Is there Objective Morality?

[food4thought]

So, quickly, objective morality has absolutely no other ground that I can think of, besides a perfect Being who is eternal, perfect in character, and all-knowing (including possibilities, thoughts, motives, and actions both inside and outside of time as we know it). Which is why I brought up worldview to begin with.

I'm curious... would any of you accept such a Being, should one exist, as sufficient ground for an "objective morality"?

 

[Moral Orel]

Let’s apply that to other examples. If no one can tell if our physical world is (our reality) then how can anyone claim that it is what it is?

This is a bad analogy. No one can claim that it is what it appears to be. We assume it is, that's all.

You've heard the old adage, "I think, therefore I am" yes? That's the argument that the only thing one can be absolutely sure of is that he exists, nothing more. I prefer to stay out of hard solipsism territory whenever possible, but if you're going to talk about whether we can justify our perception of reality as being accurate, this needs to be pointed out.

Until the skeptic comes up with a defeater showing that our intuition of the morality (like the physical world) is completely wrong we are justified to believe there are moral truth. Because we experience, speak and behave like there are moral truths. It’s as simple as that.

That's the "Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy". Something isn't true just because it hasn't been proven false. For instance, my hair is long and lustrous. Prove me wrong, and if you don't, that proves I have hair like Fabio.

 

[Bradskii]

The point is we know we can get some broad measures of what is better behaviour than others.

I'm constantly perplexed by your posts that say that you disagree, but you then throw in a sentence or two that completely demolishes your own position.

The fact that there is no specific point at which it becomes wrong is what I am trying to get across. That it isn't black and white. That there are grey areas. Your position doesn't allow for that. It precludes terms like 'better' or 'worse'. It's either good or bad. And then you write a couple of hundred words skirting around the position and end up saying that we can get some understanding 'of what is better behaviour'.

Say what? Better behaviour? That's what I'm trying to explain to you. That some behaviours are slightly better or slightly worse. Or a lot better. Or a lot worse. And everyone will have a different opinion on the degree to which it is better or worse.

I could take any number of quotes from you, present them as my position and nobody would be any wiser.

 

[Bradskii]

Is it immoral to disobey the moral laws of the community in which one lives? Yes.

There are different moral laws depending on which community one lives in?

 

[Bradskii]

You know, it comes across to me as pretty disingenuous to call an answer you don't like a non-answer. If you can't even acknowledge an answer that involves Jesus on a Christian forum, as an actual answer, or are unwilling to receive a plea to at least consider the proposition that God might have something to say to individual humans today... perhaps you might want to reconsider your expectations a bit, and at least remember what little corner of the internet you're currently visiting.

------edit-----
I apologize for the wording in a few places here, I edited when I reread it. I did not intend in any way to demean you, Bradskii... I can only hope I edited soon enough.

I think I was the one who suggested that you should have used Jesus. And I'm sure that you think that God gives you guidance as to what is morally acceptable and what is not. As do countless others. Many with different answers it would seem.

The problem you need to address - the question you need to answer, which you completely ignored, is how a disinterested observer can tell which person has received the 'correct' answer. And I'll save you some typing. They can't. So your position is that even if objective morality exists (and you haven't given any arguments that it does) we can't tell what it is.

I don't know about you, but if something can't be shown to exist and cannot even be known if it did then I won't waste too much of my time worrying about it.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok then use another word "dangerous". I use the word silly with an objective to qualify it. We know what the word silly means

I agree to jump off a tall building will cause injury is an objective fact; but that has nothing to do with morality

No one has said that. Math is often used as a comparison for morality because Maths have facts which are not physical facts. Morality has facts which are not physical.

Math has an agreed upon set of rules so it is objective. With morality there are no rules.

No they cannot be subjective because they are reasoned out. Like I just mentioned. The reasoning would be "walking off a building to get to the ground is not the best way to act". So we can reason that we will get hurt or die walking off a building to get to the ground. So we reason that taking the lift or stairs is a better way to act.

