Is there an absolute morality?

[Bradskii]

Why. People disagree with morality even when they know its objectively wrong just like they do with the law.

 

[Bradskii]

Why. People disagree with morality even when they know its objectively wrong just like they do with the law.

I wish I didn't have to keep clarifying this...

People either think a law is right ot wrong. Not both. There are laws I think are wrong and I break some of them because I know they're nonsensical, there'll be no harm done and very little chance of being punished. Other's I'll obey because quite simply I don't want to be punished for breaking them. But I don't think they're objectively wrong but subjectively right. That makes zero sense. And I really cannot believe that I have to explain that.

So it is with morality. You cannot hold something to be wrong yet think it's right. If you're a Catholic, you cannot believe that sex outside marriage is objectively wrong yet subjectively right. You might disagree with the church's teaching yet obey it (as I do with some laws). Which is obviously not the same thing.

Your position is untenable.

 

[Neogaia777]

But when you consider the history of Colonization, the Colonizers were more advanced and knowledgeable than the indigenous people inhabiting the land they colonized, yet the colonizers were not fair, kind, or morally superior to those they colonized. With that in mind, I'm sure you will understand not everybody is gonna be willing to gamble on all that stuff you said back on post #330 to be accurate.

Well, if we were not talking about advanced on a "whole other level" I might agree with you, but as it stands I just don't in this case, etc...

And others can do/say/believe/trust what they like, etc...

God Bless!

 

[stevevw]

It would be a mistake to assume everyone who uses reason, logic, will arrive to the same conclusion. the Pope and the Feminist will both use reason and logic concerning the morality of abortion and will both remain polar opposites on the issue.

Then your still using subjective opinions rather than rationality and logic. Say for example say science proved that the Fetus is human life and not some clump of tissue. Then it doesnt matter what the Feminist or the Pope personally think about abortion the basis for reasoning and logic will be that human life is valuable and we cannot do anything that threatens that value.

All parties cannot pretend that an abosrtion is not against this moral truth. There is no way the feminist can come to a different conclusion without denying this fact. They will both have to admit that abortion is against the value of human life. So any personal opinion that disagrees is wrong.

But rational and logic ARE based on your subjective views and opinions.

No they are not. Subjective thinking and critical thinking are completely different. Rationality and logic are just tools to find the facts. I mean look at the meaning of logic
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
So principles of validity is scientific and needs to be supported by facts and not personal opinion.

That's not what I asked. You gave an example of the discrepancy between what you wish to be moral vs what is objectively moral; I didn't ask that. I asked for an example between what you BELIEVE to be moral vs what IS objective moral. So unless you believe sex out of wedlock is perfectly fine, but believe it is not objective morally okay, you didn't answer my question. Care to try again?

That would be impossible because the mere fact I know the objective moral means I cannot think its OK to do anything else.I could know a moral objective but choose to do something else and defy that objective moral. But I connot both think a moral is objective and and not objective at the same time.

 

[stevevw]

I wish I didn't have to keep clarifying this...

People either think a law is right ot wrong. Not both. There are laws I think are wrong and I break some of them because I know they're nonsensical, there'll be no harm done and very little chance of being punished. Other's I'll obey because quite simply I don't want to be punished for breaking them. But I don't think they're objectively wrong but subjectively right. That makes zero sense. And I really cannot believe that I have to explain that.

So it is with morality. You cannot hold something to be wrong yet think it's right. If you're a Catholic, you cannot believe that sex outside marriage is objectively wrong yet subjectively right. You might disagree with the church's teaching yet obey it (as I do with some laws). Which is obviously not the same thing.

Your position is untenable.

well as I said Idisagreed with the objective and went with my own view. In some ways that just shows that there is an objective if I am disputing it and thinking there is another way to behave besides the objective that is OK. Obviously like you and the laws you think are wrong. If the laws or morals are objective then it makes little sense that you say I think they are wrong because that sjust your personal opinion as opposed to an objective law that stands.

