Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

Why has there h´got to be a objective measure?

Because we would lose control and have people ending their life for all sorts of subjective reasons. Having an objective basis (criteria) helps regulate things.

No, its not.

Euthenasia is about controlled suicide. Its done under strict guidelines. Sure you have your backyard variety but they are the illegal ones. AS a society we have a duty of care to ensure people are doing the right thing.

Show us a moral "fact".

Rape is wrong. Anyone who says rape is OK is objectively wrong.

We can reason and debate yes, that doesnt make it "objective".

But it helps find the objective (truth).

Maybe someone is, I dont know, but that does not show that it is objective.

Then why do the west condemn such practices if they cannot say its objective wrong.

No, its all logical and very much in line with the data that morals are not objective.

So your saying that another culture who thinks Killing is OK is acting in line with the data. Wait a minute, isnt logic and data about an objective basis.

Yes, but they dont disagree with the facts.

True, but sometimes the facts can be manipultated. Look at climate change or gender ideology.

Also, value cannot be intrinsic, for a value to exist there has to be an agent who makes it valueable.

There has to be an agent to do anything. But that agent can recognise self-evident value, that is value not dependent on something else.

 

[VirOptimus]

Because we would lose control and have people ending their life for all sorts of subjective reasons. Having an objective basis (criteria) helps regulate things.

Empty statement is empty.

Euthenasia is about controlled suicide. Its done under strict guidelines. Sure you have your backyard variety but they are the illegal ones. AS a society we have a duty of care to ensure people are doing the right thing.

Who gets to decide what is right? By what metric? Authority?

Rape is wrong. Anyone who says rape is OK is objectively wrong.

Thats an assertion, now, prove it.

But it helps find the objective (truth).

Truth by what measure? Who gets to decide?

Then why do the west condemn such practices if they cannot say its objective wrong.

Not beliving in objective morality does not make it so that you cannot have moral stances. I have corrected you on this multiple times, read up on it.

So your saying that another culture who thinks Killing is OK is acting in line with the data. Wait a minute, isnt logic and data about an objective basis.

Logic has nothing to do with "objective", data is data. you can use either to support youur position but that does not make morality "objective". Just as you can use data and logic to support positions on taste, beauty etc.

True, but sometimes the facts can be manipultated. Look at climate change or gender ideology.

This does not help your position.

There has to be an agent to do anything. But that agent can recognise self-evident value, that is value not dependent on something else.

No, the value is given by the agent(s).

 

[stevevw]

My point was that such arguments are an example of how peopel can act as though their subjective opinion is an objective fact.

But unlike moral values we don't enforce them onto others in normative ways.

I've never seen you present any evidence that can't be explained with subjective morality.

I have presented examples. Like you can rationally tell someone that they are objectively wrong about something moral. You cannot rationally say someone is morally wrong for liking sprouts.
Your evidence is illogical.

No you haven't.

You said because people have different views of morality that shows morality is subjective. Thats a logical fallacy and I showed you evidence ie

This argument, which we will now refer to as the “cultural differences argument” (Ibid), should be considered logically problematic and implausible.

The reasons for this are two-fold. Firstly, the conclusion of this argument does not follow from its premise. The premise of this argument (a) concerns what people believe, whilst its conclusion (b) concerns “what is really the case” (Ibid), a truth. These two observations are independent from each other and cannot be used to justify either statement correspondingly. This logical inconsistency, in turn reveals a major flaw in moral relativism: that this conclusion about the relativity of morality is derived purely from the fact that different cultures disagree about particular topics (Rachels 24).

Here are a number of serious objections to subjectivism I also linked to supprt my claim that your arguement is a logical fallacy. You have not refuted these objections.
1. If subjectivism is true, then the opinions of those in power are more easily forced upon others, while those who may oppose these opinions have no recourse to any "objective" grounds for objecting to these prevailing opinions. In other words, if subjectivism is true, then "might makes right".

2. If subjectivism is true, then there is no possibility of anybody being wrong; there will only be differences of opinion and preference.

3. If subjectivism is true and ethical claims express nothing more than our own attitudes about a particular act or behavior, then genuine ethical disagreement would be impossible.

4. If subjectivism is true and ethical claims express nothing more than our own attitudes about a particular act or behavior, then neither would any genuine ethical agreement be possible.
Isn't Ethics Just an Opinion?, Ethics - Wesleyan University

I've provided evidence to back up my position.