I’m not suggesting every example of reason and logic are going to be subjective, just your example of using them to determine morality

its impossible because best or better point to some measure outside people of what is best or better. If you say to a person thats the best car money can get. You would hope that you had some evidence for this. Maybe a car award or an independent review of cars. But to just say that you subjectively think its the best car money can buy based on an opinion says nothing about whether it really is the best car.

By what standard is it the best car? The fastest? The best handling? the smoothest ride? The best off road capabilities? The most fun to drive? The best utility? These are all subjective claims, unless a standard is agreed upon; it says nothing about whether it is really the best car.

Surely your just making this up. Have you even looked up the definition.

For example reasoning means
the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
the reasons, arguments, proofs, etc., resulting from this process.
So reasoning uses arguements which use facts, proofs. Facts and proof are objective.
Logic means
1 : a proper or reasonable way of thinking about something : sound reasoning. 2 : a science that deals with the rules and processes used in sound thinking and reasoning.
So logic is a science which is objective. Sound reasoning means beyond the subjective because it has a sound basis.

Let’s use your car example. Going by your logic; I could make the case that a $25,000 Ford Fusion is a better car than the $250,000 Mercedes S65. The Ford gets better gas milage, has more trunk space, and is easier to park. These are facts! If we ignore all the other facts that show the Mercedes is better than the Ford, does my claim become an objective reality? Just because I use objective facts to make a point does not make my point objectively true.

 

[Kylie]

First you used a different example originally which changes the entire reasoning. Here you are comparing different temperatures. So its a variation with the same thing and not a comparison between 2 different things as you originally said.

It would be like comparing the temperature to the weight of something to find out which measure is a superior form of measurement. Both have important value within their own domain but its hard to cross them over to compare to each other apples with apples because they are unrelated and different things.

So certainly we can compare degree od wrongness within the same moral wrong. That in itself shows there must be some objective measure. Otherwises there is no such thing as degrees of wrongness as they have to vary against some objective base. Therefore we can determine better/best ways to act morally.

So now you are saying there are different types of moral wrongness? Where did this come from? Please list the different types of moral wrongness that you think there are. Is stealing one particular kind of moral wrong, or are there different kinds of stealing, such as stealing money vs stealing food?

I'm not saying we can't determine better or worse moral acts in general. We can look at all evil acts and say there are acts that are worse than others. Like Hitler or Poll Pot compared to Jonny taking a candy bar. But when the acts become closer in value its harder to work out which is more wrong in different situations.

Would you say that a child being abused with a smack is less wrong or bad than the child being caught for stealing. It may be but to those in the moral situation its the worst thing to ever happen.

But I come back to the same thing. How is this showing that there is only subjective morality and that there is no objective morality. In fact if anything varying degrees of wrong support an objective moral.

The claim "But when the acts become closer in value its harder to work out which is more wrong in different situations" makes no sense. You might as well say that it's harder to work out the difference in length between a 9 foot pole and a ten foot pole than it is to work out the difference between a 5 foot pole and a four foot pole.

Its

Yes...?

But that wasn't yoiur example originally. It was between 2 completely different moral situations. Comparing apples with oranges. There all fruit but how do you say one is better or worse than the other.
But nevertheless I have shown that you can find variation within the same moral wrong. For example we can determine that assaulting a child and casuing them to damage is worse behaviour than a smack on the backside. Thats a given. Anyone who says different is just objectiovely wrong.

You've never said there are different types of morality that can't be compared with each other before. It seems to me like you are just scrambling to find a way to get out of having to deal with it.

But in any case, I shall humour you.

What is the objective difference smacking a child with your hand and smacking a child with a wooden spoon? Please show your measuring and working.

I have just shown that it can be if you put your mind to it. It just takes more effort and reasoning for some matters more than others. But I keep coming back to the same logic. What do you think you will achieve in showing that we cannot show that some morals are worse than others.

