Is there an absolute morality?

[Bradskii]

...but maybe we can all agree or come to a general consensus if we define it further, and all agree "somewhere" maybe, etc...?

There will be a point where we'd all agree an act could be defined as torture. But when we get to that point will vary from person to person.

 

[Neogaia777]

There will be a point where we'd all agree an act could be defined as torture. But when we get to that point will vary from person to person.

That's how we could maybe get down to defining a "crime", but then...? The way law works is that if a person is guilty of a crime there are usually varying degrees of the crime, and that's how punishments or consequences are dealt out and/or decided, and it must do so in each individual case in order to do it perfectly, which could be a lot of writing, etc...

Also the way law works is it starts out as an absolute or a standard, something in writing, and then more and more must be added to it with each new case, etc, and that how laws grow and evolve and/or change, but to put All's cases in writing in full detail; then deal out justice perfectly, like I said, could be a lot of writing, etc...

God Bless!

 

[stevevw]

There will be a point where we'd all agree an act could be defined as torture. But when we get to that point will vary from person to person.

See this is how silly it gets. Your more or less saying that we can't really tell when torture happens and even if we do its not really wrong in any truthful way.

Like how can 2 people agree on a point that equals torture if no one knows what that point is. Is it a guess, a feeling, an opinion.

Its silly to say that peoples opinions just happen to conincidently aligned at the same point for no other reason but a feeling or a guess. Is it the pain you see on someones face or the way the child screams in pain. Non of it makes sense unless there is an objectiove measure of what torture is to know when to draw the line in the first place.

So what if you get to that point where most people know its torture but some disagree like you say. They think we can inflict even more pain on a child as its not torture. Shall we say that this person has a right to their personal view and that they are not wrong in think that torture is OK.

How far should be go before we can say its really torture. It seems silly to leave the determination up to someones subjective opinion. Your more or less saying its OK to inflict pain on kids.

See the same problem applies to subjetcive morality. But even worse because undersubjectivity we cannot even say that obviously torture is realkly wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

But even worse because undersubjectivity we cannot even say that obviously torture is realkly wrong.

Under subjectivity we cannot say that torture is really right.

 

[Bradskii]

See this is how silly it gets. Your more or less saying that we can't really tell when torture happens and even if we do its not really wrong in any truthful way.

It's like Groundhog Day. People keep telling you that that is not true. The conversation moves on somewhere and then I wake up the following day and nothing has changed. You keep saying the same thing over and over again. It doesn't matter that you are constantly told that it's not something anyone believes.

It doesn't matter that so many people have tried to explain that what you have just stated is a nonsensical position. Sonny and Cher kick in and we have to do it all. over. again.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's like Groundhog Day. People keep telling you that that is not true. The conversation moves on somewhere and then I wake up the following day and nothing has changed. You keep saying the same thing over and over again. It doesn't matter that you are constantly told that it's not something anyone believes.

It doesn't matter that so many people have tried to explain that what you have just stated is a nonsensical position. Sonny and Cher kick in and we have to do it all. over. again.

Subjectivism

 

[stevevw]

The "experts" dont say this is "self evident", read some real moral philosophy material. Not just random articles that agree with your point of view.

I have read indepedent articles. Intuitionalists who happen to be the dominant position say that moral truths are self-evident. They don't need to be argued. When you see a women being assaulted on the streets you don't need to stop and get evidence that its wrong. Its self evident, you know and react like its wrong.

And as there is quite a few different schools on moral philosophy this should in itself show that its not "self-evident".

Thats a classic logical fallacy in that just because there are differences in schools of thinking doesn't mean there is no moral truth.

"We" dont behave as morals are "objective". Thats just an unsupported assertion from you.

This shows you don't really understand moral realism. Or morality for that matter. It is well acknowledged that humans speak and act like there are moral (objective) truths. These are just a small example of independent and scientifically supported articles. These are not my assertions but widely accepted knowledge by most philosophers.

As Berny Belvedere points out about subjective/relative morality
that’s not how we normally think about the nature of moral truths. What it is for a truth to be a fundamental moral truth, is to be true independent of any parameter. “Making” moral truths true relative to such parameters is to give up on the very idea of morality.