Apart from those logical fallqacies what else have you got to support your claim for subjective morality. And heres another point to consider. All this support you claim you have have no physical evdience. Theres nothing we can test. If you are claiming this evidence as some non-physical truth then you are doing exactly what you have been accusing me of.

Except I have provided evidence for my claims, haven't I?

Your attempt at a strawman is obvious.

If I am making a strawman does that mean you are making a strawman out of a strawman lol.

Then why were you going on and making such a big fuss about how I am making an objective claim that there is no objective morality as though I wasn't allowed to do it if I did not also believe there was objective morality?

To show that when it comes to morality wetreat it differently than subjective thinking. We know there is a right and wrong behaviour that needs to be identified. So when we say someone is wrong we are actually claiming a truth beyond ourselves. That doesnt happen with subjective thinking.

Well, I've been asking you for AGES to describe morality in the same kind of formal and structured language that we can use for maths and logic, and no one has ever been able to do so.

Well, while I can say it is a fact that my husband has consistently acted in a way that indicates that he loves me, I will freely admit that it is possible that it is some kind of deception.

I mean, I think that's very unlikely, but I can't provide any objective evidence that the possibility is 0%, can I?

But at the end of the day you are justified to believe that your husband loves you by the way he acts and reacts to you. So here we have a truth that is not directly physical but we can observe behaviour to determine some truth. Our intuition is justified that our partner loves us. This can also be the opposite where our intuition tells us that something is wrong in our relationship.

I don't see how setting up parameters for a discussion in order to have a clear and mutually understood communication is a moral issue.

We don't set anything up as these implicit conditions on human interaction comes naturally to us. Its a moral issue because "Honesty" is an integral and necessary part of that debate and "Honesty" is a moral issue.

I notice that you avoided actually answering my question.
Where is the harm in premarital sex?

I avoided answering because it was irrelevant. It was irrelevant because we already know that there is some objective measure by the fact we question this issue as to its pros and cons. Asking those types of questions presupposes an objective moral to measure the pros and cons.

Just asking the question "Where is the harm in premarital sex?"presupposes an objective measure of some sort. How do we determine if something is harmful or not. We have ways of knowing through research that finds the facts of the matter. Do you understand this logic and how what you are asking is a logical fallacy.

But nevertheless I will attempt to answer as it may provide some insights. The evdience shows that being in a long term realtions (preferably married) is asociated with better outcomes for health, wealth and child rearing. The research also shows that premarital sex comes with a n umber of problems for the individual and society.

 

[Kylie]

But unlike moral values we don't enforce them onto others in normative ways.

I guess you've never seen a gatekeeper then.

I have presented examples. Like you can rationally tell someone that they are objectively wrong about something moral. You cannot rationally say someone is morally wrong for liking sprouts.
Your evidence is illogical.

Ha!

So, tell me, if a person says that they think premarital sex is okay, are they objectively right or objectively wrong?

You said because people have different views of morality that shows morality is subjective. Thats a logical fallacy and I showed you evidence ie

This argument, which we will now refer to as the “cultural differences argument” (Ibid), should be considered logically problematic and implausible.

The reasons for this are two-fold. Firstly, the conclusion of this argument does not follow from its premise. The premise of this argument (a) concerns what people believe, whilst its conclusion (b) concerns “what is really the case” (Ibid), a truth. These two observations are independent from each other and cannot be used to justify either statement correspondingly. This logical inconsistency, in turn reveals a major flaw in moral relativism: that this conclusion about the relativity of morality is derived purely from the fact that different cultures disagree about particular topics (Rachels 24).

The problem is that you are saying that it is talking about “what is really the case” when I have said that there is no “what is really the case” because morality is subjective!

It's like trying to say that it is really the case that Star Trek is better than Star Wars, or vice versa.

It's still assuming that the conclusion MUST be objective, when my entire line of argument is that it's NOT.

Here are a number of serious objections to subjectivism I also linked to supprt my claim that your arguement is a logical fallacy. You have not refuted these objections.
1. If subjectivism is true, then the opinions of those in power are more easily forced upon others, while those who may oppose these opinions have no recourse to any "objective" grounds for objecting to these prevailing opinions. In other words, if subjectivism is true, then "might makes right".

2. If subjectivism is true, then there is no possibility of anybody being wrong; there will only be differences of opinion and preference.

3. If subjectivism is true and ethical claims express nothing more than our own attitudes about a particular act or behavior, then genuine ethical disagreement would be impossible.