 

[stevevw]

You asked Brad to violate site rules by explaining why he thinks sex outside of marriage is okay.

I did not ask Brad to do any such thing.

 

[Ken-1122]

Then your still using subjective opinions rather than rationality and logic.

Logic includes rationality and subjective opinions

Say for example say science proved that the Fetus is human life and not some clump of tissue. Then it doesnt matter what the Feminist or the Pope personally think about abortion the basis for reasoning and logic will be that human life is valuable and we cannot do anything that threatens that value.

All parties cannot pretend that an abosrtion is not against this moral truth. There is no way the feminist can come to a different conclusion without denying this fact. They will both have to admit that abortion is against the value of human life. So any personal opinion that disagrees is wrong.

The Abortion debate is not about whether or not a fetus is human life or not, it’s whether or not a fetus is a person or not.

No they are not. Subjective thinking and critical thinking are completely different. Rationality and logic are just tools to find the facts. I mean look at the meaning of logic
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
So principles of validity is scientific and needs to be supported by facts and not personal opinion.

Logic is not always going to be based on facts.

That would be impossible because the mere fact I know the objective moral means I cannot think its OK to do anything else.I could know a moral objective but choose to do something else and defy that objective moral. But I connot both think a moral is objective and and not objective at the same time.

For thousands of years, people saw nothing wrong with slavery, and human sacrifice for religious purposes. According to you, objective morality proves them wrong. If they were capable of disagreeing with objective morality, I’m asking if the same can be said for you.

 

[stevevw]

These are all the same thing. Logic, reason, arguments. None of them can justify objective morality.

They are not the same thing. They are tools for finding facts and not personal opinions. Look at the meaning of Logic
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
So principles of validity are scientific. That means its based on evidence, facts. We can find the facts that support the moral value of human "LIfe" being valuable.

We cannot. Everyone "intuits" things differently.

When it come sto morality we all intuit the same moral truths like "Don't kill, steal, rape, abuse kids. Anyone who says that its OK to do these things is objectively wrong.

How do you know that your intuition is correct and Ted Bundy's intuition was incorrect? You would need reason.

You use reason and logic. You find the facts that support the moral truth. Bundys actions in no way could be rationalised to support the moral truth that "life' is valuable.

You ready to look at my proof for why reason necessarily fails to prove any and all moral facts?
Is there Objective Morality?

Thats just wrong. I checked it pout and it overlooks the fact that we can have a basis for measuring moral wrong and reason and logic can help determine if those moral actions meet the basis for which we use to determine if an act is right or wrong.

Our moral intuition is selfevident. When we see a child being abused we know its wrong because our intution is the end result of assessing and testing that moral wrong to see if it stands up. So when we intuit quickly this is actually not some mystical or arbitrary feeling but processes and analysed thinking.

This then helps us recognise moral wrongs and then we can use reason and logic to find the facts that support that intuitive sense that its morally wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Logic includes rationality and subjective opinions

Your making this up. Logic is not about subjective opinions. Its the opposite. Itds about scientific validity which means supporting things with facts not personal opinions.

The Abortion debate is not about whether or not a fetus is human life or not, it’s whether or not a fetus is a person or not.

OK whatever it is if science found that the fetus was a person then most people would hestiate to have an abortion as they know it would be killing.

For thousands of years, people saw nothing wrong with slavery, and human sacrifice for religious purposes. According to you, objective morality proves them wrong. If they were capable of disagreeing with objective morality, I’m asking if the same can be said for you.

Those people who thought slavery was OK were ignorant of the facts and thats why they thought slavery was OK. They also were selfish which may have blinded thenm to the facts. But primarily back then they didnt have the benefit of years of knowledge we have today which can help clarify things as to the facts.

The reason slavery stopped is because people were made aware that black people were not a lower form of human but that they were the same as whites. Once people knew this fact they could no longer justify enslaving blacks.

So it is with abortion. As the facts about whetehr the fetus is a human life or persona s you say then if this shows they are a person or life then people can no longer justify abortion unless they want to defy the facts. This is often the reason there is moral disagreeance. Not because they disagree with teh moral truth but the facts around it. All people agree with the ciore set of morlal truths.