So it looks like we treat our attitude towards slavery more like a matter of empirical fact than a matter of mere preference. But our confidence in at least one moral proposition seems to be greater than our confidence in any of the arguments for moral anti-realism.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhiloso..._there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/

If you examine human action you don’t observe questions of right and wrong as boiling down to opinions or preferences.
We do have the intuitive sense that some values are wrong and some values are right, we do have the intuitive sense that some choices are wrong and some are right and this is best seen in our own actions.
We do argue, bitterly, about questions of right and wrong and we think that problems such as abortion aren’t just matters of opinion but actually matter. Our actual observations don’t match up to what we would expect given relativism; they line up much better with what we’d expect to observe given an objective morality that isn’t always clear.
The Hypocrisy of Moral Relativism

Also western adults seem to regard moral properties as objective, at least more so than social conventions or taste properties, but less so than scientific facts (Goodwin & Darley 2008).
Shafer-Landau non-naturalist version of moral realism
Shafer-Landau, by contrast thinks that ethical principles are self-evident and can be justifiably believed and known on the basis of intuition.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40041039

And we certainly cant test those assumptions.

Why not. We can see if our moral intuitions are supported by reasoning if they support Human life.

Also, "belief" means its not "objective morality" as belief demands an moral agent (who by definition cant be "objective" as its a subject).

I am not talking about our basic belief in a god. I am talking about justified beliefs for which we can have about anything. The reason it’s called “Justified” belief is because we have good reason to think it’s true and therefore believe it.

Also, better/best? By which standard? Better/best for whom? Who got the authority to decide?

Humans are the authority. Not by their subjective thinking but by their rational and logical thinking. By their belief in their intuitive knowledge of moral truths. Any standard that allows human life.

 

[stevevw]

It's like Groundhog Day. People keep telling you that that is not true.

Just to clarify, what are we talking about that you claim everyone is saying is "Not true". Do you understand how subjective morality works.
Would you class yourself as taking the moral subjective position.

The conversation moves on somewhere and then I wake up the following day and nothing has changed. You keep saying the same thing over and over again. It doesn't matter that you are constantly told that it's not something anyone believes.

It doesn't matter that so many people have tried to explain that what you have just stated is a nonsensical position.

Actually can you explain what you mean by nonsensical position.

Sonny and Cher kick in and we have to do it all. over. again.

Thats funny. But still a logical fallacy and highly ironic that you claim that "Everyone" including Sonny and Cher (not that they know anything about (Metaethics) is telling me I am wrong. Like its great evidence as to why I'm wrong based on 2 or 3 posters personal opinion. Yet the same people claim I was using a logical fallacy in using a academic survey showing I was correct where double the amount of philosophers think objective morality is true or makes sense that its a logical fallacy.

I would have thought that an academic survey with experts in the field would be more reliable and trustworthy to believe than your claim. See how both you and I appealed to the arguement for popularism but its ok for you to use it and not me.

Anyway none of this is an arguement for why I am wrong. I am still yet to have any arguement that defeats the argument for moral realism.

A

 

[stevevw]

You act as if "objective morality" will somehow "magically" prevent people from saying "torturing children is not really wrong" (LOL) You jokin right?

This is another logical fallacy. A strawman. I havn't made any claim or arguemnet that just because we all know objective morality that we should follow it or celebrate it. We have free will and people can choose to ignore, deny or twist the truth.

In fact I would go as far as to say that today we have twisted the truth so much that we are finding it hard to tell a truth from a lie. Subjstive morality allows people to twist the truth into a lie if they want.

The point is people know the moral truth like its wrong to torture babies for fun. They can deny this if they want. They can come up with a reason why its OK to torture kids. But its thye fact that we acr/react like torturing kids is wrong shows that we know this is wrong within us like its a law of some sort.

If someone did say it is ON to torture kids we would think this is strange and perhaps tell our kids to stay away form the person. Thats how we act by default like some morals are really wrong to do no matter what people say or claim.

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[stevevw]

Under subjectivity we cannot say that torture is really right.

This for me is the crux of the issue and maybe some don't understand this. Under a subjective moral system you cannot say torturing children for fun is really morally right or wrong because there is really no morality being discussed. Your only talking about feelings and opinions which can never be really right or wrong.

That seems to be the standard understanding of how subjective morlaity works, its only about the subject and the subjects views say nothing truth or factual outside themselves in the world.

 

[stevevw]

"We" certainly dont react like "morals are objective", thats just an assertion without any support.