4. If subjectivism is true and ethical claims express nothing more than our own attitudes about a particular act or behavior, then neither would any genuine ethical agreement be possible.
Isn't Ethics Just an Opinion?, Ethics - Wesleyan University

I can't help but feel that you are muddying the water by bringing subjectiviosm and realism into it. I'm talking about subjectivity and objectivity with regards to morality only.

Apart from those logical fallqacies what else have you got to support your claim for subjective morality.

Sorry, I don't buy your claims that my arguments are logical fallacies.

And heres another point to consider. All this support you claim you have have no physical evdience. Theres nothing we can test. If you are claiming this evidence as some non-physical truth then you are doing exactly what you have been accusing me of.

You expect there to be some PHYSICAL aspect to morality - a point of view?

REALLY?

To show that when it comes to morality wetreat it differently than subjective thinking. We know there is a right and wrong behaviour that needs to be identified. So when we say someone is wrong we are actually claiming a truth beyond ourselves. That doesnt happen with subjective thinking.

How many times do I have to tell you that there are LOTS of instances where we act as though something that is subjective is objective? How many times? I've lost count!

Acting as though something is objective doesn't mean it really is objective!

But at the end of the day you are justified to believe that your husband loves you by the way he acts and reacts to you. So here we have a truth that is not directly physical but we can observe behaviour to determine some truth. Our intuition is justified that our partner loves us. This can also be the opposite where our intuition tells us that something is wrong in our relationship.

But even though I am justified, there is still a chance that I am wrong, isn't there?

We don't set anything up as these implicit conditions on human interaction comes naturally to us. Its a moral issue because "Honesty" is an integral and necessary part of that debate and "Honesty" is a moral issue.

Oh, not this again...

I avoided answering because it was irrelevant. It was irrelevant because we already know that there is some objective measure by the fact we question this issue as to its pros and cons. Asking those types of questions presupposes an objective moral to measure the pros and cons.

Just asking the question "Where is the harm in premarital sex?"presupposes an objective measure of some sort. How do we determine if something is harmful or not. We have ways of knowing through research that finds the facts of the matter. Do you understand this logic and how what you are asking is a logical fallacy.

You say there is an objective measure as to the morality of premarital sex? Very well, present this objective measure to us.

But nevertheless I will attempt to answer as it may provide some insights. The evdience shows that being in a long term realtions (preferably married) is asociated with better outcomes for health, wealth and child rearing. The research also shows that premarital sex comes with a n umber of problems for the individual and society.

And what problems come with premarital sex? You made a claim, I want you to be specific about it.

 

[stevevw]

Empty statement is empty.

OK well that calls for evidence.
A report we recently prepared with independent think tank Australia21 calls for state governments to institute laws allowing and regulating voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide – in defined and limited circumstances.
Safe assisted dying laws are possible, so let's make them
in defined and limited circumstances means it has an objective criteria.

Who gets to decide what is right? By what metric? Authority?

The experts of course. Whoever the "Think Tank" consists of which is usualy experts and basing things on a certain criteria.

So we now have evidence that legislative safeguards can be drafted to ensure only patients who are “eligible” can receive legal assistance to die.These criteria can be enforced through processes such as the provision of information, obtaining a second medical opinion and cooling-off periods. The effective operation of a regime can also be overseen by an independent monitoring body.
Safe assisted dying laws are possible, so let's make them

Thats an assertion, now, prove it.

So if someone said that rape was morally good could we say they are objectively wrong. Meaning their subjective view is wrong.

We have a number of research evdience that rape harms humans. Stops them being human in a way that allows them to flourish.

Truth by what measure? Who gets to decide?

The evidence is objective and therefore is independent of human opinions. We can reason moral truths because morality is a rational enterprise.

Not beliving in objective morality does not make it so that you cannot have moral stances. I have corrected you on this multiple times, read up on it.

But what do people base their stance on if not an objective one. Saying "I feel" or in "my opinion" hardly makes a stance.

Logic has nothing to do with "objective", data is data. you can use either to support youur position but that does not make morality "objective". Just as you can use data and logic to support positions on taste, beauty etc.

the idea of collecting data is to analyse it. Logic helps the reasoning process to find the facts/truth.

Logic is the use of data to develop rational conclusions. Learn the definitions of multiple types of logic, discover the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning, and explore examples of logical fallacies.

This does not help your position.

It all depends on the assumptions made. Two different asumptions and then we have 2 sets of facts. Like climate change. One assumption that its human caused means that certain facts will be relevant. Another assumption that its natural will produce different facts. So people will differ that way. The key is to find the truth somehwre in the middle where perhaps a bit of both are the cause.

