Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

So, you cant give meaningful answers to any of the questions.

How do you know they are meaningless answers. Can you present some arguement as to why like other people have. They seem to not dismiss things as meaningless and at least try to give some reason.

Support what this "immaterial" is, and how do humans interact with it?

Immaterial can be applied to several things like abstract ideas. Math is an immaterial abstrct idea and yet affects us and we use it to even make entire theories about reality. Other idea like Freedom, Justice, Love, Truth are immaterial yet impact on humans. Even within science there are abstract ideas that carry weight. Look at quantum physics. Can we really see what is happening, does seeing cause reality ect. What about consciousness.

This is just like morality or ethics. They are immaterial and abstract ideas but they affect people. They determine situations and outcomes as we live by them as a sort of law or rule. Its the study of and epistemology and ontology.

There is no evidence or data supporting anything "immaterial" affecting anyone. Thats just religion and not philosophy.

What I have just mentioned is not about religion. Yet we have support that these things are real, have truth and affect humans. We use them on a daily basis.

If morals are not objective (I dont think subjective or objetive are meaningful terms but thats besides the point)

It is beside the point because that’s your motivation for questioning things. You are a moral nilhilist so you don't think there are any moral values in the first place. Don't you think that will influence your view on this?

then all morals has to be supported by arguments and see, thats how the world functions.

And thats what I am trying to do with that specific example. Making the arguement that "Truth and "honesty" are necessary if you want to find the Truth. They cannot be disregarded as subjective or even non-existent because its impossible to find the "Truth" without valuing the "Truth". Its rational and logical.

And also, morals should be changing through time and space, and see, thats what we see.

How are morals changing through space and time.

You have not supported "objective morals" in any way or form.

Not sure what you mean by that. Changing through time and space seems to make morals like a physical thing which they are not. They only apply to human interactions as an abstract idea but are made real by humans in the way they live them, react to them and make them necessary for human interaction.

Its just, as usual, religion.

yeah I was waiting for that one. Its an easy was to dismiss things but it doesn't hold any weight. Its just a logical fallacy.

Its funny in a debate thats been going on for over 140 posts no one has really mentioned religion or a specific god or made an arguemnet for the like. The first task is to show that there is objective morality and using God or religion doesn't work as its a logical fallacy. So therefore it has to be argued with reason and logic and thats what is happening in this thread.

If you think the arguemnet is wrong or weak then argue that like others are doing I think partinobodycular is doing an excellent jon with this as he is challenging me and I am having to rething things and he has some good points.

 

[VirOptimus]

How do you know they are meaningless answers. Can you present some arguement as to why like other people have. They seem to not dismiss things as meaningless and at least try to give some reason.

Immaterial can be applied to several things like abstract ideas. Math is an immaterial abstrct idea and yet affects us and we use it to even make entire theories about reality. Other idea like Freedom, Justice, Love, Truth are immaterial yet impact on humans. Even within science there are abstract ideas that carry weight. Look at quantum physics. Can we really see what is happening, does seeing cause reality ect. What about consciousness.

This is just like morality or ethics. They are immaterial and abstract ideas but they affect people. They determine situations and outcomes as we live by them as a sort of law or rule. Its the study of and epistemology and ontology.

What I have just mentioned is not about religion. Yet we have support that these things are real, have truth and affect humans. We use them on a daily basis.

It is beside the point because that’s your motivation for questioning things. You are a moral nilhilist so you don't think there are any moral values in the first place. Don't you think that will influence your view on this? And thats what I am trying to do with that specific example. Making the arguement that "Truth and "honesty" are necessary if you want to find the Truth. They cannot be disregarded as subjective or even non-existent because its impossible to find the "Truth" without valuing the "Truth". Its rational and logical. How are morals changing through space and time.

Not sure what you mean by that. Changing through time and space seems to make morals like a physical thing which they are not. They only apply to human interactions as an abstract idea but are made real by humans in the way they live them, react to them and make them necessary for human interaction.

yeah I was waiting for that one. Its an easy was to dismiss things but it doesn't hold any weight. Its just a logical fallacy.

