Is there Objective Morality?

[Bradskii]

Just because you cannot find the exact spot doesn't mean there is no exact spot.

If you can't find it and there's no way to determine it, then why do you keep insisting it exists? In the situation I proposed, you could divide the time up second by second. And it is your claim that there is a specific second when it objectively becomes immoral.

Is there anything more nonsensical than that? But it's exactly what you are saying.

 

[stevevw]

Rationality and logic does not mean its "objective" if you dont have a chain of "objective" moral facts. As you cant show that there are "moral facts" your reasoning is, well, void of content.

So can we reason epistemic facts.

 

[Bradskii]

So my question is why would the vast majority of experts in the field think that if there were no such thing as moral truth or realism. I know its a fallacy but sometimes an appeal to expert opinion is a better one than others because its grounded in some qualification in understanding the topic.

Because of your belief in God you decide that there must be objective morality. An understandable position. But one which you keep avoiding. But I've got a real bad feeling that you are simply relying on what you might class as expert opinion and trying to present it from your own perspective. And that you don't know enough to be able to present it in a way that makes any sense.

It says something that your best argument for objective morality is 1) God exists, and 2) some smart people think it does.

 

[stevevw]

Yes we may not know as fallible humans at the moment on all things that there is a very best way to behave as opposed to other ways to behave. But that doesnt mean we there is no truth that we can find. We may not have all the facts or even understand enough. But we agree on a lot of morals already. Sometimes it just takes more investigation or time. But to say we should not look at least for that truth because we asume there is no truth would be a strange position to take logically.

The point is its because we disagree that logically implies theres a right and wrong answer. Take the abortion issue. There are pro-abortion and anti abortion. They both can't be right. So one of us is right and the other is wrong. Thats how we treat moral issues like they are objective. So we can better understand to help find the truth.

Peoples views on abortion have not changed because of subjective thinking. Like all moral values they have changed because we came to understand what was at stake better. At the core we all know that "Life" is the central value to morality.

Its just a case of determining what is life or not. If it was determined that human life begins at conception then we have a new objective. Not because someone decided that by their feelings or opinions. But because we have clarified what was at stake (Human Life) and we all know that this is top of the bill for morality.

 

[stevevw]

If you can't find it and there's no way to determine it, then why do you keep insisting it exists?

I think thats a strawman. How have I said that we cannot find objective morality or that there is no way to determine it.

And heres the logical fallacy "Who said that because you cannot find something and theres no way to determine mean that the thing is not there possibly found later with better detecting tools. These are still logical fallacies that dont support an arguemnet even if you are right.

In the situation I proposed, you could divide the time up second by second. And it is your claim that there is a specific second when it objectively becomes immoral.

Theres another strawman. I didnt say thats how objective morality works. Like we should have a stop watch or something. Who knows what the exact time is or whether there is more of a frame of mind rather than time as to when things become morally wrong.

But thats not the point and I keep saying this. It is the fact that we are moving away from something (wrong) towards a standard of some sort (goog) is what makes it objective because it assumes a grounding. We dont have to know the exact point, time, as long as we are moving away from and toward something there has to be a grounding.

If we are moving away from wrong behaviour towards better/best then it has to have an objective basis. Otherwise there is no better/best just differences of opinion. We cannot think that how we should improve out moral behaviour is by opinion. That is insufficent for such an important matter. We want to be sure we are doing our best especialy with children.

I will try this tack. Can you show me objectively that there is no specific point where something becomes morally wrong besides your subjective opinions.

Is there anything more nonsensical than that? But it's exactly what you are saying.

I'm glad to see you know the truth and your pointing in the right directing

 

[Bradskii]

The point is its because we disagree that logically implies theres a right and wrong answer.

Quite possibly the worst argument presented so far in this thread. Only those who hold to a black and white view of the world could possibly surmise that.

 

[Bradskii]

Can you show me objectively that there is no specific point where something becomes morally wrong besides your subjective opinions.

The point is at 3 hours, 12 minutes and 4 seconds. You know that's absurd. Therefore it's not objectively wrong as far as you are concerned. Shall I pick another time and we try again?

 

[stevevw]

Because of your belief in God you decide that there must be objective morality. An understandable position. But one which you keep avoiding. But I've got a real bad feeling that you are simply relying on what you might class as expert opinion and trying to present it from your own perspective. And that you don't know enough to be able to present it in a way that makes any sense.

Possibly but these are logical fallacies also. Because I don't know enough to express things in a way that gets the point across doesnt mean there is no truth to the claim. I can only suggest that you read more on moral realism. I think I have a pretty good understanding of it and think it makes a lot of sense. Sure there are some sticking points but thats the same with all moral positions.