No, you have been claiming for this whole post that there are different types of morality and that you can't compare the morality of stealing with the morality of smacking, for example. So don't tell me that now you can compare it if you put your mind to it.

 

[Kylie]

and how is objective morality impossible. Your arguing this negative. You may have shown me how it is hard to apply objective morality in one situation. But how does it then follow that objective morality is impossible in all situations. Thats the logical fallacy.

Because it can't be measured.

If something is objective, then you can get a bunch of different people to measure it and they will all get the same result. Show them a flagpole, and they will all agree on the height of that flagpole.

If you give them two different things, they will agree on the difference between them. Show them two different flagpoles, and they will all give the same value for the height difference between them.

This NEVER happens with morality. It is impossible to objectively measure the moral value of something. And depending on the moral values of a person, you can give people two different situations and people will disagree on which is morally worse.

And it's not just that it's hard to measure. It's IMPOSSIBLE to measure. What is morality measured in? Length has meters, temperature has degrees Celsius, mass has kilograms. What unit do we measure morality in?

Morality does not produce the consistent results we expect from something that is objective, it lacks entirely the language we need to describe it objectively.

 

[Kylie]

Are you saying we should not rationalize what is the best way to behave and not take into consideration the cricumstances, people involved ect.

We should, but we must also understand that different people will reach different conclusions about how to do it.

because it's SUBJECTIVE.

Lets go through these one by one. First
* How am I making it complicated

because you are trying to introduce variables when I gave a specific example.

 

[Kylie]

Measurable difference:

• Number of people alive before theft = 2
• Number of people alive after theft = 2
• Number of people alive before murder = 2
• Number of people alive after murder = 1
• 2 > 1
• Therefore, murder is morally worse than theft.

So it's purely dependent on how much harm was done?

 

[Ken-1122]

While the possibility that morals are not objective is there, inability to convince someone of "something" they do not believe in, does not negate the possibility that the "something" is true.

I agree

Just a side note here, but isn't the majority of criminal law moral in nature?

I agree with your side note

I am confident that such a world will indeed come to be. But it will not happen because flawed humans come to agree on every moral decision (others here, if not you, would undoubtedly say that even if every human who ever lived agreed completely on morality, that still wouldn't make it "objective"), but because an objective morality will be imposed upon us by the God who, by virtue of His perfect character, His unique eternal nature, and His unique perspective (knowing everything... and I mean EVERYTHING... knowing every potential outcome of every thought, motive, action that has or possibly could have occurred both in and outside time as we know it), is able to have a perfectly objective morality.

Indeed, and as uncomfortable as it may be for you to contemplate, the truth may, and I firmly believe does, encompass a Being far beyond anything you or I can wrap our minds around...

Here is the way I see it. If morality were objective, right vs wrong would not be based on human thought, beliefs, or opinions it would be beyond mankind. But not just mankind; but any sentient being. If a dog disagreed with objective morality, the dog would be wrong. If an intelligent Alien from another planet disagreed with objective morality, that Alien would be wrong. And because God is a sentient being, if God disagreed with objective morality, God would be wrong. When you look at anything that is objective, it is regardless of the thoughts of any sentient being; example if God said I were a biological woman, If God said 2+2=5, If God said I can fly like a bird, God would be wrong. Just because you are the most powerful guy that exist, and the creator of the Universe, does not make you exempt from an objective reality. So if morality is to be objective, it is not only beyond mankind, but it also has to be beyond God. Do you agree? If not, tell me where I am going wrong.

 

[stevevw]

So, quickly, objective morality has absolutely no other ground that I can think of, besides a perfect Being who is eternal, perfect in character, and all-knowing (including possibilities, thoughts, motives, and actions both inside and outside of time as we know it). Which is why I brought up worldview to begin with.

I'm curious... would any of you accept such a Being, should one exist, as sufficient ground for an "objective morality"?