Its funny in a debate thats been going on for over 140 posts no one has really mentioned religion or a specific god or made an arguemnet for the like. The first task is to show that there is objective morality and using God or religion doesn't work as its a logical fallacy. So therefore it has to be argued with reason and logic and thats what is happening in this thread.

If you think the arguemnet is wrong or weak then argue that like others are doing I think partinobodycular is doing an excellent jon with this as he is challenging me and I am having to rething things and he has some good points.

No, you have still supported nothing.

And you still cannot explain what this ”immaterial” is or how moral agents interact with it.

As for religion, we have in earlier debates already confirmed that the only reason you belive in objective morals is because of your faith.

Morality has been extremly varied through cultures and history, hence time and space.

 

[partinobodycular]

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

Now you're actually making me have to stop and think. What exactly is intuition? And the following is my initial impression:

Intuition is the part of the mind that operates on the periphery of our senses, and is experienced only as vague feelings such as serenity or apprehension, rather than fully formed conscious thoughts.

This definition is a work in progress.

I would suspect that intuition is part of the same subliminal system that things such as advertising and the media attempt to exploit. Rather than being an innate sense of right and wrong, it's more likely an innate sense of what we're comfortable with. And this innate sense can be triggered by things as simple as individual words, or sounds, or images. We don't consciously realize what triggers them, but our preexisting biases, born out of our prior experiences probably play a big part in them.

So it will seem as though our intuition has an innate ability to sense what's right, when what it actually has is an innate ability to confirm what we already believe, without our even being consciously aware of it. It tends to confirm what we believe, because it's triggered by what we believe, and what we've experienced.

At least that's what I think at the moment, but give me a chance to sleep on it and I may have a different opinion in the morning. I must say that it took me a lot of focused thought to arrive at that conclusion. So unfortunately I don't have time to address anything else.

But for better or worse, I'll be here tomorrow to try to clarify what I said today.

 

[Bradskii]

So it will seem as though our intuition has an innate ability to sense what's right, when what it actually has is an innate ability to confirm what we already believe, without our even being consciously aware of it. It tends to confirm what we believe, because it's triggered by what we believe, and what we've experienced.

I think you pretty much nailed it. If you're interested, I'd strongly recommend this book by Daniel Kahneman: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555. Your post above could well have been a quote from the book.

I read it a few years ago. I might do so again now you've reminded me of it.

 

[stevevw]

Now you're actually making me have to stop and think. What exactly is intuition? And the following is my initial impression:

Intuition is the part of the mind that operates on the periphery of our senses, and is experienced only as vague feelings such as serenity or apprehension, rather than fully formed conscious thoughts.

This definition is a work in progress.

I would suspect that intuition is part of the same subliminal system that things such as advertising and the media attempt to exploit. Rather than being an innate sense of right and wrong, it's more likely an innate sense of what we're comfortable with.

From my understanding it seems more than about comfortability like there is a wider even transcendental perception of reality all being taken in.

And this innate sense can be triggered by things as simple as individual words, or sounds, or images. We don't consciously realize what triggers them, but our preexisting biases, born out of our prior experiences probably play a big part in them.

I'd say they would have to play some influence. But because most people seem to come to the same conclusions about moral intuition this doesnt point to bias as the results would be more varied as people have individualized experiences and therefore there would be more varied intuition about morality as a result.

So it will seem as though our intuition has an innate ability to sense what's right, when what it actually has is an innate ability to confirm what we already believe, without our even being consciously aware of it. It tends to confirm what we believe, because it's triggered by what we believe, and what we've experienced.

Then everyone sure has similar beliefs about morality.

At least that's what I think at the moment, but give me a chance to sleep on it and I may have a different opinion in the morning. I must say that it took me a lot of focused thought to arrive at that conclusion. So unfortunately I don't have time to address anything else.

But for better or worse, I'll be here tomorrow to try to clarify what I said today.

Thats OK as I am the same. You have me rethinking things and researching which I think is good as I can learn as well.

 

[stevevw]

No, you have still supported nothing.

Is that an objective claim

 

[o_mlly]

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?

Have you read the definition of a "human act"? Please do so as understanding the difference between the act of a rational being and an irrational being is critical to understanding morality. Animals never commit rape.