No, the value is given by the agent(s).

Take Human Rights and the Declaration of the US. They hold that human "Life" is a self-evident value. It isnt bestowed by people, nations or cultures but is intrinsic.
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

The Normativity of Human Rights Is Self-Evident
The Normativity of Human Rights Is Self-Evident on JSTOR

 

[VirOptimus]

OK well that calls for evidence.
A report we recently prepared with independent think tank Australia21 calls for state governments to institute laws allowing and regulating voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide – in defined and limited circumstances.
Safe assisted dying laws are possible, so let's make them
in defined and limited circumstances means it has an objective criteria.

No, it does not. You know that one can argue things without there being an objective "truth" yes? Opinions are a thing, and opinions can be argued, swayed, and changed.

The experts of course. Whoever the "Think Tank" consists of which is usualy experts and basing things on a certain criteria.

If its decided by humans its not "objective".

So we now have evidence that legislative safeguards can be drafted to ensure only patients who are “eligible” can receive legal assistance to die.These criteria can be enforced through processes such as the provision of information, obtaining a second medical opinion and cooling-off periods. The effective operation of a regime can also be overseen by an independent monitoring body.
Safe assisted dying laws are possible, so let's make them

Stop spamming links.

So if someone said that rape was morally good could we say they are objectively wrong. Meaning their subjective view is wrong.

We have a number of research evdience that rape harms humans. Stops them being human in a way that allows them to flourish.

And this proves that its objective how? Make a formal logical statement.

The evidence is objective and therefore is independent of human opinions. We can reason moral truths because morality is a rational enterprise.

That is your claim that you still have failed to support.

But what do people base their stance on if not an objective one. Saying "I feel" or in "my opinion" hardly makes a stance.

We can make moral arguments without beliving in objective morality. Look at us here in Sweden, the overwhelming stance in academia is value nihilism. We work just fine as a country.

the idea of collecting data is to analyse it. Logic helps the reasoning process to find the facts/truth.

Logic is the use of data to develop rational conclusions. Learn the definitions of multiple types of logic, discover the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning, and explore examples of logical fallacies.

Indeed, but as you have shown again and again, you dont really understand formal logic.

It all depends on the assumptions made. Two different asumptions and then we have 2 sets of facts. Like climate change. One assumption that its human caused means that certain facts will be relevant. Another assumption that its natural will produce different facts. So people will differ that way. The key is to find the truth somehwre in the middle where perhaps a bit of both are the cause.

Thats not how science works. The climate "debate" is political, not scientific.

Take Human Rights and the Declaration of the US. They hold that human "Life" is a self-evident value. It isnt bestowed by people, nations or cultures but is intrinsic.
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

The Normativity of Human Rights Is Self-Evident
The Normativity of Human Rights Is Self-Evident on JSTOR

Prove it.

I dont find it self-evident and neither do many others.

And a value demands an agent, who is this agent?

 

[stevevw]

I guess you've never seen a gatekeeper then.

Whats a gatekeeper.

Ha!
So, tell me, if a person says that they think premarital sex is okay, are they objectively right or objectively wrong?

As I said morality is a rational enterprise so we can reason why premarital sex is morally right or wrong. Even if we get rid of the idea of marriage we can reason that a committed and monogamous relationship is better than casual sex.

We could also reason that sex outside marriage within a long term committed and monogamous relationship was better than casual relationships. So the person claiming that premarital sex is OK would need to have indepedent support for that claim.

The problem is that you are saying that it is talking about “what is really the case” when I have said that there is no “what is really the case” because morality is subjective!

But I have shown evdience that this is not how morlaity works. That morality needs to have an objective base outside humans to even be morality in the first place.

It's like trying to say that it is really the case that Star Trek is better than Star Wars, or vice versa.

Thats why using preferences for TV shows or opinions is irrational and incoherent for morality. I have linked evdience to show how morality is impossible and irrational. Under subjectiuve morality a person is faced with the contradictory position of claiming something is really wrong outside themselves while trying to uphold the position that morality is like food preferences and not really true outside the subjective preference. Its impossible to do.

It's still assuming that the conclusion MUST be objective, when my entire line of argument is that it's NOT.

But as I have shown that reasoning is incoherent because of your assumption that morality is like preferences for TV shows or food. This assumption of comparison has been shown to be a logical fallacy so in using it you are not making any coherent arguement.

Its only when we assume that there has to be an objective for morality that it falls into place and is rational.