Yes but I think its not very helpful for supporting objective morality because we cannot objectively support God is real.

 

[stevevw]

We should, but we must also understand that different people will reach different conclusions about how to do it.

because it's SUBJECTIVE.

First we are talking about using rationality and logic. When people use these tools they will usually come to similar if not the same conclusion. You cannot subjectively apply logic it is an objective measure.

So if some do reach a subjective conclusion we can say 'hey you missed this piece of logic or people who are usually in that situation will rationally do this and not that. NOt because it was subjectively determined but because it rationally stands up.

because you are trying to introduce variables when I gave a specific example.

So why cannot variables be allowed. I told you early in the debate that objective morality can accommodate changed circumstances (Variables). You have the wrong idea of what objective morality is. You are talking about "Absolute morality" which doesnt allow variables.

For example are you saying we cannot consider the variables of the act of killing such as

Someone kills an innocent child for fun as opposed to
Someone kills a crazed gunman with a gun about to kill an innocent childs.

Are you saying we should not consider these variables.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm curious... would any of you accept such a Being, should one exist, as sufficient ground for an "objective morality"?

Does God, being omniscient, know whether chocolate ice cream is more or less delicious than strawberry ice cream?

 

[stevevw]

Because it can't be measured.

Who says it cannot be measured. Once again saying it cannot be measured doesn't mean it is not objective. It seems impossible to measure consciousness at the moment. But most experts agree its an real thing. Does that mean there is no such thing as consciousness. The logic doesn't follow. So that in itself should refute your arguement.

If something is objective, then you can get a bunch of different people to measure it and they will all get the same result.

And that pretty well is what happens with objective morality. The arguement from difference is an exaggerated one. Most people agree about core morals.

Show them a flagpole, and they will all agree on the height of that flagpole.
If you give them two different things, they will agree on the difference between them. Show them two different flagpoles, and they will all give the same value for the height difference between them

Are you saying morals are physical thinks like flag poles and therefore thats how we measure them. But what if they are invisible themselves. Is there a way to measure non-physical facts.

This NEVER happens with morality. It is impossible to objectively measure the moral value of something.

It is in the way you are talking with physical things. The fact that you still use that analogy shows you don't understand morality or epistemology. The Experts acknowledge there are epistemic facts. How do we measure these if they are not physical. Would we measure morals the same way as they are often intwined with epistemic facts.

And depending on the moral values of a person, you can give people two different situations and people will disagree on which is morally worse.

Like I said the arguemnet from difference has been shown to be a logical fallacy. Just because people have different morals doesn't mean there are no objective morals. Like I said people have different views on objective science so does that mean there is no objectives.

The disagreement objection:
People disagree a lot about morality, and different cultures have very different ideas about what’s morally acceptable. Given that, isn’t it silly to think that there’s one moral truth?
* First, disagreement about morality is a bit overblown. Pretty much everyone agrees that there’s something morally wrong with torturing children for fun, that we ought to keep promises, that being kind is usually better than being cruel, and so on.
* Second, areas of apparent moral disagreement, such as the arguments over gay marriage, often rest on a disagreement about non-moral matters: for instance, whether same-sex parenting causes children psychological distress.
* Third, disagreement about a topic isn’t itself a reason to think that there’s no truth there. People disagree about physics, especially between cultures, but nobody takes that to be a reason to doubt physics. Most people - or everyone - could just be wrong.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhiloso..._there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/

Basically your making a logical fallacy that because we cannot discover the moral truth every time there must not be an objective. Let me apply this to science which we know is an objective method. So people can disagree on the shape of the earth, QM, consciousness, whether president Trump won the election, whether there are black holes, climate change, evolution, gender ect ect ect.

These are all objective facts but still people disagree and have a subjective opinion on them. One of the main reasons is conformation bias. People will see things the way they want to se things regardles of the facts. I suppect that was the case with many TRump supporters. They felt Trump was the true presesident even though he lost the election. They went around talking like TRump had won and was still the presesident. Some of these people could not be told he lost.

