Is there Objective Morality?

[Belk]

We're done.

Buh bye.

 

[Bradskii]

Thats fair enough. I would expect we have different beliefs about morality being that we are having this thread
Is there Objective Morality?
So the answer can either be yes or no. I say yes and you say no. We have disagreement. What else can we do.

I guess as we can generally agree what is right or wrong then it doesn't really matter a whole hill of beans. You never know, I might meet my maker at some point and He'll say 'by the way, Steve was right you know'. Or He'll tell you that I was. And it won't have made any real difference.

 

[Ken-1122]

And there it is, "same oppressors". Your own words. I find it interesting that you don't see why that is EXACTLY the reason He doesn't do that...

Do you not undersand why a person used to freedom would perceive being controlled by an out side force as oppression?

Lot's of problems with this paragraph, but understandable given the way things are presented in certain passages of the Bible, without understanding a greater context to them. To try to keep it brief, I'll just say for now that I think you have a pretty dark view of my relationship to God, and what He expects from a relationship with us.

I wouldn't judge your relationship with God, I dont know you that way; however whatever it is, you appear quite happy with it. Remember; even during slavery, there were actually some happy slaves.

No, sadly, it wouldn't. In order for you to experience the relationship of being His beloved child, ironically, you first have to recognize Who you really are a child of. Even if you spent all kinds of time talking with your dad, and obeyed him outwardly for a time, at least in some areas, if you really thought he was an idiot clown, and also a psychotic tyrant, that relationship, over time, is doomed. I hope you can see that, unless you are able to come to terms with Who He REALLY IS, something deep within you will always resent the authority He has over you, no matter how loosely He holds it. This happened once already in heaven, and we are currently living out both the consequences of that, as well as a sort of cosmic trial to demonstrate the wrongness of that resentful, arrogant rebellion.

My dad speaks with an audible voice, I can hear him and experience his existence with all 5 of my senses. Why do you think God communicating this way would not be effective?

If He is not, in your eyes, God not just by His eternal existence, presence, power, and knowledge, but also by His perfect moral character, your relationship to Him will inevitably be broken by you rejecting Him and, once again, going your own way. If He is all those things, than any reasonable being would allow Him to be the one that guides them all through an eternity of blessedness.

But, since even Satan, in close proximity to Him, seeing the creation of an entire universe by Him, resented His authority over himself... couldn't accept God as God, but in rebellion chose to try to take over (the only way that makes any sense is if Satan really didn't believe that God was actually God, because He had to know that a rebellion against a real God wouldn't end well)...

If we can't exercise a little trust in who He is, it's not going to end well. No eternity of unbroken peace, love, and joy. If we really want such a thing, we have to follow the One who can provide the leadership necessary to bring it to pass, and keep it going indefinitely. We have to have faith that what He wants is, actually, what we would want of we knew and understood everything perfectly. That can't happen apart from faith, at the very least in the here and now.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

You seem to be answering a lot of questions I didn't ask. Again; why do you believe God speaking from the clouds in an audible voice that is understood by all world wide, with today's technology would not be a good way of proving who he is?

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

Actually they both can be right according to two different standards.

 

[stevevw]

But people's intuitions differ. So this is certainly not getting us closer to objective facts, where the personal is supposed to be taken out of the equation.

When it comes to morality peoples inution doesnt differ that much if at all. Intuition isnt some arbitrary mystical sense. Its a form of porcessing things based on our experience of morality. How we see morality lived out in the world. So its a pretty good indicator of how morality really works.

You said 'a life'. They are alive. They are human.

So they are a human life.

There are no objective claims in morality. There are only opinions. You said no one holds this combination of opinions. I assert I do hold that combination of opinions.

First you make an objective claim that "There are no objective claims in morality".. Is that also your opinion or a fact. Your asserting doesnt hold any weight if its just an opinion. Its just an expression of what you think personally. IT doesnt mean anything true beyond yourself. Thats unless you have any evidence.

So as you can see people make objective claims when it comes to morality. You like to think its not just an opinion but a truth claim. Thats how we treat moral claims as though they are true and not opinion. So our actions speak that we believe there are truths to when it comes to morality.

Look, you own cut&paste source shows that there are disagreements in morality. It's just some face-saving tap-dancing to suggest that these disagreements 'are overblown'.

BUt what if they are overblown and people agree morally.

 

[stevevw]

Actually they both can be right according to two different standards.

How can you have 2 different standards of what is morally right or wrong.

 

[stevevw]

The point is it's because we disagree about how Brussels sprouts taste that logically implies theres a right and wrong answer.

