Is there an absolute morality?

[Bradskii]

Look at it this way our position isnt about our personal subejctive views but about moral truths/facts which are not derived by personal opinions but reasoned facts.

So give me a moral position which you say is objectively determined with which you subjectively disagree.

 

[stevevw]

No, people who know the difference between objective vs subjective know morality is not objective.

Then how do you explain this
The reality is that there is a core set of moral norms that almost all humans accept. We couldn’t live together otherwise. The number of core norms is small, but they govern most of the transactions we have with other humans.
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God | Free Inquiry

Most of us see ourselves as capable of recognizing what is good, bad, valuable, and worthwhile. We think of ourselves as beings whose moral beliefs — about the badness of suffering, for example — are objectively true.
https://arcdigital.media/morals-are-objective-d647dc5bf12a

No, because if you gonna make the claim that morality changes over time because mankind has failed to get it right, but can't point to a time you've gotten it wrong, you are basically saying objective morality only aligns with your moral views, and anybody who disagrees with you is objectively wrong. If that is your position, (as absurd as it sounds) go ahead and say it

this is an even bigger logical fallacy that the previous one. I havnt said anything yet about my moral position and you are doing my thinking.

As I said originally I would not even know all the moral situations to be able to know that my morals align with them. But you seem to be fixated on this like its some great evdience that will disprove objective morality. I don't think so.

But its ironic that you want to use a non physical evidence to disprove objective morlaity and yet when I try to use non-physical evidence like our intuitions and rational thought to determine moral truths you say its not good enough evidence. Funny how things change when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[stevevw]

And? Do you think not accepting objecive morality is a rational position?

Well if objective morality is based on rational thinking then those rejecting that would be irrational. For example we all intuitively know that torturing a child for fun is objectively wrong. Those who disgree are irrational.

If moral "facs" have something to do with humans being humans (whatever that would mean) then its not objective, as its then dependent on subjects.

But human beings are capable of detereming facts/truths about moral acts through reasoning. Facts are not dependent of the subject.

Not all humans accept your "core morals" just look around the world. You think ISIS shares your "moral truths"? Or Iranians? Or the remote people in amazonas? Or we here in secular Sweden?

Their not my core morals. They are a common core set of morals. For example people in Sweden like most countries agree that tortuting a child for fun is morally wrong. Those same people say that anyone who thinks torturing a child for fun is good is objective wrong. So those same people will also think that ISIS or Iranians in torturing or killing innocent women and children are objectively wrong.

Just because some minority of people oppose thse core morals doesnt mean there are no objective core morals we all agree on. It just means those who disagree and act in contravention of those core morals are mistaken and wrong.

 

[stevevw]

So give me a moral position which you say is objectively determined with which you subjectively disagree.

OK So I disagree that a person has to be married before they can have sex. Thats the only one I can think of at the moment.

 

[stevevw]

A compromise, fellas. By Steve's criteria, atheism is the most reasonable position. Philosophers are the experts on the logic and reasoning that supports the existence of God, and most of them find it faulty.

You could have used scientists. That would have been a better arguement as the majority are atheists and most atheeists are materialist and science is basically about verifying physical reality. So the logic would be scientists know what they are talking about when it comes to evidence and so they should know best and better than philosophers.

Of special note, philosophers find the Argument from Objective Morality faulty when used to prove the existence of God.

Thats a different arguement. You have to support that there are objective morals without using God to be able to use objective morality as an arguemnet for God. Otherwise its a circular arguement.

 

[Bradskii]

OK So I disagree that a person has to be married before they can have sex. Thats the only one I can think of at the moment.

So how is it objectively wrong? We both think that in some circumstances there is nothing wrong with it. So how can something we think is perfectly acceptable even be described as immoral? Let alone objectively immoral.

 

[stevevw]

So how is it objectively wrong? We both think that in some circumstances there is nothing wrong with it. So how can something we think is perfectly acceptable even be described as immoral? Let alone objectively immoral.

The objective moral is about being in a committed and monogamous relationship and I think that doesnt always require marriage. But I do recognise some of the arguemnets for why marriage as a symbol of committed can help. So there is still an objective moral truth that couples should be faithful, and committed.

Moral truths are not about what you or I subjectively think. They are about facts/truths outside human subjective thinking. So each moral situations/example has to be reasoned out to determine that truth. The moral truth that a man and women should be committed and monogamous still remains. That can be argued as a truth by a number of facts.

Though I picked a pretty controversial and complex example. For example the evidence that committed and monogamous relationships have many benefits and complications and harm that comes with broken relationships.

 

[Ken-1122]

Then how do you explain this
The reality is that there is a core set of moral norms that almost all humans accept. We couldn’t live together otherwise. The number of core norms is small, but they govern most of the transactions we have with other humans.
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God | Free Inquiry

Sounds like somebody is expressing their personal opinion here.