But heres the rub. If there are no objective morals then why would they even be wrong in their opinion of slavery. Under subjective morlaity banning slavery would not be an improvement of stopping a wrong. It would just be a different way to behave. So the mere fact that we canb improve morality shows there has to be an objective basis to measure the moral progress.

 

[VirOptimus]

Your making this up. Logic is not about subjective opinions. Its the opposite. Itds about scientific validity which means supporting things with facts not personal opinions.

Logic is not science, its a branch of philosophy. Logic is only valid depending on the starting parameters.

As you cannot show that there are moral facts or values logic wont help you.

OK whatever it is if science found that the fetus was a person then most people would hestiate to have an abortion as they know it would be killing. Those people who thought slavery was OK were ignorant of the facts and thats why they thought slavery was OK. They also were selfish which may have blinded thenm to the facts. But primarily back then they didnt have the benefit of years of knowledge we have today which can help clarify things as to the facts.

Dont you see how this is much easier to explain with there being no objective morality?

The reason slavery stopped is because people were made aware that black people were not a lower form of human but that they were the same as whites. Once people knew this fact they could no longer justify enslaving blacks.

Slavery has not been exclusively on "black people" thorugh history, you seem very ignorant about world history.

So it is with abortion. As the facts about whetehr the fetus is a human life or persona s you say then if this shows they are a person or life then people can no longer justify abortion unless they want to defy the facts. This is often the reason there is moral disagreeance. Not because they disagree with teh moral truth but the facts around it. All people agree with the ciore set of morlal truths.

No, all people dont agree on a core set of moral truths. And you dont understand the abortion debate either.

But heres the rub. If there are no objective morals then why would they even be wrong in their opinion of slavery. Under subjective morlaity banning slavery would not be an improvement of stopping a wrong. It would just be a different way to behave. So the mere fact that we canb improve morality shows there has to be an objective basis to measure the moral progress.

You really really dont understand what not accepting a objective morality entails.

 

[Bradskii]

well as I said Idisagreed with the objective and went with my own view.

So you think your view is the correct one. You keep telling us this. In effect saying 'Here's an objective truth - which is wrong'. How can you argue that an objective truth is wrong? It's the most outrageously bizarre argument I've heard.

In some ways that just shows that there is an objective if I am disputing it and thinking there is another way to behave besides the objective that is OK.

Well, it was until that one.

 

[VirOptimus]

So you think your view is the correct one. You keep telling us this. In effect saying 'Here's an objective truth - which is wrong'. How can you argue that an objective truth is wrong? It's the most outrageously bizarre argument I've heard.



Well, it was until that one.

Its very funny.

 

[Moral Orel]

These are all the same thing. Logic, reason, arguments.

[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 76357431, member: 342064"]They are not the same thing...Look at the meaning of Logic
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.[/QUOTE]
Yes, look at the meaning of "Logic". In particular, the first word.

When it come sto morality we all intuit the same moral truths like "Don't kill, steal, rape, abuse kids.

No, this is demonstrably incorrect. There are people who do all of these things and they're intuition tells them they are doing the right thing. Stop saying "We all intuit the same". If we did, everyone would act the same.

Anyone who says that its OK to do these things is objectively wrong.

Prove that it's objectively wrong. Their intuition says otherwise, so we can't rely on our intuition.

You use reason and logic. You find the facts that support the moral truth. Bundys actions in no way could be rationalised to support the moral truth that "life' is valuable.

Then we're back to my proof and the fact that you need an "ought" in the premises to have an "ought" in the conclusion. Let me be clear that this point is not debatable. If you form a logical argument with an "ought" in the conclusion, it must have a premise containing an "ought" or your argument is not valid. This is how logic works, and if you disagree you are wrong. This is an invalid argument:

X
Y -> X
Z

I checked it pout and it overlooks the fact that we can have a basis for measuring moral wrong and reason and logic can help determine if those moral actions meet the basis for which we use to determine if an act is right or wrong.

