Is there Objective Morality?

[essentialsaltes]

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

You are still failing to grasp what subjective and objective mean.

Jeffrey Dahmer's opinions on murder and cannibalism are just that.
#1 They are opinions (i.e. subjective statements)
#2 They are his

The fact that he holds them has no effect on my opinions, or the putative objective morality of these actions at all. Indeed, if there were an objective fact of the matter, by definition it would be unrelated to anyone's opinion, whether it was yours or his. So "because Dahmer thought so" leads to no conclusions whatsoever.

Nevertheless, to use zippy's phrase, societies assert a tyrannical obedience to the collective opinion. We don't even try, necessarily, to convince perpetrators of their wrongness. We just lock them up.

This also has nothing to do with the putative objective morality of these actions.

The Confederacy tyrannically enforced slavery, and America now tyrannically enforces abolition.

 

[VirOptimus]

What's his point?

That there is no justice, just us.

Now, will you answer?

 

[Ken-1122]

Of course you do. How can you recognise a lie in a debate if there is no such thing as a lie because you dicard "honesty" as an objective moral value and rule. You no longer have any destinction between a lie and the truth. You cannot ask questions to determine the truth because you don't know if what the person told you was a truth or a lie.

I disagree! You are not granted some magical insight into truth and honesty just because you make truth and honesty your moral guide. The liar will recognize a lie just as easily, (or perhaps easier due to experience with lies) as the honest person.

But how do you know that people have exaggerated or lied when you cannot use "Honesty"and "Truth" in your debate.

the same way the honest guy does. The liar is'nt prevented from using honest and truth in his debates; he just isn't tied to it.

The idea of making "Honesty"and "Truth" as necessary moral values is that they become the guide to expose the lies and truth. But without them there is no spotlight exposing 'Lies" from "Truth".

The liar isn't one who doesn't know truth, he just doesn't use it all the time.

You keep misrepresenting what I said. (which is a good example of how "Honesty" is an important rule).

On post #921 you said:

"I never said that "truth and honest" cannot be ignored. I said that they cannot be ignored if you want to have a coherent and meaning discussion in finding the truth of a matter. So you can ignore "truth and honest" but don't expect to have a coherent debate in finding the truth

Those were your exact words. How is that different than what I said you said?

They are necessary because how can you find that the person lied in your example if you don't have "Honesty" and "Truth" as the rule and guide..

Because truth and honesty as a rule and guide is NOT necessary in order to recognize a lie when presented with one.

 

[o_mlly]

I do believe that I've read them all, but for the sake of better clarity perhaps we should make a fresh start.

Do you believe that there's an age, below which a sexual act constitutes rape, even if it's consensual?

If so, what age?

I'm not a psychologist. IMO, a non-consensual sexual act occurs if either one or both of the partners is unable comprehend the possible effects of their act. So, age is not a criterion for one who has mental health issues or is unconscious or under the influence of drugs/alcohol to the point of losing rationality.

For expediency, the laws in various states arbitrarily set an age or a delta in the ages of the actors to prejudge the act as non-consensual. We know its arbitrary because the laws vary.

 

[o_mlly]

That there is no justice, just us.

Now, will you answer?

Since in reality there is "us", there is "justice" and "morality".

 

[essentialsaltes]

Since in reality there is "us", there is "justice" and "morality".

That's right, these ideas are subjective creations dependent on the existence of human beings, not anything with some separate objective existence.

 

[o_mlly]

You are still failing to grasp what subjective and objective mean.

Jeffrey Dahmer's opinions on murder and cannibalism are just that.
#1 They are opinions (i.e. subjective statements)
#2 They are his

The fact that he holds them has no effect on my opinions, or the putative objective morality of these actions at all. Indeed, if there were an objective fact of the matter, by definition it would be unrelated to anyone's opinion, whether it was yours or his. So "because Dahmer thought so" leads to no conclusions whatsoever.

Nevertheless, to use zippy's phrase, societies assert a tyrannical obedience to the collective opinion. We don't even try, necessarily, to convince perpetrators of their wrongness. We just lock them up.

This also has nothing to do with the putative objective morality of these actions.

The Confederacy tyrannically enforced slavery, and America now tyrannically enforces abolition.

You are still failing to grasp that that which is subjectively true can also be objectively true.

You argue from epistemology that all we can know, we can only know subjectively denying that the possibility that anyone knows anything that is objectively true. So, it follows that the "flat earthers" are in their subjective opinion as objective as the spherical earthers are in theirs.

 

[o_mlly]

That's right, these ideas are subjective creations dependent on the existence of human beings, not anything with some separate objective existence.

Just like the subjective idea of gravity is dependent on the existence of human beings?

 

[partinobodycular]

I'm not a psychologist. IMO, a non-consensual sexual act occurs if either one or both of the partners is unable comprehend the possible effects of their act.

So how do you determine when that threshold has been met?