Most of us see ourselves as capable of recognizing what is good, bad, valuable, and worthwhile. We think of ourselves as beings whose moral beliefs — about the badness of suffering, for example — are objectively true.

https://arcdigital.media/morals-are-objective-d647dc5bf12a

Even if there were those who think their moral beliefs were objectively true, it doesn’t mean that they are.

As I said originally I would not even know all the moral situations to be able to know that my morals align with them.

But every moral situation you know of, your views aligns perfectly with objective morality; is that correct? When it comes to issues like abortion, the Israel Palestine conflict., Nuclear weapons during war, Death with dignity, all of these issues, you are objectively right, and anyone who disagrees with you is objectively wrong; is that correct?

 

[stevevw]

Sounds like somebody is expressing their personal opinion here.

Yet is it argued through rationality and logic. Thats why most philosophers agree that objective morality is a rational position because it is reasoned out and logically stands.

Even if there were those who think their moral beliefs were objectively true, it doesn’t mean that they are.

But its not just based on agreement for the sake of it. Its a reasoned and logical position which makes it independent from subjective views and opinions.

But every moral situation you know of, your views aligns perfectly with objective morality; is that correct?

No thats whay you are saying. I don't know, there are some moral objectives I sort of disagree with like having to be married to have sex with your partner. I mean I would love to be able to get rich and live the high life literally. So I sort of agree with it but know its not right. Not as a Christian anyway. So there maybe morals that Christians have that non-Christians don't live by.

But the core morals like doný kill, steal, rape, abuse kids, brake promises, are known by all even if they disagree. So thats why I say I don't know as there may be moral situations I have never been in that I am yet to test.

The trouble with humans is that we are incapable of knowing all everything that needs to be known to make an infallible judgement of what is right and wrong. But that doesnt mean there is no moral truth. It just means that we are not in that position at the moment but may be able to work it out later. Thats why people say there needs to be a transcendent moral law giver who is all knowing, perfectly good and necessary.

 

[Neogaia777]

For someone who even defines this entire reality and our existence as something "subjective", it is first subject to God, then us, etc...

I believe the True God should define all the morals that we should all have in common as a/the human race, etc, because without that, it really does all seem subjective to us, as we are right now divided by cultures and races, etc, with different sets of morals for each, etc...

Oh, and if even reality itself is subjective, then it has to have a One to be subject to, or it would be completely undefined and wouldn't exist, etc...

And that's also what I believe as well, that reality itself would be undefined and wouldn't exist, and would be emptiness or nothingness, without the subjective viewpoint of another, etc...

A.K.A. "God", etc...

God Bless!

 

[Ken-1122]

Well if objective morality is based on rational thinking then those rejecting that would be irrational. For example we all intuitively know that torturing a child for fun is objectively wrong. Those who disgree are irrational.

So is that how it works? You just label those who disagree with you irrational? To what end?

 

[VirOptimus]

Well if objective morality is based on rational thinking then those rejecting that would be irrational. For example we all intuitively know that torturing a child for fun is objectively wrong. Those who disgree are irrational.

I see, everybody who disagrees with Stevevw is irrational.

And no, you have not shown that anything is "objectivly wrong", just asserted it.

But human beings are capable of detereming facts/truths about moral acts through reasoning. Facts are not dependent of the subject.

You still have not supported this, just asserted it.

Their not my core morals. They are a common core set of morals. For example people in Sweden like most countries agree that tortuting a child for fun is morally wrong. Those same people say that anyone who thinks torturing a child for fun is good is objective wrong. So those same people will also think that ISIS or Iranians in torturing or killing innocent women and children are objectively wrong.

Just asserting that something is "objectivly wrong" does not make it so.

But I have shown that you assertion about everyone sharing a core morality to be wrong.

Just because some minority of people oppose thse core morals doesnt mean there are no objective core morals we all agree on. It just means those who disagree and act in contravention of those core morals are mistaken and wrong.

No, if there are exceptions then its not everyone and your assertion is shown to be false.

 

[Neogaia777]

It's difficult, at least in the moral sense, with any of it being objective, because that basically means "always", and is an absolute...

But the law is and exercise in exceptions...

Why it gets so incredibly long and complex over more and more time...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

It's difficult, at least in the moral sense, with any of it being objective, because that basically means "always", and is an absolute...

But the law is and exercise in exceptions...

Why it gets so incredibly long and complex over more and more time...

Anyway,

God Bless!

I do think we can find somewhere to agree in most cases or in general though maybe anyway, or some in general guidelines maybe anyway, what we share in common as a people or a world or a race, etc, but then you have to get into law and how that works, most especially when rules are broken, etc, and those "degrees" also, etc...