Once again refer to last post. It is widely acknowledged that humans think in terms or morals being truths and objective. ie

If you examine human action you don’t observe questions of right and wrong as boiling down to opinions or preferences.
We do have the intuitive sense that some values are wrong and some values are right, we do have the intuitive sense that some choices are wrong and some are right and this is best seen in our own actions.
We do argue, bitterly, about questions of right and wrong and we think that problems such as abortion aren’t just matters of opinion but actually matter. Our actual observations don’t match up to what we would expect given relativism; they line up much better with what we’d expect to observe given an objective morality that isn’t always clear.
The Hypocrisy of Moral Relativism

If morals would be "objective", yes they should be seperate, there should also be a way of finding out what they are if they are to be meaningful. They also need authority or they arent meaningful either.

you’re not appreciating that moral situations are given meaning by humans through their making morals objective by reasoning them. That gives them independence and authority.

"Humans" certainly dont know that "life is intrinsically valuable", you cant just assert things without giviing it support.

Then how do we account for the US declaration, many countries constitutions, UN Human Rights , most sciences, philosophers all give value, dignity and respect to human life like its an objective instrinsic value. This is because its a self-evident truth we all know that life is valuable in the way we act and live.

Evolution is a process that explains how populations change, you ascribing it metaphysical properties do you no favours.

I am not attributing evolution teleology. I am saying that even evolutionists agree that life has importance. This along with the importance religions and most other sciences ethicists and philosophers do it is safe to say that “Human Life” is an objective basis we can measure most morals from. If we are to determine some standard for morality this is a pretty good one to start with.

I certainly can hold the view that torturing children is wrong. That does not mean that I believe it to be "objectivly right" (whatever that would be).

Maybe so, but it also means your view carries no weight as its just your opinion and carries no independent support that’ what you claim is actually true.

You keep doing strawmen and not understanding the opposing view. Study, stop reading crap articles telling you what you want to hear. Read som real moral philosophy material.

So basically you are creating another fallacy that what I read is crap because it doesn’t match what you think to be the truth rather than address my argument.

 

[Bradskii]

...you’re not appreciating that moral situations are given meaning by humans through their making morals objective by reasoning them.

'...you’re not appreciating that moral situations are given meaning by humans...'

Words fail me.

 

[Neogaia777]

Look, it doesn't matter if technically there may be no objective moral truths, because it doesn't mean that we should be immoral, or all act immorally, etc, but just all agree on a mutual common consensus, and make that or those our laws, etc...

By that definition you might even be able to say that there isn't anything truly objective, or that doesn't have some mix of "us", at all ever, or that is really ever truly objective really, etc...

What makes us, "us", should be what ultimately determines our laws, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

Look, it doesn't matter if technically there may be no objective moral truths, because it doesn't mean that we should be immoral, or all act immorally, etc, but just all agree on a mutual common consensus, and make that or those our laws, etc...

By that definition you might even be able to say that there isn't anything truly objective, or that doesn't have some mix of "us", at all ever, or that is really ever truly objective really, etc...

What makes us, "us", should be what ultimately determines our laws, etc...

Could'na put it better myself.

 

[stevevw]

'...you’re not appreciating that moral situations are given meaning by humans...'

Words fail me.

why is that so strange.

 

[Bradskii]

why is that so strange.

It's the very definition of subjective...

 

[stevevw]

It's the very definition of subjective...

Yes but you cut out the part of my post that said by "rational and logical reasoning". Humans give morality meaning, truth and objectivity through reasoning them to have indepedent and necessary value. This makes the determination made not by subjective human thinking but rational and logical thinking.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes but you cut out the part of my post that said by "rational and logical reasoning". Humans give morality meaning, truth and objectivity through reasoning them to have indepedent and necessary value. This makes the determination made not by subjective human thinking but rational and logical thinking.

No, this is what you said: 'moral situations are given meaning by humans through their making morals objective by reasoning them.' In other words, the meaning is due to the people reasoning it themselves. In other words: Why do morals have meaning? Because people 'give morality meaning'.

You have said the exact opposite to how one might find something is objectively moral. Which would be by discovering it. By my reasoning I determine that euthanasia is acceptable in some circumstances. Your reasoning may lead you to a different conclusion.

If it's objectively right, then how would we know?

 

[Moral Orel]

Wrong thread. <deleted>