And it's not just that it's hard to measure. It's IMPOSSIBLE to measure. What is morality measured in? Length has meters, temperature has degrees Celsius, mass has kilograms. What unit do we measure morality in?

And theres your problem. You are materializing morality like it should have some physical form. Are you saying the only facts and truth we can know are physical ones. Ironically this topic came up between us in another thread about whether there were non-physical stuff about reality like Math, reasoned truths, experiential truths, propositions, syllogisms ect.

Morality does not produce the consistent results we expect from something that is objective, it lacks entirely the language we need to describe it objectively.

please refer to the above reasoning.

 

[Kylie]

First we are talking about using rationality and logic. When people use these tools they will usually come to similar if not the same conclusion. You cannot subjectively apply logic it is an objective measure.

However, what different people value is going to be different based on the person. People are going to value things like the circumstances, things involved etc differently. For example, let's say there is a tree about to fall, and you can change where it is going to fall. You can make it fall onto a small house, or you can make it fall onto a very expensive car. But whatever it falls onto will be completely destroyed.

Some people might decide to make the judgement based purely on the value of what is going to be destroyed. So, they might decide to let the tree fall onto the old tatty house and save the more expensive sports car. Someone else might decide that even though the car has a greater financial worth, the suffering if the house is destroyed will be greater, because someone will be without a home.

There is no objective way to say which has the greater value, because value in this case is purely subjective, and arguments can be made for each.

So if some do reach a subjective conclusion we can say 'hey you missed this piece of logic or people who are usually in that situation will rationally do this and not that. NOt because it was subjectively determined but because it rationally stands up.

Pointing out flaws in reasoning is something you can only do with OBJECTIVE things, not subjective.

So why cannot variables be allowed. I told you early in the debate that objective morality can accommodate changed circumstances (Variables). You have the wrong idea of what objective morality is. You are talking about "Absolute morality" which doesnt allow variables.

For example are you saying we cannot consider the variables of the act of killing such as

Someone kills an innocent child for fun as opposed to
Someone kills a crazed gunman with a gun about to kill an innocent childs.

Are you saying we should not consider these variables.

My problem with it is that you are using these arguments to say that every single situation is different, thus trying to get around the issue. You are, in my opinion, trying to disguise the subjectivity of morality in a way that allows you to avoid admitting that it's subjective.

However, it doesn't work. Even when we use just a single specific case, there will still be disagreements. I've already done that in post 1630 when I used an actual event, and you STILL tried to bring variables into it to muddy the water.

I can present any number of absolutely specific real world examples and you'd STILL get different people making different conclusions about the morality of them. For example, the case of Nic and Trees Elderhorst. There are going to be some people who will maintain that euthanasia is wrong no matter how you try to justify it, and other people like me who think that voluntary euthanasia should be legal. There is not a single argument you could possibly make regarding that specific case that will get ALL people to agree on the same moral viewpoint of it. And yet when we look at anything that actually is objective - the height of the Empire State Building at a particular moment, or the volume of a particular swimming pool - each and every person will reach the same conclusion.

This can only be explained by saying that morality is SUBJECTIVE.

 

[Kylie]

Who says it cannot be measured.

Fine. Then measure it.

Once again saying it cannot be measured doesn't mean it is not objective. It seems impossible to measure consciousness at the moment.

Then apparently it seems YOU are the one saying it can't be measured!

But most experts agree its an real thing. Does that mean there is no such thing as consciousness. The logic doesn't follow. So that in itself should refute your arguement.

Measuring consciousness: relating behavioural and neurophysiological approaches - ScienceDirect

What Is Consciousness? Measuring Consciousness with EEG & fMRI

And that pretty well is what happens with objective morality. The arguement from difference is an exaggerated one. Most people agree about core morals.

