Is there an absolute morality?

[stevevw]

So you can't give a reason why life ought to be valued. It just is something which ought to be valued.

I thought I just gave reasons. Epistemically just understanding what a human is becomes enough reason that we have a duty to act as humans and live to our fullest potential. If we don't we will not exist. I think thats reason enough.

 

[stevevw]

There you go again saying the same old things that are false. Only now you're doing it after explicitly stating that you know it's false:

And I qualified that I was talking about everyone knowing objective moral values and that just because they know this doesnt mean they have to disagree. So you are taking what I said out of context.

No matter how sound my arguments are, you're just going to pretend it never happened, aren't you?

I'm not doubting the soundness of your arguement logically. Like you said my arguement hinges on P1 being supported. So therefore I have provided support for P1 which you then need to argue against.

 

[Moral Orel]

And I qualified that I was talking about everyone knowing objective moral values and that just because they know this doesnt mean they have to disagree. So you are taking what I said out of context.

No, I'm not. If you know a fact, then you believe that fact, then you agree with that fact.
If I believe that X is true, but in reality X is false, then I don't know that I'm incorrect, do I?
If I know that X is false, then I know my belief is incorrect. Your objection is nonsense.

Epistemically just understanding what a human is becomes enough reason that we have a duty to act as humans and live to our fullest potential. If we don't we will not exist. I think thats reason enough.

So we ought to value life because we ought to value existing.

Why ought we value existing?

 

[durangodawood]

....I am saying that we all know and accept that "Life" is intrinsically valuable.....

No we dont. I value life. But the whole idea of "intrinsic value" is nonsense to me.

Value is a regard some entity has for something. I cannot even conceive of the meaning of "value" as contextless. IF value can be intrinsic, then what is it when its intrinsic, when its not valued by someone?

 

[VirOptimus]

The arguement comes down to P1. I am saying that we all know and accept that "Life" is intrinsically valuable. Once understood we have an obligation to live life like its valuable. Its pretty simple really. There is plenty of evidence that "LIfe" is intrinsically valuable. Such as the Declarations, Treaties and laws of most countries protecting life as intrinsically valuable. Like how all ethical theories refer to some sort of intrinsic values. Like with Natural Law which is widely acepted. Like with HUman Rights being unalienable.

The precepts of the natural law are also knowable by nature. All human beings possess a basic knowledge of the principles of the natural law (ST IaIIae 94, 4). This knowledge is exhibited in our intrinsic directedness toward the various goods that the natural law enjoins us to pursue, and we can make this implicit awareness explicit and propositional through reflection on practice.
In the history of philosophy, relatively few seem to have entertained doubts about the concept of intrinsic value.
The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Certain rights, however, are non-derogable, that is, they cannot be suspended even in a state of emergency. Article 4(2) of the ICCPR provides that no derogation is permitted for: right to life (art 6)
Absolute rights

Natural law is a system of law based on a close observation of human nature, and based on values intrinsic to human nature that can be deduced and applied independent of positive law (the enacted laws of a state or society).[2] According to natural law theory, all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason."[3]

Intrinsic value has traditionally been thought to lie at the heart of ethics.
Many philosophers take intrinsic value to be crucial to a variety of moral judgments.
All major normative ethical theories identify something as being intrinsically valuable.
Intrinsic value (ethics) - Wikipedia

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable. Natural law is the law of natural rights.

If we have intrinsic value, then it’s good to merely for us to exist.
It seems clear enough that many people find the value of human life to be intuitive. We don’t just feel like we want to live because we are deluded or manipulated by our instincts.
We feel like our lives are highly meaningful parts of the universe. The view that human life has value is uncontroversial.
Does Human Life Have Value?

Human beings are not taught natural law per se, but rather we “discover” it by consistently making choices for good instead of evil.

Examples of Natural Law
When a child tearfully exclaims, “It’s not fair [that]..." or when viewing a documentary about the suffering of war, we feel pain because we're reminded of the horrors of human evil. And in doing this, we are also providing evidence for the existence of natural law.
Natural Law Definition

More platitudes, less proof.

You have still not supported your points.

 

[Moral Orel]

Its pretty simple really. There is plenty of evidence that "LIfe" is intrinsically valuable. Such as the Declarations, Treaties and laws of most countries protecting life as intrinsically valuable. Like how all ethical theories refer to some sort of intrinsic values. Like with Natural Law which is widely acepted. Like with HUman Rights being unalienable.

You're mixing up propositions. These are two distinct propositions:

People value X
People ought to value X

You want to prove that "All people ought to value life" by using the fact that "Some people value life". Okay, let's see that in an argument:

P1 Some people value life
C All people ought to value life

Mmmm... Nope, doesn't follow. If that was a valid argument, then this is an equally valid argument:

P1 Some people do not value life
C All people ought not value life

But in truth, neither of these are valid arguments.