We have a basis for measurement? What is that?

Our moral intuition is selfevident.

Demonstrably incorrect. If it was, no one would intuit differently from anyone else.

When we see a child being abused we know its wrong because our intution is the end result of assessing and testing that moral wrong to see if it stands up. So when we intuit quickly this is actually not some mystical or arbitrary feeling but processes and analysed thinking.

And the person doing the abusing has used their intuition to deem their actions right. The mere fact that there are people who do things you deem wrong is absolute proof that intuition is not reliable. If there is an objective morality, then every single instance of a person doing an immoral act is an instance of human intuition failing. You have to go outside intuition. And using reason leads to an infinite regress of unjustified "oughts".

 

[Neogaia777]

Now I believe objective truth is different than objective absolute right and wrong when it comes to all morality, etc...

For example I think it is an objective truth that "this world and this environment and this reality is real to us", etc, and I think that is an objective truth, etc, but and/or then I might then also add "right now anyway", etc, but I digress...

God Bless!

 

[stevevw]

Logic is not science, its a branch of philosophy. Logic is only valid depending on the starting parameters.

Then how do you explain this

The scientific method is a rational, logical thought process that is used to figure out facts and truths.
Biology4Kids.com: Scientific Studies: Logic.

As you cannot show that there are moral facts or values logic wont help you.

But IU have shown that morals have value and are facts.

Dont you see how this is much easier to explain with there being no objective morality?

quite contrary. If we look back on the American slavery we can say it was objectively wrong with better understanding today because we understand the facts. Human "Life" is equal and valuable and we should not treat people as animals.

Slavery has not been exclusively on "black people" thorugh history, you seem very ignorant about world history.

I am talking about the example of slavery used in America. That will suffice to make the point.

No, all people dont agree on a core set of moral truths.

OK if someone said that torturing innoicent children was OK can we say they are objectively wrong.

And you dont understand the abortion debate either.

Why, what is the primary moral relating to abortion. What is the most important issue above all.

You really really dont understand what not accepting a objective morality entails.

No tell me.

 

[stevevw]

Now I believe objective truth is different than objective absolute right and wrong when it comes to all morality, etc...

For example I think it is an objective truth that "this world and this environment and this reality is real to us", etc, and I think that is an objective truth, etc, but and/or then I might then also add "right now anyway", etc, but I digress...

God Bless!

And thats the basis for moral realism (objective moality). If we can justifiably believe that our physical world, environment, and reality is a true representation of "what is" based on our experience and sense of it and is not some simulation then why can't we justifiably believe that our moral intuition (sense) is a true representation of what morality really is.

We have no reason to doubt our intuition of morality. Until someone can tell us its objectively OK to torture a child then our intuition of morality "that it is truthfully wrong to torture a child" is correct. The same logic that applies of our intuition of how physical world operates iapplies in the same way to our intuition of morality.

 

[stevevw]

[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 76357431, member: 342064"]They are not the same thing...Look at the meaning of Logic
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.[/QUOTE]
Yes, look at the meaning of "Logic". In particular, the first word.

Yes and reason (rationality) is also used in science.
Logic has you thinking with reason and arguments (statements).Scientists use logic because it shows the relationships between the parts of an idea and the whole idea.
The scientific method is a rational, logical thought process that is used to figure out facts and truths.
http://www.biology4kids.com/files/studies_logic.html

No, this is demonstrably incorrect. There are people who do all of these things and they're intuition tells them they are doing the right thing. Stop saying "We all intuit the same". If we did, everyone would act the same.

You are talking about feelings not intuition. Intuition is the end result of analytic thinking about our moral experiences and how we have already assessed and tested that experience to determine what is morally right and wrong. Once again I will turn to independent support.

Intuitive decisions are often a product of previous intense and/or extensive explicit thinking.
Explainer: what is intuition?