I can't help but feel that you are muddying the water by bringing subjectiviosm and realism into it. I'm talking about subjectivity and objectivity with regards to morality only.

The link was about subjectivity and objectivity with regards to morality. Take these 2 points from the link.

2. If subjectivism is true, then there is no possibility of anybody being wrong; there will only be differences of opinion and preference.
3. If subjectivism is true and ethical claims express nothing more than our own attitudes about a particular act or behavior, then genuine ethical disagreement would be impossible.
so the above point is about how under subjective thinking no one can really be wrong about their tastes or feelings. But under morality we need to establish a right and wrong.

Sorry, I don't buy your claims that my arguments are logical fallacies.

But I have provided evdience that they are so its not my claim.

You expect there to be some PHYSICAL aspect to morality - a point of view?

REALLY?

No thats what you expect because you ask for it. Yet you make your own objective claims that morality is subjective without any physical evdience. This shows that you also know that when it comes to morality there are certain truths but they are different kinds of truths. They are evdienced by the fact that you also appeal to them as though they are real truths when you implicitely make objective claims about what is what what isnt morlaity.

How many times do I have to tell you that there are LOTS of instances where we act as though something that is subjective is objective? How many times? I've lost count!
Acting as though something is objective doesn't mean it really is objective!

Yes I agree. But forcing other people to follow those objective is actaully making it objective. If there are no moral objectives then forcing others to follow certain morals is unjustified.

So its more than just living like morals are objective. When someone takes that moral objective position they are saying that all other possibilities are not allowed. In other words people are being hypocrites. They are living an incoherent moral position.

But even though I am justified, there is still a chance that I am wrong, isn't there?

But you don't live like your husband doesnt love you. Otherwise people would act counter intuitive and be insecure, keep questioning their partner where they are going, who they are seeing. But that doesnt happen so we can be justified that our intuition is a good representation of how things really are.

If there comes atime when we may be wrong it will be for good reason. Our intuition will point to this. We will sense some differences and lose trust. But even so we still may be wrong and there was some other cause. This si where we can use reason and find out to test that intuition. But intutiuon is usually our best starting point and then we can test it.

Oh, not this again...

Lol the thought did come up when I was writing this "I bet Kylie is going to like this".

You say there is an objective measure as to the morality of premarital sex? Very well, present this objective measure to us.

I gave this in another post.

And what problems come with premarital sex? You made a claim, I want you to be specific about it.

I mentioned this in the other post.

 

[Moral Orel]

Depends how you express it.

You can say: a world where we kill our neighbor in their sleep would be miserable to live in and so, because we hate misery, we should call that behavior "wrong".

Seems objectively true and demonstrable. And its also a moral statement, just not expressed the typical shorthand way.

Why shouldn't we be miserable?

 

[Moral Orel]

But unlike moral values we don't enforce them onto others in normative ways.

I was in the car once with my wife. She tuned the radio to the R&B station. I hate R&B music, so I told her to change it.

So... yes we do.

 

[stevevw]

No, it does not. You know that one can argue things without there being an objective "truth" yes? Opinions are a thing, and opinions can be argued, swayed, and changed.

But its qualified opinions based on facts that will sway the arguement. Are you honestly saying that a person can make any claim based on their subjective views and claim this is enough to convince someone they are actually right beyond themselves and that this subjective view holds enough weight to then be a truth for everyone else. Thats silly.

If its decided by humans its not "objective".

So its not decided by humans but rather reasoning which is a diferent type of thinking to subjective thinking. Reasoning allows us to find those facts/truths beyond our subjective thinking.

Stop spamming links.

How is it spamming links. This is a good example of what I am talking about and how unsupported assertioins mean nothing in an arguement. Your trying to convince me with unsupported claims like "No it does not". Thats an objective claim.

You claimed euthenasia is not based on an objective measure without any support. I then resorted to independent evdience to sort out the counter claims we each were making. If we don't resort to independnet evidence then any arguement is just going to be an endles repeat of claims and counter claims.

And this proves that its objective how? Make a formal logical statement.

Why do you avoid answering my question. The answer is in this.
So if someone said that rape was morally good could we say they are objectively wrong. Meaning their subjective view is wrong.

That is your claim that you still have failed to support.

I have already supported that claim by the fact that we need an objective measure to even have a right and wrong morally and to determine different degrees of wrong. Just like you need an objective measure to determine the law.

We can make moral arguments without beliving in objective morality. Look at us here in Sweden, the overwhelming stance in academia is value nihilism. We work just fine as a country.

Yeah but functioning alone is not about morality.