Only when you use extreme examples. Most people think Jurassic Park is a much better movie that Battlefield Earth, for example, yet no one is saying that a person's movie tastes are objective.

Are you saying morals are physical thinks like flag poles and therefore thats how we measure them. But what if they are invisible themselves. Is there a way to measure non-physical facts.

Please give me an example of a non-physical fact which we both agree is objective.

It is in the way you are talking with physical things. The fact that you still use that analogy shows you don't understand morality or epistemology. There areExperts acknowledge there are epistemic facts. How do we measure these if they are not physical. Would we measure morals the same way.

Ah yes. Anyone who disagrees with you just doesn't understand.

Like I said the arguemnet from difference has been shown to be a logical fallacy. Just because people have different morals doesn't mean there are no objective morals. Like I said people have different views on objective science so does that mean there is no objectives.

The disagreement objection:
People disagree a lot about morality, and different cultures have very different ideas about what’s morally acceptable. Given that, isn’t it silly to think that there’s one moral truth?
* First, disagreement about morality is a bit overblown. Pretty much everyone agrees that there’s something morally wrong with torturing children for fun, that we ought to keep promises, that being kind is usually better than being cruel, and so on.
* Second, areas of apparent moral disagreement, such as the arguments over gay marriage, often rest on a disagreement about non-moral matters: for instance, whether same-sex parenting causes children psychological distress.
* Third, disagreement about a topic isn’t itself a reason to think that there’s no truth there. People disagree about physics, especially between cultures, but nobody takes that to be a reason to doubt physics. Most people - or everyone - could just be wrong.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhiloso..._there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/

Your own source says that it's still a roughly even split on both sides, so don't pretend that this proves it once and for all and all debate is settled.

Secondly, the second point about the non-moral matters can be applied to virtually all moral matters. The example in the first point about how it is wrong to torture children for fun can be discarded using the second point. After all, torturing a child would cause that child "psychological distress", would it not? But that causing of psychological distress is, by the second points reasoning, a "non-moral matter" and thus torturing children is not a moral matter after all!

Thirdly, the third point says there is disagreement between other objective things like physics. Yet the amount of disagreement regarding how physics works is surely orders of magnitude less than the disagreement regarding morality.

Basically your making a logical fallacy that because we cannot discover the moral truth every time there must not be an objective.

Not quite. I am saying that not being able to determine an objective truth is closer to what we'd expect from subjective morality rather than objective morality.

Let me apply this to science which we know is an objective method. So people can disagree on the shape of the earth, QM, consciousness, whether president Trump won the election, whether there are black holes, climate change, evolution, gender ect ect ect.

These are all objective facts but still people disagree and have a subjective opinion on them. One of the main reasons is conformation bias. People will see things the way they want to se things regardles of the facts. I suppect that was the case with many TRump supporters. They felt Trump was the true presesident even though he lost the election. They went around talking like TRump had won and was still the presesident. Some of these people could not be told he lost.

However, there is evidence that can be clearly and precisely presented to describe QM, the shape of the earth, etc. I have been asking you for such evidence for morality for quite a while now, and you have failed to produce it.

And theres your problem. You are materializing morality like it should have some physical form. Are you saying the only facts and truth we can know are physical ones.

As I said before, Please give me an example of a non-physical fact which we both agree is objective.

 

[Ken-1122]

So, quickly, objective morality has absolutely no other ground that I can think of, besides a perfect Being who is eternal, perfect in character, and all-knowing (including possibilities, thoughts, motives, and actions both inside and outside of time as we know it). Which is why I brought up worldview to begin with.

Perfect by whose standards; my standards? or his own. If this God is perfect according to his own subjective standards; heck I can do that!

I'm curious... would any of you accept such a Being, should one exist, as sufficient ground for an "objective morality"?

The thoughts of any sentient being cannot be grounds for anything objective. If such a being you speak of is a sentient being, I would no more accept his qualifications than my own.