Because to my eyes that definition seems to be pretty darn broad. So broad in fact that you can't possibly determine the point at which it's been breached.

 

[o_mlly]

So how do you determine when that threshold has been met?

Because to my eyes that definition seems to be pretty darn broad. So broad in fact that you can't possibly determine the point at which it's been breached.

This would be an interesting topic for a new thread.

For purposes of this thread, I have argued from evidence and reason that rape is objectively immoral. The fallacious arguments that "rape isn't always rape" do not refute the argument. If it's not rape then well, it's not rape.

 

[partinobodycular]

This would be an interesting topic for a new thread.

We don't need a new thread. You've argued that rape is objectively immoral, but in certain cases, as I've just pointed out, you yourself would be totally incapable of determining whether a rape has occurred or not. In fact, you've admitted that the very method that you use to determine if it's rape is simply your opinion.

So how can you argue that rape is objectively immoral if the very method by which you classify it as such is based solely on your opinion? And how does this not address the very heart of this thread?

 

[VirOptimus]

Since in reality there is "us", there is "justice" and "morality".

You seem to just agree with my view (value nihilism).

 

[Bradskii]

Eliminating your red herring about being married and divorcing from the victim's profile and applying the same moral logic, we have:

Fred slips the "date rape" drug into Wendy's drink and then Fred and his friends take turns raping Wendy. The police round up the rapists and charge them with the crime. But wait, Wendy found out she's pregnant and she is ecstatic. The police should immediately drop the charges and let those non-rapists go free to non-rape again.
​

Do you really want to push that narrative as a "good" rape?

Well, it took a while, but it seems that you do understand that there are different scenarios which need to be considered. I wonder if Wendy will drop the charges. I wonder if she was playing out some weird fantasy. Maybe Fred forced the others at gunpoint. Maybe it was a ruse by Wendy and Fred to have a friend convicted. I think we need to talk to Wendy.

And in passing, how come you can put forward a different scenario in the belief that it supports your argument (it doesn't) but you complain when I do it? Is it now OK?

 

[essentialsaltes]

You are still failing to grasp that that which is subjectively true can also be objectively true.

Just like the subjective idea of gravity is dependent on the existence of human beings?

I'm not failing to grasp that. Gravity objectively exists. It existed before there were any people, and it'll be here after we're all gone. I know gravity exists. I also believe gravity exists. Things can be objectively true. And it is in fact very easy to also believe that they are true.

Given the objective fact, it is easy to form a belief.

But given a belief, it is not so easy to turn into a fact in every case. Given certain beliefs about food tastes or musical tastes, I don't think any such objective facts exist. The question on the table is about moral beliefs. Can they be transmogrified into objective facts? I don't see how.

(And our pleas for you to demonstrate this have been sidestepped.)

You argue from epistemology that all we can know, we can only know subjectively

I do not.

denying that the possibility that anyone knows anything that is objectively true.

Nonsense.

 

[Bradskii]

So, in your imagined and bizarre "good" rape case, how could it be that a couple in a "loving relationship" were simultaneously "in the throws of divorce"? Or, if that "loving relationship" was with someone other than her husband, then is she "ecstatically happy" that she's pregnant or that she was raped?

It's clearly an either/or situation. So let's go with loving relationship. And she was technically raped by her husband in that it was sexual intercourse without consent. So are you claiming it's objectively bad? It's an important question and requires an answer.

 

[Bradskii]

Indeed. From Hogfather:

WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

That I like. Can it be read out of sequence as a stand-alone or have I got to work through the series?

 

[Tinker Grey]

That I like. Can it be read out of sequence as a stand-alone or have I got to work through the series?

This particular novel, along with Small Gods, are pretty easy to read out of sequence. Some character development occurs across several novels. But, IIRC, not reading the others won't hinder you.

Almost all of them can be read stand alone, but you might miss some of the "in-jokes".

 

[Kylie]

I assume you have nothing further to offer.

I assume you are unable to answer my question.

 

[stevevw]

Whoa...stop...back up.

You're demonstrably wrong. In perhaps society's greatest example of debate and the search for the truth, at least one side is often, not just encouraged to lie, but actually required to lie. In a court of law the defense attorney is encouraged to present the evidence in a manner that best serves to demonstrate their client's innocence, even if that means being deceptive in the presentation of that evidence...even to the extent of outright lying.

And the defense attorney is required to lie about the guilt of their client even if they know for a fact that their client is guilty.

A court is different to debates because "legal guilt" is different to "factual guilt". There are reasons why a defence lawyer can defend someone guilty because they may not be guilty of the exact crime being accused or the severity of the crime being cliamed. But I don't think they can knowingly lie to a court. That would be purgery. As far as Australia is concerned

The ethical standards do not prevent criminal lawyers from representing a client they know is guilty, but the lawyer will not be able to lie or knowingly mislead the court on their client’s behalf.
https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/can-my-lawyer-still-defend-me-if-they-know-im-guilty/

It makes sense being that the court of law is there to determine the truth and if it allows lawyers to lie then its undermining its own authority.