Do not say that "All people value life" because you know that to be untrue.

Do not say that "Most people value life" because that's an argument from popularity fallacy. The number of people who believe something to be true has no bearing on the truth of that thing.

Do not say that "Most people value life a lot" because that's an argument from emotion fallacy. How strongly people feel about a proposition has no bearing on the truth of that thing.

Just understand that your reasoning is a flat-out non-sequitur fallacy.

 

[stevevw]

No, I'm not. If you know a fact, then you believe that fact, then you agree with that fact.
If I believe that X is true, but in reality X is false, then I don't know that I'm incorrect, do I?
If I know that X is false, then I know my belief is incorrect. Your objection is nonsense.

THis is what I actually said.

I understand that, not everyone agrees. But that, s a logical fallacy to then follow that because "not everyone agrees" that there is no moral "Truth" at all.

You took what I said out of context as I wasd saying despite people diagreeing about morality doesnt mean they don't know moral truths. People disagree about climate change. Doers that mean sclimate change is not a fact. How do you know those who diosagree are just plain wrong.

So we ought to value life because we ought to value existing.
Why ought we value existing?

Because once we understand what a human being represents and entails we have a duty to survive.

 

[stevevw]

You're mixing up propositions. These are two distinct propositions:

People value X
People ought to value X

You want to prove that "All people ought to value life" by using the fact that "Some people value life". Okay, let's see that in an argument:

P1 Some people value life
C All people ought to value life

Mmmm... Nope, doesn't follow. If that was a valid argument, then this is an equally valid argument:

P1 Some people do not value life
C All people ought not value life

But in truth, neither of these are valid arguments.

Do not say that "All people value life" because you know that to be untrue.

Do not say that "Most people value life" because that's an argument from popularity fallacy. The number of people who believe something to be true has no bearing on the truth of that thing.

Do not say that "Most people value life a lot" because that's an argument from emotion fallacy. How strongly people feel about a proposition has no bearing on the truth of that thing.

Just understand that your reasoning is a flat-out non-sequitur fallacy.

But I am not using People value X or P1 Some people value life as the premise. I am saying that "LIfe" has intrinsic value so people should value life. Life is valuable in itself. That value is reflected onto us. Understanding that value brings a duty to do certain things to be human and therefore value life.

 

[Moral Orel]

You took what I said out of context as I wasd saying despite people diagreeing about morality doesnt mean they don't know moral truths

Nothing is out of context. You can't disagree with something you yourself believe to be a fact. That's nonsense and you're still repeating it.

People disagree about climate change. Doers that mean sclimate change is not a fact. How do you know those who diosagree are just plain wrong.

These are two different propositions:

I know X is true
X is true

Do you understand that?

 

[Moral Orel]

I am saying that "LIfe" has intrinsic value so perople should value life.

But saying that "Life has intrinsic value" is the same as saying "Life is the sort of thing we ought to value".

So all you're saying is "Because life is the sort of thing we ought to value, we ought to value life". Which is circular.

But I am not using People value X or P1 Some people value life as the premise.

If you aren't using it as a premise for an argument, why are you saying it at all? If you aren't using it as a premise to support your conclusion that "Life is the sort of thing we ought to value" then you haven't given a reason at all to support that conclusion.

 

[stevevw]

Nothing is out of context. You can't disagree with something you yourself believe to be a fact. That's nonsense and you're still repeating it.

I am talking about the assumtion you made because some people disagree. Thats was the point you keep overlooking. You made a logical fallacy in taking the fact that some people disagree and then said that shows that morals cannot be objective.

I was pointing out not that I disagreed that people have disagreements about morality but the further claim you make that this must somehow disprove objective morality or support subjective morlaity. You havent supported this.

These are two different propositions:

I know X is true
X is true

Do you understand that?

Yes so what sthat got to do with what I said.

 

[stevevw]

No we dont. I value life. But the whole idea of "intrinsic value" is nonsense to me.

Value is a regard some entity has for something. I cannot even conceive of the meaning of "value" as contextless. IF value can be intrinsic, then what is it when its intrinsic, when its not valued by someone?

It takes humans to recognise that value but it is not humans who giove it value. Life is valuable on its own accord. All the theories of mrolaity incorporate intrinsic values. Humans recognise this value to the point that they will make it law, a truth and force that onbto those who disagree. It is the basis for human civilization to respect life and give it dignity. Without it we would be a total mess.

 

[Moral Orel]

I am talking about the assumtion you made because some people disagree. Thats was the point you keep overlooking. You made a logical fallacy in taking the fact that some people disagree and then said that shows that morals cannot be objective.

I overlooked it because I never said anything of the sort. You imagined it.