It says something that your best argument for objective morality is 1) God exists,

The problem with that logic is the arguement for objective morality "because of God" ends quick with "How do we prove God" I don't think I have mentioned God in the entire thread. It has taken other people to bring this up. The question is why when its irrelevant to this thread.

and 2) some smart people think it does.

Yes and I am one of them. But smart people also know that proving God is harder than proving objective morals. So the logical thing is to support that there are moral truths, facts, objectives. That is what I have been attempting to do anyway.

The fact that I may believe in God influences my worldview doesnt mean we abandon reasoning. I may not be doing such a great job but like I that doesnt mean there are no moral truths I am messing up explaining.[/quote][/quote]

 

[o_mlly]

You couldn't have been clearer the first time, thanks

You could not have been clearer this one time:

We can all agree that an act is morally wrong.

 

[o_mlly]

Then why were waffling on about all that measurable difference stuff?

Yes, by all means, tells us why you are doing so?

 

[Kylie]

Was it the one to essentialsaltes or one of yours.

If you go to the post where I quoted you and click the little up arrow next to your name, it will take you to the post in question.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, by all means, tells us why you are doing so?

You tell me. You were the one claiming that the number of people left alive meant something back in post 1678. Why were you going on about that if you are now claiming that such a measure is meaningless?

 

[stevevw]

The point is at 3 hours, 12 minutes and 4 seconds. You know that's absurd. Therefore it's not objectively wrong as far as you are concerned. Shall I pick another time and we try again?

yes we may not be able to tell the exact point at the moment or ever. I cannot say I know that and no one does really. That doesnt mean we can never know. Thats a big assumption.

I think we all intuitively know when that time is (if we are capable of being honest). We also owe a moral duty to others so this is also our guide to whether we are crossing into moral territory and we need to consider things carefully.

Besides your objection being a logical fallacy point is that this doesnt change the fact that we are moving away from something and towards another thing. That implies an objective connecting point thats the measure of lowest to highest or worst, better and best behaviour.

 

[stevevw]

If you go to the post where I quoted you and click the little up arrow next to your name, it will take you to the post in question.

Yeah I did. The one it takes me to is essentialsaltes and I fixed that. no worries

 

[Moral Orel]

The only way to prove who is correct and who is incorrect is through reasoned argumentation, right?

yes and whats wrong with that.

If I was to make a claim about what something is, like saying "This log is four feet long" I can get a tape measure and measure the log. Proving a claim about how something ought to be is different though.

Just to be super-duper clear, in order to prove any statement like, "One ought not murder innocent people" argumentation is necessary, correct?

I know you're getting bombarded with posts, so this is just a friendly reminder of our discussion. If the only way to prove a moral fact is through argumentation, then I can prove decisively that it's impossible to prove morality is objective. Are you sure there's no other way to prove a moral fact?

 

[o_mlly]

The point is at 3 hours, 12 minutes and 4 seconds. You know that's absurd.

The problem is not that any term of punishment is absurd but rather that your imagined case is absurd.

What do you imagine is(are) the intention(s) of the father who imprisons his daughter for ten years? To protect the mother's feeling from being cursed or to irreparably damage the child? "Dad, get real!"

 

[stevevw]

Quite possibly the worst argument presented so far in this thread. Only those who hold to a black and white view of the world could possibly surmise that.

Can you explain to me what you mean by Black and White view of morality.

 

[Bradskii]

Can you explain to me what you mean by Black and White view of morality.

You think decisions are either right or wrong. That something is immoral or moral. That everything is good or bad.

 

[stevevw]

You think decisions are either right or wrong. That something is immoral or moral. That everything is good or bad.

can you translate that into an example.

Also how would the different degrees (severity) of killing relate to objective morality.

 

[o_mlly]

You tell me. You were the one claiming that the number of people left alive meant something back in post 1678. Why were you going on about that if you are now claiming that such a measure is meaningless?

Please read the post again. Measurement is meaningless as to objectively categorizing an act as moral or immoral -- the point of this thread.

• That some immoral acts cause more measurable harm than others does not change the category of the act -- theft and murder are both immoral acts.
  
• That some immoral acts are equal in the degree of immorality does not change the category of either act -- a theft of $1 from Trump or Musk are roughly equal in the degree of immorality.
  
• That some immoral acts are unequal in the degree or immorality does not change the category of either act -- a theft of $1 from Musk or $1000 the Atheists Helping the Homeless are unequal in the degree of immorality.

Note that the above 6 acts remain categorically immoral regardless of differences in the measurement of their respective immoralities.

It is clear to me that your arguments against objectively categorizing acts as moral or immoral are exhausted and defeated. So, you have introduced the red herring of measurement as essential rather than accidental to categorization of the morality of the act. That is false.

If measurement were essential to objectively categorizing an act as moral or immoral then "measurability" could alter the same act from being categorized as moral to be immoral. Kindly give us such an example.