Thats not how science works. The climate "debate" is political, not scientific.

And the polititians refer to the science. Don't you awlays here the pollies claiming "Its the science", the science proves it. When we see these opposing views its always based on some new science discovery or reevaluation of the science that produces new information.

Prove it.

I dont find it self-evident and neither do many others.

And a value demands an agent, who is this agent?

Then if its not self-evdient and objective how do entire nations and world organisations impose thais onto the world. Are they really dictators. Or just acknowledging a truth we all know.

 

[stevevw]

I was in the car once with my wife. She tuned the radio to the R&B station. I hate R&B music, so I told her to change it.

So... yes we do.

Humm theres a complete different dynamic with marriage/realtionsips. Try doing that in someone elses car or with a stranger even.

But try doing that with how morlaity works ie You would then have to turn to your wife and say "Liking R&B is morally wrong". "You should not be listening to this. You should be listening to the music I like. In fact I am so upset I am going to make a Facebook page on this condemning those who like R&B and demanding that it stop". It just doesnt work.

 

[Kylie]

Whats a gatekeeper.

From Urban Dictionary:

When someone is a jerk enough to tell you that you don't have enough qualities to like what you want to like or be what you want to be, solely based on their opinions and experiences, even if they don't know as much about what said person aspires to like / be.

Person 1: I really like (insert band/artist here)
Person 2: Ok name every song, even the unreleased ones, how many words are in each song, and recite them word for word.
Person 1: um..
Person 2: FAKE FAN. You don't like them.​

In the above example, person 2 is a gatekeeper, and they are trying to enforce their subjective opinion onto Person 1 as objective fact. This kind of behaviour is very common.

As I said morality is a rational enterprise so we can reason why premarital sex is morally right or wrong. Even if we get rid of the idea of marriage we can reason that a committed and monogamous relationship is better than casual sex.

We could also reason that sex outside marriage within a long term committed and monogamous relationship was better than casual relationships. So the person claiming that premarital sex is OK would need to have indepedent support for that claim.

Let me ask you the question again, since you didn't actually answer it.

If a person says that they think premarital sex is okay, are they objectively right or objectively wrong?

The answer I am looking for is a single word. It will be either RIGHT or WRONG.

But I have shown evdience that this is not how morlaity works. That morality needs to have an objective base outside humans to even be morality in the first place.

No you haven't You have repeatedly made the claim, that's all.

Thats why using preferences for TV shows or opinions is irrational and incoherent for morality. I have linked evdience to show how morality is impossible and irrational. Under subjectiuve morality a person is faced with the contradictory position of claiming something is really wrong outside themselves while trying to uphold the position that morality is like food preferences and not really true outside the subjective preference. Its impossible to do.

Do you remember when I have mentioned that word EMPATHY? Because it comes into play here.

If I see someone getting mugged, or anything else like that, I can't claim to objectively know if they think it is acceptabl;e or not, but I can make an educated guess based on how I would feel if I were in their situation. And since (as I've said countless times) we live in pretty much the same society, and since the morals we have are strongly influenced by the society we are in, I can be fairly sure that the morals I have are the same as the morals they have.

No moral objectivity needed. Subjective morality gives me everything I need to make the reasonable decision to go and do what I can to help.

But as I have shown that reasoning is incoherent because of your assumption that morality is like preferences for TV shows or food. This assumption of comparison has been shown to be a logical fallacy so in using it you are not making any coherent arguement.

Its only when we assume that there has to be an objective for morality that it falls into place and is rational.

Again, you have stated it repeatedly. You have not shown it.

The link was about subjectivity and objectivity with regards to morality. Take these 2 points from the link.

2. If subjectivism is true, then there is no possibility of anybody being wrong; there will only be differences of opinion and preference.
3. If subjectivism is true and ethical claims express nothing more than our own attitudes about a particular act or behavior, then genuine ethical disagreement would be impossible.
so the above point is about how under subjective thinking no one can really be wrong about their tastes or feelings. But under morality we need to establish a right and wrong.

However, if we get a shared moral viewpoint from the fact that we live in the same society, then we can still have agreement. And you'll find that most disagreement comes when someone states a position that goes against the moral viewpoint that comes from being in that society. TYhat's why if someone says rape is okay, then nearly everyone is going to disagree. But when it comes to an issue like premarital sex, a much smaller percentage of the population will say it's wrong.

But I have provided evdience that they are so its not my claim.

You've never given any specifics. You've intentionally AVOIDED answering specific questions, prefering to keep your answers fairly vague and general.