 

[stevevw]

However, what different people value is going to be different based on the person. People are going to value things like the circumstances, things involved etc differently. For example, let's say there is a tree about to fall, and you can change where it is going to fall. You can make it fall onto a small house, or you can make it fall onto a very expensive car. But whatever it falls onto will be completely destroyed.

Some people might decide to make the judgement based purely on the value of what is going to be destroyed. So, they might decide to let the tree fall onto the old tatty house and save the more expensive sports car. Someone else might decide that even though the car has a greater financial worth, the suffering if the house is destroyed will be greater, because someone will be without a home.

There is no objective way to say which has the greater value, because value in this case is purely subjective, and arguments can be made for each.

Funny I would regard your reply as a good reason why subjective morality doesnt work or corresspond to how people behave morally. Sure we cannot say that the determination of what is morally right (the better/best way to behave morally) is determined by the whim of a persons psychological state. Thats scary. Luckily in reality we don't actually live that way and know that there is a better/best way to behave beyond peoples whims.

But as for your example yes people will subjectively have different ideas about where the tree should fall. But none of them are objective and therefore it says nothing about whether the location they choose is the better/best way to act.

Therefore the logic follows that if there was a child in an empty space between the house and car that it really doesnt matter if the person chooses to drop the tree on the child because Hey its only a whim, there is no determination that one spot is best/betetr than another. If someone really thought morality worked that way we would lock them up.

Pointing out flaws in reasoning is something you can only do with OBJECTIVE things, not subjective.

Yes so you have made a couple of logical fallacies that there are only subjective morals and no objective ones. So considering that we cannot rule out whether there are moral truths or not shouldnt it be wise and logical to at least reason out moral situations to see if there is a better/best way to behave morally. We may not find an ultimate moral truth but we may come 1 step closer or at the very least find a better/best way to behave.

My problem with it is that you are using these arguments to say that every single situation is different, thus trying to get around the issue.

No that is just how things work for working out the truth or fact. We reason things out. I am applying the same logic that can be alplied to non-moral situations.

You are, in my opinion, trying to disguise the subjectivity of morality in a way that allows you to avoid admitting that it's subjective.

Thats not a good arguement. Thats almost like appealing to some non-physical evdience to support your case. What do you mean. There is no disguising. If anything its more apparent because we are being independent. We are using rationality and logic and not personal opinions.

So I will ask again. Do you think in finding the better/best way to act and think morally in any situation we should reason it out rather than apply some irrelevant conclusion from another situation or some unreasoned opinion.

However, it doesn't work. Even when we use just a single specific case, there will still be disagreements. I've already done that in post 1630 when I used an actual event, and you STILL tried to bring variables into it to muddy the water.

They were not variables. They were reasonable questions to ask in determining the objective. Once again are you saying we should forget about circumstances. Objective morality has to include the circumstances to work out the moral truth. Otherwise you could be making the wrong determination.

You gave me a scenario and then tied my hands as to what could be allowed or not. You didnt even explain whether I should be acting with hidsight or just as it happened. If I wasn t acting with hindsight then how could I tell whether the plane was an out of control passenger plane or a terrorist. Even most people thought it was just an accident after the first plane hit. So yes circumstances play a big role in objective morality. So your example hasnt proven anything as yet.

I can present any number of absolutely specific real world examples and you'd STILL get different people making different conclusions about the morality of them. For example, the case of Nic and Trees Elderhorst. There are going to be some people who will maintain that euthanasia is wrong no matter how you try to justify it, and other people like me who think that voluntary euthanasia should be legal. There is not a single argument you could possibly make regarding that specific case that will get ALL people to agree on the same moral viewpoint of it.

But you keep failing to see the elephant in the room. Its a logical fallacy to say that because people don't agree on morality that there is no objective morality. I keep telling you this and you keep using these logical fallacies. It doesnt make it right if you keep repeating this. Its a well know fact by philosophers that the "Arguement from differences" against objective morality is a non-sequitur.

