves. How are we to determine which of these 'facts of nature' is objective?

If you examine Aristotle's actual argument then you will see that we are in agreement.

Depriving innocent and rational human beings of political liberty, as slaves are, is wrong, ie., objectively immoral.

Leaving that point aside, I have access to observations about human societies that Aristotle did not. From a purely utilitarian perspective, subsequent to the Industrial Revolution, slavery as an institution in society impeded the growth of goods and services available to all.

 

[partinobodycular]

Aren't you the one who wrote "Google is your friend" and then threw up links to articles that not only did not support your claim but actually refuted it?

In my 35 years of participating in online forums I can honestly say that yours is the most extreme case of denial and confirmation bias that I have ever seen. And I find that to be aggravating, humorous, and tragic all at the same time. But I'll still try to address your arguments as rationally as I can.

The links that I provided didn't refute my claims at all, they clearly bolstered them. I gave you exactly what you asked for...an example of an instance wherein a rape was considered to be moral. It didn't have to be considered moral by everybody, just by a certain group of otherwise average people. The fact that other people disagreed with them isn't surprising, but it doesn't alter the fact that those otherwise average people considered it to be moral. And there's no way for you, me, or anybody else to conclusively demonstrate which group was right.

So your argument that everybody will agree on the immorality of rape is obviously wrong, because everybody doesn't agree.

 

[Bradskii]

And the law is correct. If morality is subjective then there is no human act that is objectively immoral.

Your example of a purportedly "good non-consensual and non-spousal rape" (remember, as defined?) does not apply.

Note that the efforts to shoehorn extreme fringe examples (eg., statutory rape and spousal rape) rather than discuss the garden variety of rape betray your difficulty in defending the claim that all morality is subjective.

The law changes. It wasn't so long ago that a man couldn't be charged with raping his wife. Now he can (still not sure on your position on this actually). Now rape includes the concept of consent to a point where if the person is incapable of giving it, then it's rape.

So the example I gave does apply. Your insistence of extreme examples where all reasonable people would say it's wrong is just that. An extreme example of when we would all agree. But that in itself doesn't indicate it's objective. So you've asked for an example when the act would be considered good. And I've given you one. If the woman was perhaps in the throws of divorce and found out that her husband had had sex with her while sleeping then she might well report him and he might well be convicted. But if she's in a loving relationship and finds she's pregnant, then she may well be ecstatically happy.

So what is actually rape by the very definition of the term is plainly and obviously and undeniably context dependent. How on earth can you say it's objectively bad when the very 'victim' herself is blissfully happy that it happened?

A number of people are trying to put this point over to you. And your only response seems to be to say that you are the only person who is allowed to determine what examples we use. Even when you ask for others, and they are given, you cry 'does not apply'. Well, it does. It's an example of rape - which you say is objectively bad in all circumstances.

Now I'm afraid that your only option, as I see it, is to maintain that the example given is still objectively bad even though the people involved would tell you otherwise. Which would be nonsensical. So I guess that you're simply going to repeat that the 'garden variety' of the act (an awful way of putting it) is objectively bad. As if repeating it enough might make it true.

 

[Kylie]

Thank you.

Examining your first reference:


Restating your first sentence as a conditional: If morality, distinguishing good and bad human acts, is based on fundamental aspects of reality then morality is objective.

Facts:

• Man is a social or gregarious animal. He naturally needs to live in association with other human beings in organized societies.
• Unlike other animals whose social structure is determined by the instincts of the species, human societies are voluntarily formed and conventionally instituted.
• The forms of human governments are products of rational and free, not instinctive, determination.
  
• Man being political by nature needs political liberty in order to live humanly well.
  
• Man has a natural right to political liberty.
• Depriving innocent and rational human beings of political liberty, as slaves are, is wrong, ie., objectively immoral.

Still waiting for you to show us how to objectively measure morality.

 

[stevevw]

Actually this IS the point because when the scenarios are presented as truth, but exaggerated for effect, that exaggeration is not being truthful and honest.

But how do you tell its not truth and is exaggerated or a lie if you don't have 'Truth' and 'Honesty' as your guide or rule in your scenario. If you reject 'Truth' and 'Honesty' out of your scenario you would not be able to tell anything to do with the truth. So saying that saying you have just shown someone is lying in a scenario is irrelevant if you cannot tell that is happening.

You asked for an example of when untruthfulness and dishonesty in a debate does not lead to incoherency; I just provided you with one.

I think you have misunderstood what I meant by the necessity of 'Truth' and 'Honesty' in debating the truth of a matter. Its not about the example itself but that 'truth' and 'honest' are a necessary rule and guide to finding the truth of a matter.

So you would not be able to determine there was an exaggeration or lie if you didn't make 'Truth' and 'Honesty' necessary moral values that applied to your scenario. If you rejected 'Truth' and 'Honesty' as unnecessay then all you will have is claims and stories but no way of determining their truthfulness or non-truthfulness.

I just gave you an example of being dishonest in a debate! What are you talking about? Being completely truthful is not necessary in a debate; I just gave you an example.

I am not saying being truthful is necessary in a debate. I am saying using the moral values of 'Truth' and 'Honesty' are necessary to measure if someone has been honest or dishonest, truthful or lying in a debate. Without those morals no one could tell if someone is lying or misrepresenting things.

 

[partinobodycular]

I am saying using the moral values of 'Truth' and 'Honesty' are necessary to measure if someone has been honest or dishonest, truthful or lying in a debate.

Now your argument has lost me. Even if you can establish that truth and honesty are necessary in a debate to achieve a specific outcome, how does that make truth and honesty either moral or objective? I can see how it might make them necessary in very limited situations, but so what. It doesn't mean that they're always necessary, or even preferable.

So your argument doesn't establish that truth and honesty are moral traits, nor does it establish that they're objective. So what's your point?

 

[o_mlly]

The links that I provided didn't refute my claims at all, they clearly bolstered them. I gave you exactly what you asked for...an example of an instance wherein a rape was considered to be moral.

Yes, the articles did just that -- refute your claim.

So, according to your twisted logic, murder and cannibalism must be moral because Jeffry Dahmer thought so. Well, no. Just as Dahmer was arrested so were the revenge rapists.

The cultures that arrested the rapists did not deem it perfectly moral to rape a female as the articles you cited confirmed.

In certain local cultures it's deemed perfectly moral to rape a female as punishment ...

Were you the one in another thread that thinks the Nazis should have been acquitted at Nuremberg?