Thats how it should work for morality. When we protest something as morally wrong we don't think
"Oh I may be wrong because its subjective and people might not see or tatste things the same way as me".

No we think "I am saying something true here and morality is either right or wrong and not arbitrary according to food tastes". So it shows how food tastes is not a good way to explain morality.

 

[Ken-1122]

How can you have 2 different standards of what is morally right or wrong.

A Christian can have one standard; God as described in the Bible, and a Muslim can have a completely different standard; Allah according to the Quran.

 

[essentialsaltes]

First you make an objective claim that "There are no objective claims in morality".. Is that also your opinion or a fact.

That is (I believe) a fact. You will please note that that sentence is not itself a moral claim, i.e. a claim of the form 'X is immoral.'

"Moral facts do not exist" is not a claim about the morality of some human action.

So as you can see people make objective claims when it comes to morality.

Wrongo. Or it least wrong in any sense relevant to the OP.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Thats how it should work for morality.

So you keep insisting. But it's obvious it doesn't work for taste, so as was pointed out, your 'argument' is obviously faulty, because its exact form leads to an absurd result.

 

[stevevw]

A Christian can have one standard; God as described in the Bible, and a Muslim can have a completely different standard; Allah according to the Quran.

Ok I see what you mean. Well out of these there can only be one truth.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ok I see what you mean. Well out of these there can only be one truth.

They both could be wrong.

 

[stevevw]

So you keep insisting. But it's obvious it doesn't work for taste, so as was pointed out, your 'argument' is obviously faulty, because its exact form leads to an absurd result.

BUt it is the subjectivist that claims morality is like food tastes not me. It is them who are making this absurd comparison that doesnt work.

 

[stevevw]

They both could be wrong.

yes thats true. But that doesnt change the fact that there is only one truth to moral standards. So that truth will lay with some other way to determine morals.

 

[stevevw]

That is (I believe) a fact. You will please note that that sentence is not itself a moral claim, i.e. a claim of the form 'X is immoral.'

"Moral facts do not exist" is not a claim about the morality of some human action.

Nevertheless its an objective claim without any evidence. One you express as a truth and as support that what you are saying is true. Therefore you woulkd have to acknowledge the possibility of objective morality.

Wrongo. Or it least wrong in any sense relevant to the OP.

Why.

 

[Kylie]

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.

And you continue to miss the point.

Let's look at your bullet points.

The first one says that some immoral acts cause more harm. How do you measure which causes more harm?

The second says that you can have two immoral acts that are equal. How do you determine they are equal without measuring them?

The third says again that two immoral acts can be unequal - and again, how do you determine that without some kind of measurement?

You are trying to reduce morality to a binary - it is either moral or immoral, and that's it. But even if I were to grant that (which I don't, since you yourself have agreed that there are many shades of grey, not just black and white), your idea is completely incapable of how some people will view an act as moral while other people will view that same exact act as immoral! An example of this is abortion, or euthanasia. Your position is utterly incapable of explaining this except to say that some people are just wrong, but you are unable to produce any method whatsoever of determining the objective truth of the matter - an objective truth which you claim is there!

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok I see what you mean. Well out of these there can only be one truth.

One moral truth is only possible in a world where there is only one moral standard. A quick look at the real world, and you will see such a world does not exist.

 

[essentialsaltes]

BUt it is the subjectivist that claims morality is like food tastes not me. It is them who are making this absurd comparison that doesnt work.

No, no, no.

We are discussing your terribly flawed argument.

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

Your 'argument' was that disagreement implies an objective answer.

The form of your terrible argument doesn't discuss what the topic is. If it were valid, it could be about taste as well as morality or baseball.

 

[essentialsaltes]

yes thats true. But that doesnt change the fact that there is only one truth to moral standards.

There could be zero truths to moral standards. Just opinions.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Nevertheless its an objective claim without any evidence.

Neither has any evidence been provided for those who support some objective morality. The principle of parsimony suggests the subjectivists are in the right. We know we have opinions. We do not seem to have any access to some objective code of morals, and the requests to provide such a thing are met with smoke bombs or falsehoods.

Why.

Moral statements are of the form "X is immoral."

Proponents of objective morality assert
A: Moral statements have an objective truth value. There are moral facts.

Proponents of subjective morality assert
B: Moral statements do not have an objective truth value. There are no moral facts.

Neither A nor B are moral statements.

In particular, proponents of subjective morality can assert B without being inconsistent.

So yes, I am asserting B as an objective fact. This is not some kind of self-pwn.