 

[VirOptimus]

Is that an objective claim

As I dont think ”objective” is a meaningful term, no.

But it is a fact.

 

[VirOptimus]

Have you read the definition of a "human act"? Please do so as understanding the difference between the act of a rational being and an irrational being is critical to understanding morality. Animals never commit rape.

Humans are animals, so wrong.

 

[o_mlly]

Well, it took a while, but it seems that you do understand that there are different scenarios which need to be considered.

Apparently, you haven't yet read the posts in this thread.

Properly understood, the morality of the human act in the concrete is objectively good or evil. The culpability of any particular actor is subjective.

Only a human act in the abstract can be considered neutral. A description of the mere physicality of the act does not describe a human act. In the concrete, the object of the act, ie., the proximate end(s) are the ends in view that the act naturally directs itself regardless of any particular actor. The circumstances (things that surround the act) cannot make an act evil in its object to be good.

Now, do you have a "good" rape case?

 

[VirOptimus]

Apparently, you haven't yet read the posts in this thread.

​

Only a human act in the abstract can be considered neutral. A description of the mere physicality of the act does not describe a human act. In the concrete, the object of the act, ie., the proximate end(s) are the ends in view that the act naturally directs itself regardless of any particular actor. The circumstances (things that surround the act) cannot make an act evil in its object to be good.

Now, do you have a "good" rape case?

Good and evil are religious concepts.

 

[Bradskii]

Apparently, you haven't yet read the posts in this thread.

​

Only a human act in the abstract can be considered neutral. A description of the mere physicality of the act does not describe a human act. In the concrete, the object of the act, ie., the proximate end(s) are the ends in view that the act naturally directs itself regardless of any particular actor. The circumstances (things that surround the act) cannot make an act evil in its object to be good.

Now, do you have a "good" rape case?

You didn't answer the question. Let's have a straight answer. In the case of the wife who found out she was pregnant, was the act objectively bad?

 

[Bradskii]

But because most people seem to come to the same conclusions about moral intuition this doesnt point to bias as the results would be more varied as people have individualized experiences and therefore there would be more varied intuition about morality as a result.

The fact that we do have the same 'intuition' doesn't indicate that there is some objective moral standard 'out there' to which we all have some mysterious access (that's a religious view). It's that we all have had the same experiences which we call good and bad because, as has been said, they work.

We've all been insulted at some time. We all have had something stolen. We have all felt threatened with violence. We've all experienced honourable acts and courage and generosity and miserliness etc. And some of those acts we deem good and some bad. Simply because they impact society in either a good way or a bad way.

 

[Bradskii]

Is that an objective claim

Don't confuse objective facts with objective morality.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

How do you know that gravity objectively exists, only because you believe it exists? No, evidence and reason bring you to the conclude its existence. How do I know that rape is objectively immoral? Evidence and reason support that conclusion.

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

No. Objective facts are never given. There is a relationship among truth, knowledge and reality that you seem to dismiss too easily regarding gravity but impose rigorously on the immorality of rape.

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.

If you mind is closed then further exchanges will be fruitless.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Technically raped? Either she was raped or she was not; which is it?

Tell us all we need to know to judge the morality of this human act. For instance, did she have a sign on her unconscious body that read, "No sex tonight, dear. Thank you." When you've thought your "good" rape case through completely and disclose all the circumstances one needs to know to judge the morality of the act then we can move forward.

 

[o_mlly]

I assume you are unable to answer my question.

Please read the thread title. The answer is binary; its "Yes" or "No". Like the question, "Is the light on or off?" But you avoid answering the question, asking, "Well, how bright is the light?"

 

[VirOptimus]

Technically raped? Either she was raped or she was not; which is it?

Tell us all we need to know to judge the morality of this human act. For instance, did she have a sign on her unconscious body that read, "No sex tonight, dear. Thank you." When you've thought your "good" rape case through completely and disclose all the circumstances one needs to know to judge the morality of the act then we can move forward.

Where is the morality situated? Is it like beauty, in the eye of the beholder? Or is it in the act itself?

 

[o_mlly]

Humans are animals, so wrong.

All animals are not human.

 

[o_mlly]

Good and evil are religious concepts.

Then use "good" or "bad" or "right" and "wrong".