Consider a flaw in one of the arguments given on behalf of moral relativism. Some argue that given the extent of disagreement about moral issues, it follows that there are no objective moral truths. But this is what a basic logic text refers to as a non-sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/ethics-everyone/201201/rejecting-moral-relativism

The fact that people disagree, that we cannot find a truth/objective, that its too hard to measure, that its impossible are all unsupported claims that need to be argued. In fact in reality objective morality only needs to be argued in one example to prove objective morality. For the negative claim there are no objective morality you would have to show there is no objective moral truth in every single example that has ever happened and I think thats impossible. So at the very least the jury is still out.

But heres the ironic thing about all this. You object that objective morality cannot be measured and therefore is not real. Yet you make objective claims that "There is no objective morality". Yet you dont seem to think that you are making a truth claim without evdience. Yet it seems fine to you to do it. So why cannot morality be measured this way, as an intuitive truth and reality that we know and act out.

And yet when we look at anything that actually is objective - the height of the Empire State Building at a particular moment, or the volume of a particular swimming pool - each and every person will reach the same conclusion.

But as mentioned morality isnt measured this way. You just made an objective claim without any evidence and yet you believe it was the case. How can that be. Is there anything physical about what you said we can measure. So therefore you ackowledge that "Truths" can be claimed and these should be able to be supported. Or are you saying we can just claim anything and say its fact

This can only be explained by saying that morality is SUBJECTIVE.

Please refer to above link. This is what is called a logical fallacy and doesnt in any way support your claim or arguement. The ironic thing is you are trying to make a case for subjective morality based on the way people act. Yet you said to me that "Just because someone acts that way doesnt mean it is that way".

So you are doing the exact same as you protest me for doing to support things. Its funny isnt it but you are sort of supporting my case rather than yours for supporting objective morality. Thats if we reason things out, which you are noit doing by usiung logical fallacies all the time.

 

[stevevw]

If you think determining whether someone is a schmuck is an objective judgment, I have no hope for you understanding the difference between subjective and objective. I think Trump is a schmuck. Obviously many people deny that he is a schmuck. Am I objectively wrong? Are they objectively wrong?

There is a difference in kind between the sort of judgments that allow us to determine whether someone is a bachelor, or whether someone is a schmuck.

I am not talking about your ability to think Trump is a Schmuck. I am talking about your determination of what a Schmuck is. How do you measure what a Schmuck is that it means something negative that you want to label Trump with as opposed to others who don't want to label him a Schmuck.

You are assuming a negative character trait meaning for Schmuck before you even call him that. If you don't have an understanding and measure of what a Schmuck is then calling him a Schmuck means nothing. For all you know a Schmuck may be a good thing.

You don't believe people have consciences that disagree? That some people don't have a problem with homosexuality or abortion or dancing on Sunday or finders keepers? And other people do?

The point is whether a moral truth can be found. Take abortion. I would say most people who don't think abortion is wrong (in their conscience) is that they don't think abortion is taking a life. But if they did come to understand through technology that the Fetus is a life then I would just about bet that most will stop having abortions. So most of the disagreement isnt about the moral but peoples understanding of the facts of the matter.

Unless the person was so psychologically damaged that they could not realize the truth we all see things in pretty much the same way morally. If we don't we would think the person is not thinking properly. Foe example iof someone said it was Ok to kill a baby in a pram for fun we would think that person is objectively wrong.

stevevw said
"Some people may feel good that they have found a wallet full of money and will go and party."
"people will still act like there is something wrong with taking the wallet with money if its not theirs. They may conseal their guilt at the time but at some time they will express that they intuitively know its wrong in the way they speak or act."

Your statements here seem to be inconsistent. You first seemed to recognize that people do have different consciences, but now you are slamming shut that door, now that you see what it has opened.

No, I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Do you think that humans can block out their conscience can be from affecting them sometimes (ie hide their guilt).