But I think this article best explains moral intuition
Good intuitive thinking “rests upon a solid knowledge of the subject, a familiarity that gives intuition something to work with” [Bruner, 1960, pp. 56–57]. It involves a holistic perception of the problem, an “immediate apprehension or cognition” (p. 60) without awareness of how the solution was derived and the employment of shortcuts – but which often lead to later rechecking or attempts to verify conclusions. Hence intuitive and analytic thinking are complementary and can be seen as sequential. That is, intuitions involve a tentative ordering of a body of knowledge that leads to testing of validity through analytic thinking.2
Moral Development in the Early Years: When and How

Prove that it's objectively wrong. Their intuition says otherwise, so we can't rely on our intuition.

You have a misunderstanding of moral intuition then. In fact inntuition is seen as a good basis for evidence in philiosophy when it comes to ethics.

First, philosophers tend to believe propositions which they find intuitive. Second, philosophers offer error theories for intuitions that conflict with their theories. Finally, philosophers are more confident in rejecting theories to the extent that they have several (intuitive) counter examples involving diverse cases. I argue that these facts are better explained by philosophers' using intuitions as evidence than by any plausible contrary explanations.
Intuitions are Used as Evidence in Philosophy

Then we're back to my proof and the fact that you need an "ought" in the premises to have an "ought" in the conclusion. Let me be clear that this point is not debatable. If you form a logical argument with an "ought" in the conclusion, it must have a premise containing an "ought" or your argument is not valid. This is how logic works, and if you disagree you are wrong. This is an invalid argument:

X
Y -> X
Z


We have a basis for measurement? What is that?

We do have an ought in the basis for moral truths. I have already pointed that out. Itshuman "LIfe" is given value by humans intuitively. We can see this in the way they speak and act. Therefore we ought to behave in a way that values human "life".

Demonstrably incorrect. If it was, no one would intuit differently from anyone else.

We do intuit the same. But neverthelesdemonstrate how we don't intuit the same.

And the person doing the abusing has used their intuition to deem their actions right.

No they havent. Theyve used their subjective view thats its OK. They have used their feelings, perosnal rationalizations why its OK.

The mere fact that there are people who do things you deem wrong is absolute proof that intuition is not reliable.

thats got nothing to do with intuition. Intuition isnt some force that makes people act wrong. People have a free will to choose to do right or wrong.

If there is an objective morality, then every single instance of a person doing an immoral act is an instance of human intuition failing. You have to go outside intuition. And using reason leads to an infinite regress of unjustified "oughts".

You need to do some reading oin what intuition is.

 

[Neogaia777]

And thats the basis for moral realism (objective moality). If we can justifiably believe that our physical world, environment, and reality is a true representation of "what is" based on our experience and sense of it and is not some simulation then why can't we justifiably believe that our moral intuition (sense) is a true representation of what morality really is.

We have no reason to doubt our intuition of morality. Until someone can tell us its objectively OK to torture a child then our intuition of morality "that it is truthfully wrong to torture a child" is correct. The same logic that applies of our intuition of how physical world operates iapplies in the same way to our intuition of morality.

To the first paragraph, because we all can agree on the former, but we all do not with the latter... And some of the worst tragedies in our history was by people who thought they had this right, and were able to convince others collectively, etc... just thought I'd add that...

As to the second paragraph, the problem comes in when what one person thinks is torture is actually discipline, (maybe from which you (or the child) will benefit greatly), and vice versa, etc... When you get into definitions/parameters with our different cultures and viewpoints and imperfect languages, etc...

Again, when and where not all can always agree and all always be in 100% complete agreement, it's not objective, (anymore), etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

@stevevw

And I did not mean it could not be a simulation of sorts, but only that, based on our experience of it, and what our senses are telling us, it is, etc, and that right now, that is (objectively) true right now for every single person, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Moral Orel]

We do have an ought in the basis for moral truths. I have already pointed that out. Itshuman "LIfe" is given value by humans intuitively. We can see this in the way they speak and act. Therefore we ought to behave in a way that values human "life".

Some humans value life, some humans don't. Prove that the one's who do are correct to do so. Why ought we value life?