Anyway, sometimes not easy being human, etc...

Right and wrong has had us in trouble from the very beginning, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

So there is still an objective moral truth that couples should be faithful, and committed.

That wasn't the example that you used. You said that sex outside marriage was objectively wrong. But that you think it can be OK. So how is it objectively wrong? You obviously think that the reasons you believe it can be OK trump any reasons for it being wrong. But that you still maintain it's OK.

Do you know what cognitive dissonance is? This is a classic example.

 

[Moral Orel]

You could have used scientists. That would have been a better arguement as the majority are atheists and most atheeists are materialist and science is basically about verifying physical reality. So the logic would be scientists know what they are talking about when it comes to evidence and so they should know best and better than philosophers.

No, we're using philosophers because that's the group you chose. Philosophers are the experts on logic and reason, I'll grant that, so you have a slight lead for the reasonableness of Moral Realism, and we have a big lead for the lack of reasonableness of believing in God.

Thats a different arguement. You have to support that there are objective morals without using God to be able to use objective morality as an arguemnet for God. Otherwise its a circular arguement.

No, I'm talking about theists using that argument to prove God, and it is found faulty by a majority of experts on arguments and reason.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well if objective morality is based on rational thinking then those rejecting that would be irrational.

Okay, now look back at what you said previously to notice your double-standard:

So at the very least we can say the real experts seem to disagree with you that my position is irrational and really says something about which is the real rational position objectivist.

And they do. Those opposed to moral realism (objective morality) still thought it was a rational position and that objectivists were not horrible confused.

We're irrational for disagreeing with you. But you think we consider you and your position to be rational even though you've reasoned incorrectly. Can't have it both ways, bub.

Brass tacks: your position is irrational. Are you personally an irrational person? I dunno. I haven't talked to you about anything but this topic. On this topic though, your points are almost entirely irrational.

And I bet you say the same about me. And that's fine.

But let's stop cut-n-pasting that bit about how moral non-realists think your position is rational, because they don't. You've got one moral realist making that claim with nothing to support it but his personal guess.

 

[stevevw]

That wasn't the example that you used. You said that sex outside marriage was objectively wrong. But that you think it can be OK.

But being faithful and committed relates to the moral wrong of sex outside marriage. Can't you see that.

So how is it objectively wrong?

Most behavioural sciences have objective evidence that being in a monogamous stable marriage is better for you across a number of areas. Being monogamous and committed such as in a marriage is betetr for kids as well which is better for families and society. There are other supports such as through anthropology, sociology, biology, that also lend support.

You obviously think that the reasons you believe it can be OK trump any reasons for it being wrong. But that you still maintain it's OK.

Well they may not trump the idea of marriage. I just think people can be in a committed and monogamous relationship without the piece of paper. But as I said I do understand the logic that having that bit of paper is like a symbol of that commitment and thus can show a deeper commitment.

Do you know what cognitive dissonance is? This is a classic example.

ITs not being cognitively dissonance at all and is rather not unusual to be in 2 minds about what one should do. Look at issues like abortion or the death penalty.

In fact look at what I have been saying about the subjective and relative position and how people claim morals are subjective/relative but then act like morals are objective. That is more common with subjectivists because its an impossible position to live out.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-

In fact look at what I have been saying about the subjective and relative position and how people claim morals are subjective/relative but then act like morals are objective.-snip-

Just how do "people act like morals are objective"?

 

[stevevw]

Okay, now look back at what you said previously to notice your double-standard:

Not sure what you mean. I have maintain a consistent position.

We're irrational for disagreeing with you. But you think we consider you and your position to be rational even though you've reasoned incorrectly. Can't have it both ways, bub.

Brass tacks: your position is irrational. Are you personally an irrational person? I dunno. I haven't talked to you about anything but this topic. On this topic though, your points are almost entirely irrational.

And I bet you say the same about me. And that's fine.

I never said anyone is irrational for disagreeing with "Me". I have said they would be irrational to disagree with objective morals. Thats a different thing. If morality is determined to be a truth/fact then it has been determined by rationality. It is logical that someone disagreeing with it will be irrational by the fact that the moral objective was determined rationally.

But let's stop cut-n-pasting that bit about how moral non-realists think your position is rational, because they don't. You've got one moral realist making that claim with nothing to support it but his personal guess.

No its not 1 non-realist but the majority in the survey done. It wasnt a personal guess but an academic survey. But this is not the only support if you read the mainstream general articles they will all say that we all agree that there is a small core set of objective morals we agree on and think are objective regardless of peoples subjective views. So its pretty musch the majority view even if your an atheist or non-objectivists as its also a commonsense view.