No thats what you expect because you ask for it. Yet you make your own objective claims that morality is subjective without any physical evdience. This shows that you also know that when it comes to morality there are certain truths but they are different kinds of truths. They are evdienced by the fact that you also appeal to them as though they are real truths when you implicitely make objective claims about what is what what isnt morlaity.

I don't know what you are talking about. I've never said there is any physical evidence for morality, be it objective or subjective.

Yes I agree. But forcing other people to follow those objective is actaully making it objective. If there are no moral objectives then forcing others to follow certain morals is unjustified.

That's rubbish.

If I force someone to live according to my subjective viewpoint, does that make my viewpoint objectively true? Of course not!

So its more than just living like morals are objective. When someone takes that moral objective position they are saying that all other possibilities are not allowed. In other words people are being hypocrites. They are living an incoherent moral position.

No, it's called shorthand. It's like how we speak of the sun rising and setting. Because it would just be too clunky to say, "Did you see the beautiful colours in the sky when the rotation of the earth carried us far enough away from the sun that the horizon rose to a position where it covered the sun?" No, we just say, "Did you see the beautiful colours in the sky at sunset?"

But you don't live like your husband doesnt love you. Otherwise people would act counter intuitive and be insecure, keep questioning their partner where they are going, who they are seeing. But that doesnt happen so we can be justified that our intuition is a good representation of how things really are.

Irrelevant. How I live is still a SUBJECTIVE experience.

Lol the thought did come up when I was writing this "I bet Kylie is going to like this".

Then let's not do it again, shall we?

I gave this in another post.

I mentioned this in the other post.

So what? If we are having this discussion here, you can present it in a reply to me.

 

[Moral Orel]

Humm theres a complete different dynamic with marriage/realtionsips. Try doing that in someone elses car or with a stranger even.

But try doing that with how morlaity works ie You would then have to turn to your wife and say "Liking R&B is morally wrong". "You should not be listening to this. You should be listening to the music I like. In fact I am so upset I am going to make a Facebook page on this condemning those who like R&B and demanding that it stop". It just doesnt work.

No moving the goalposts.

Is taste in music subjective? Yes
Did I enforce my subjective views on others? Yes

Your statement was false.

We do enforce our subjective views on others. How much effort we put into enforcing it is directly related to how much we care. I don't have to hate R&B as much as I hate rape. That's ridiculous.

 

[Moral Orel]

But its qualified opinions based on facts that will sway the arguement.

False. People are more convinced by their personal emotions than they are by reason and logic. Hence objective morality.

Logic v Emotion in Arguments

 

[VirOptimus]

But its qualified opinions based on facts that will sway the arguement. Are you honestly saying that a person can make any claim based on their subjective views and claim this is enough to convince someone they are actually right beyond themselves and that this subjective view holds enough weight to then be a truth for everyone else. Thats silly.

I dont belive in moral truths for everyone. That would be a silly notion.

And I dont need to claim it, its how morality functions in real life. Look around, learn some history.

So its not decided by humans but rather reasoning which is a diferent type of thinking to subjective thinking. Reasoning allows us to find those facts/truths beyond our subjective thinking.

No, if its decided by humans it cannot by definition be "objective".

Objective morality is separate from humans.

How is it spamming links. This is a good example of what I am talking about and how unsupported assertioins mean nothing in an arguement. Your trying to convince me with unsupported claims like "No it does not". Thats an objective claim.

You should also learn debate 101.

You claimed euthenasia is not based on an objective measure without any support. I then resorted to independent evdience to sort out the counter claims we each were making. If we don't resort to independnet evidence then any arguement is just going to be an endles repeat of claims and counter claims.

Using data to support an argumetn does not magicly make the argument "objective".

Why do you avoid answering my question. The answer is in this.
So if someone said that rape was morally good could we say they are objectively wrong. Meaning their subjective view is wrong.
I have already supported that claim by the fact that we need an objective measure to even have a right and wrong morally and to determine different degrees of wrong. Just like you need an objective measure to determine the law.

No, you dont need an "objective" measure when determining laws, in fact we know how laws are made. They are made by humans, and then, by definition not "objective".

And no, "we" dont need an objective right/wrong, I (and many others, even in this thread) is a proof of that.

Yeah but functioning alone is not about morality.

What is morality about according to you?

And the polititians refer to the science. Don't you awlays here the pollies claiming "Its the science", the science proves it. When we see these opposing views its always based on some new science discovery or reevaluation of the science that produces new information.