Nevertheless thats not the point. I am talking about how "Honesty" and "Truth" are necessary rules and guides to finding the truth of a matter. The fact that the defence has to defend his client shows that the "Truth" has power in determining proceedings.

It would make no sesne that the defence is trying to avoid the truth in whatever way if there was no necessary "Honesty" and "Truth" that applied to that court. Without these morals no one could tell what a lie was from the truth so the defnece would not even have to worry about a defence.

All this in a forum who's very purpose is to find the truth.

So therefore the "Truth" has a priveleged status. It can make people hide from it. This only shows how much the 'Truth"is respected and held up as a moral value that people have to lie to avoid it.

But lets use a debate/discussion as an example where people want to lie to coverup something for their self-preservation. But a lie would not be a lie if there wasnt "Honesty" and "Truth". So it doesnt matter if people lie the point I am making is that the moral values of "Honesty" and "Truth" are a necessary thing that give meaning to a truth and lie. Without them there are no truth and lies.

But this isn't only true in a court of law, it's true in many formal debates.

As I have I have acknowledged "legal guilt" is different to "factual guilt". But that should not change the moral position "Honesty" and "Truth". Otherwise we can say any court that doesnt aim to find the truth is not justice.

For example, when I was in school I was assigned to give a debate on the topic of euthanasia. Unfortunately, I was assigned the task of arguing against it, although I'm actually a staunch supporter of it. So I was forced to be, what I considered to be, intentionally deceptive in my arguments and the presentation of the evidence. This can even mean presenting evidence that one believes to be a complete lie.
Again, all this in a forum who's express purpose is to find the truth.

Yes these situations are different to everyday informal debates and dicussions people have where there is an implied belief that people should be "Honest" and "Truthful" otherwise they cannot function. Like with the law it’s not always about morality. That’s why I was using a specific example that was about social norms as this is more in the realm of where morality is applied.

Even so the moral issue was because you realized you had to misrepresent the fcats to win the debate that could not be realized without "Honesty" and "Truth". If someone can act like they have no conscience like there was no "Honesty" and "Truth" then we would say they were like some sociopath.

So no, your argument isn't valid.

It doesnt change the fact that we need "Honesty" and "Truth" to determine all the situation you have brought up. They would make no sense without these morals. They all hinge on "Honesty" and "Truth" being the rule and guide to give context otherwise they are just meaningless interactions. So in that sense "Honesty" and "Truth" stand as objective .

I agree with your argument only to the extent that it may be possible to set the parameters of a debate in such a way as to make truth and honesty a necessary condition to achieve the stated goal.

And what is the stated goal. Its the "Truth.

However, as demonstrated above, in most instances truth and honesty are not required in a debate seeking the truth.

I wouldn't say in most instances, maybe in rare cases. But even then I think its not as clear as you make out and suspect if we investigate it we can find that "Honesty" and "Truth" still have status as objective.

As I pointed out the court room example is not exactly how you have described it. If a lawyer knows his client is guilty and knowingly lies he is committing purgery. "Legal guilt" is different to "factual guilt". The defence is more about degrees of guilt rather than overall innocence or guilt so a lawyer can defend his client on these matters with a genuine aim of proving the client not guilty. If the lawyer doesn't know the innocence or guilt of his client then he has every right to defend him like he's innocent.

As with formal debates these may be different. The fact that you felt guilty for having to make a case for something you disagreed with shows the "Truth" at work. I would imagine a formal debate would usually have people who agree with their sides position. So they would be telling the truth as to what they think is right. But even that doesnt sit right as I am not sure its always about moral truth but just facts of a matter. Thats why I tried to use social situations where people interact as social norms.

Now for the sake of brevity I'll end this post here without addressing any of your other points.

No worries thankyou.[/quote][/quote]

 

[stevevw]

I'm sorry, but your conclusion that reality isn't a simulation is simply an assumption based upon a bias. This assumption/bias then gets interpreted as intuition.

Can you please explain what you mean. As far as I understand this is a common way to explain how intuition works.

We cannot know if we are in a simulation or as the example goes we are a butterfly who thinks they are a human experiencing the reality we percieve. WE cannot step outside ourselves or our reality to verify this. So the only way we can be justified to think that we are who we are and our relaity is what it is is through our experience of it.

We compare our experiences and test them and determine that it is a pretty good chance that how we see things is how things really are. Science cannot tell us because that may be part of our illusion or reality. We think or were programmed to use science to help convince us that our reality is what it is.

Please don't fool yourself into thinking that you don't make assumptions, your entire worldview is based on them, as are most people's.

This doesn't mean that your assumptions aren't correct, but as they lack definitive proof, they're still assumptions.

Fair enough. I try to research to ensure I understand this. This was something I thought made sense. I cannot see how we can verify our reality without some degree of belief without direct evidence and only based on our intuition through our experience of that reality.