I said that because it's logically possible to disagree, and we know this because people do, either proposition cannot be self-evident.

You said, "All people know" I pointed out that was a false statement. You agreed that it was false, and then repeated it.

I was pointing out not that I disagreed that people have disagreements about morality but the further claim you make that this must somehow disprove objective morality or support subjective morlaity. You havent supported this.

Yes, you understand that people disagree yet you keep claiming they know the fact they disagree about. It's nonsense, so stop doing that.

"Look, I know that X is true and all, but I disagree that X is true" <-- Nonsense.

 

[durangodawood]

It takes humans to recognise that value but it is not humans who giove it value. Life is valuable on its own accord. All the theories of mrolaity incorporate intrinsic values. Humans recognise this value to the point that they will make it law, a truth and force that onbto those who disagree. It is the basis for human civilization to respect life and give it dignity. Without it we would be a total mess.

Humans dont need to recognize an intrinsic value of life for any of that. They just need to, themselves, value life typically.

 

[stevevw]

I overlooked it because I never said anything of the sort. You imagined it.

Then why make the point that people disagree morally.

I said that because it's logically possible to disagree, and we know this because people do, either proposition cannot be self-evident.

But thats a logical fallacy as well of a strawman. I was talking about people knowing that life is intrinsically valuable not that they agreed it was valuable.

You said, "All people know" I pointed out that was a false statement.

And how did you point out this was a flase statement.

You agreed that it was false, and then repeated it.

Thios is wrong as to what happened. My agreement was that people disagree over the value of life. But I pointed out this doesnt mean they don't know that life is intrinsically valuable. They could be wrong, they could be in deial, they could have other reasons that cause them to not ackowledge life is valuable.

But the point is that "LIfe" is treated intrinsically valuable by those in positions that matter. They are human representatives for what is right and wrong and they make "LIfe" intrinsiclaly valuable. They havn't just subjetcively determined this. They have used rational and logoical thinking which shows life is intrinsiclaly valuable and therfore are justisfied to make this objective and force everyone to follow this.

Yes, you understand that people disagree yet you keep claiming they know the fact they disagree about. It's nonsense, so stop doing that.

No its not. Take science as an example. People know the earth is round but still people think its flat. People know climate change is happening but they still deny it. People know about objective facts but they can still disagree with this based on their makeup and subjective views. We know that people can have quite irrational views despite objective facts.

"Look, I know that X is true and all, but I disagree that X is true" <-- Nonsense.

Then you are not understand the human mind. How we can deny truths. Look at guilt, people hide the truth but but act guilty. Your not realizing that people can rationalize the truth/objective facts away and believe lies or beleve their own truths which are not facts.

 

[stevevw]

Humans dont need to recognize an intrinsic value of life for any of that. They just need to, themselves, value life typically.

But they would have no reason to value life if "Life" itself is not valuable in its own right. If the value of life was really subjective then not valuing life would be just as valid a position as valuing life.

But the fact is we treat life as "Intrinsically valuable". We don' t allow subjective views to dictate terms on this matter when it comes to society, the world. If we did then we would be a a horrible mess.

 

[Moral Orel]

Then you are not understand the human mind. How we can deny truths. Look at guilt, people hide the truth but but act guilty. Your not realizing that people can rationalize the truth/objective facts away and believe lies or beleve their own truths which are not facts.

Yeah, people can lie, but then they don't actually disagree. I know that morality is not objective because it is logically impossible to support with reason. Are you calling me a liar? According to your argument, I know it's objective, so I must have just said something that I know is not true. Am I lying?

 

[durangodawood]

But they would have no reason to value life if "Life" itself is not valuable in its own right. If the value of life was really subjective then not valuing life would be just as valid a position as valuing life.

But the fact is we treat life as "Intrinsically valuable". We don' t allow subjective views to dictate terms on this matter when it comes to society, the world. If we did then we would be a a horrible mess.

Nobody cares if valuing life is a "valid position". We just typically value it because that the sort of beings we are (whether we were created that way or we evolved).

A minority of people dont value life. The majority simply overrules them with laws and social pressures.

None of this requires life to have intrinsic value beyond the value beings have for it.

 

[Moral Orel]

But they would have no reason to value life if "Life" itself is not valuable in its own right.

I value chocolate ice cream, so chocolate ice cream must be valuable in it's own right. I only value life because I need to be alive to eat chocolate ice cream.

 

[Neogaia777]

I think most people who you are saying "don't value life", are actually not that way, but just maybe have periods or points in time in their life when they no longer value and/or see the point to continued life/existence "here", etc, but that very, very few actually want to completely cease to exist anymore entirely, etc, unless maybe they think that here is all there is, etc, because I don't know then, etc...?

Anyway,

God Bless!