This is a pointless sidenote that you dont grasp, wont comment more then that.

Then if its not self-evdient and objective how do entire nations and world organisations impose thais onto the world. Are they really dictators. Or just acknowledging a truth we all know.

They impose it just because it isnt self-evident, you should study international human rights before world war 2 (and world war 1) to see why it was codified.

 

[stevevw]

No moving the goalposts.

Is taste in music subjective? Yes
Did I enforce my subjective views on others? Yes

Your statement was false.

We do enforce our subjective views on others. How much effort we put into enforcing it is directly related to how much we care. I don't have to hate R&B as much as I hate rape. That's ridiculous.

I think your missing the point. Its not moving the goal points. If you want to use an example of how a non moral issue is the same as morality then you have to use like for like. That means as morality works in all situations between people, any people then your logic has to work in all these situations to be a good comaprison.

But it doesnt and thats because its not the same. Subjective preferences and personal feelings cannot apply like morality because subjective feelings and preferences can never by right or wrong.

Your wife I would reason didn't change the radio channel because she was wrong in liking R&B. She just acknowledge that when it comes to music people have different tastes and no one is right. Everyones preferences for music types is equal and people have a right to express that.

But not everyones moral views are equal. We can say some people are just wrong about their moral view as a truth objective because thats how morality works.

 

[durangodawood]

Why shouldn't we be miserable?

I know we've been through this before. But when someone is looking for ways to achieve a goal, I see no problem in saying: you should use this effective method. Or: you should discard that ineffective one.

 

[stevevw]

False. People are more convinced by their personal emotions than they are by reason and logic. Hence objective morality.

Logic v Emotion in Arguments

Yes but emotion is hardly a basis for truth or facts. The article is only saying that emotion can create feelings in the recipient that can sway them. Its like sales. But we all know that basing important decisions on feelings alone can lead to believing false claims. Its all a show. If you noticed the article doesnt deny facts and logic are not important.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes but emotion is hardly a basis for truth or facts. -snip.

But there are no moral facts or objective truths in morality. That is what the data is telling us.

 

[stevevw]

I dont belive in moral truths for everyone. That would be a silly notion.

The point I am making is that when it comes to morality we condemn and protest other people’s moral behaviour as being objectively wrong. In doing that a person is claiming their moral truth should be a truth that applies to others in an objective way.

And I dont need to claim it, its how morality functions in real life. Look around, learn some history.

So you’re agreeing that morality functions in a way where people think moral behaviour is either right or wrong.

No, if its decided by humans it cannot by definition be "objective".
Objective morality is separate from humans.

Yes so we can reason moral facts/truths like we can Math. We can say 2+2=4 and not 5 factually. Just like we can say torturing a child for fun is wrong factually. If someone says torturing a child for fun is morally good that would be like saying 2+2=5.

Using data to support an argumetn does not magicly make the argument "objective".

No but its part of finding the facts/objectives. Data breaks things down into manageable bits so we can determine the facts more easily. Data is not subjective, only bits of info that can be used.

No, you dont need an "objective" measure when determining laws, in fact we know how laws are made. They are made by humans, and then, by definition not "objective".

You seem to think all human thinking is subjective. We also have critical thinking which allows use to use tools which help us reason and find facts that are outside subjective thinking. Any scientific evidence has to be determined by humans. That doesn’t mean its subjective.

And no, "we" dont need an objective right/wrong, I (and many others, even in this thread) is a proof of that.

So now you are appealing to ad populum logical fallacy. There is a quick and easy way to show that this is wrong. Ask any of those on this forum does torturing a child for fun need a morally right or wrong answer.
If they say yes then it proves my point. If they say no then they are saying that torturing children for fun is morally OK because we can never say that its wrong. So its self-evident that morality has and needs a right and wrong answer otherwise there is no morality at all.

What is morality about according to you?

Put simply it’s about out right and wrong behaviour. Actually not just actions but intentions about right and wrong behaviour.

They impose it just because it isnt self-evident, you should study international human rights before world war 2 (and world war 1) to see why it was codified.

Then why do these important Declarations and HR Articles for which they hold up as truths for entire nations and the world for that matter which are clearly based and justified on certain unalienable, self-evident and intrinsic values and rights for humans ie,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Human rights are universal and inalienable; indivisible; interdependent and interrelated. They are universal because everyone is born with and possesses the same rights,
They are upheld by the rule of law and strengthened through legitimate claims for duty-bearers to be accountable to international standards.
Human Rights Principles[/quote]