Is there Objective Morality?

[VirOptimus]

-snip-

I dont see how a mere claim to have objective truth should be given any weight at all.

Me neither. But then again, I'm a value nihilist.

 

[durangodawood]

Me neither. But then again, I'm a value nihilist.

My point is the fact of competing claims doesnt devalue a possible actual objective reality.

Its like creationists vs natural selectionists. Do competing claims about an objective explanation for the diversity of life mean the actual explanation isnt objective?

 

[VirOptimus]

My point is the fact of competing claims doesnt devalue a possible actual objective reality.

Its like creationists vs natural selectionists. Do competing claims about an objective explanation for the diversity of life mean the actual explanation isnt objective?

No its really not.

Especially as stevevw claims ”true morality” can be known.

 

[durangodawood]

No its really not.

Really.

How does a dispute over facts in itself indicate that a whole topic is in the subjective realm?

People dispute the facts of objective matters all the time.

 

[VirOptimus]

Really.

How does a dispute over facts in itself indicate that a whole topic is in the subjective realm?

People dispute the facts of objective matters all the time.

Bit morality isnt ”objective”.

 

[durangodawood]

Bit morality isnt ”objective”.

That the point in dispute here.

I'm just saying that disagreement over facts in a certain field isnt evidence that the whole field is in the subjective realm.

 

[VirOptimus]

That the point in dispute here.

I'm just saying that disagreement over facts in a certain field isnt evidence that the whole field is in the subjective realm.

But its not the same, morals are metaphysics. Not physical reality.

 

[Kylie]

Obviously I read your post as its only 3 sentences long. Ive just misnderstood it. As to your post it seems you are equating "Bad" two different ways. You are assuming the "Bad" under a subjective systemn is the same as an objetcive one which is not the case. So its actually your logic that is faulty.

Always trying to pass the blame onto someone else.

 

[stevevw]

That the point in dispute here.

I'm just saying that disagreement over facts in a certain field isnt evidence that the whole field is in the subjective realm.

In fact disagreement over moral issues implies someone is right and someone is wrong and that there is a right answer and not a subjective view or opinion.

 

[stevevw]

Always trying to pass the blame onto someone else.

lol how can I put the blame on someone else when I said "I misunderstood your post" and not someone else. But still you didnt answer the post.

 

[durangodawood]

In fact disagreement over moral issues implies someone is right and someone is wrong and that there is a right answer and not a subjective view or opinion.

How so? Can't people disagree about subjective matters?

 

[stevevw]

You did not answer my question.

Why are there different systems of ”objective morality”?

I think I did when I said there can only by one truth so obvious all except 1 or maybe all are expressing their subjective view.

And if the authority is humans, then its not objective.

Humans are capable to determining moral truths through reasoning and logic and these truths are independent of humans because they are reasoned to be truths regardless of subjective moral views.

Look at say HR. They make some truth claims that humans have inalienable rights to things like justice and respect. This is determined bt reason and is a law unto itself and no subjective view can change that.

Thst the UN have codified human rights makes them not objective as they are written by humans.

If they are not objective then how can they be justified in forcing everyone to follow them. Thats just another ISIS situation and that would be silly. These truths have been reasoned to be independent and inalienable meaning they cannot be changed by subjective views. If they were subjective then they could be changed.

 

[stevevw]

How so? Can't people disagree about subjective matters?

So two subjectivists disagree about rape being immoral. One says its immoral the other says its OK. One of them has to be wrong. They both can't be right. But under a subjective system they can both be right so how can they ever disagree.

Moral issues need a right or wrong and that's how we treat them.

 

[stevevw]

Some things are real and factual, "oughts" are not.

I know you really really want that to be true, but it just isn't. Honesty requires comparing what you say to what you believe. I only care about what you say, so honesty isn't a part of it. I've debated full-blown trolls before. I don't care whether you're honest or not.

So how do you tell I have said something false.

 

[Ken-1122]

So two subjectivists disagree about rape being immoral. One says its immoral the other says its OK. One of them has to be wrong. They both can't be right. But under a subjective system they can both be right so how can they ever disagree.

Moral issues need a right or wrong and that's how we treat them.

Consider this scenario; two objectivists disagree about rape being objectively immoral. One says it's immoral, the other says it's okay One of them has to be objectively wrong, they both can't be objectively right! How do you decide whose right and who is wrong?

 

[Moral Orel]

So how do you tell I have said something false.

I compare your statement to reality. Honesty requires comparing what you say to what you believe, not what is true.

Let's say you have an apple tree you want to sell to me. You believe it only has fifty apples, so you tell me that it actually has one hundred apples to entice me to buy. If the tree actually has one hundred apples, and your belief was wrong, you still lied.

Now imagine the same scenario again, a tree with one hundred apples but you believe it only has fifty. You decide to be honest so you tell me the tree has fifty apples because that's what you believe. But in actuality it has one hundred apples. You were wrong, you didn't lie.

 

[Moral Orel]

So two subjectivists disagree about rape being immoral. One says its immoral the other says its OK. One of them has to be wrong. They both can't be right. But under a subjective system they can both be right so how can they ever disagree.

Neither one of them can be right.

My wife and I disagree about how tasty chocolate ice cream is. I say its delicious, she says its disgusting. One of us has to be wrong. We can't both be right. But flavors are subjective so we can both be right so how can we ever disagree?

 

[stevevw]

Consider this scenario; two objectivists disagree about rape being objectively immoral. One says it's immoral, the other says it's okay One of them has to be objectively wrong, they both can't be objectively right! How do you decide whose right and who is wrong?

By the fact that rape being ok is absurd. By the fact rape destroys life.

 

[stevevw]

Neither one of them can be right.

Not when it comes to moral issues. They need a right or wrong answer. If neither are right or wrong about rape then we would have to admit that we do not know how to act when it comes to moral issues. But we do. We say rape is objectively wrong and anyone who says its OK is mistaken.

My wife and I disagree about how tasty chocolate ice cream is. I say its delicious, she says its disgusting. One of us has to be wrong. We can't both be right. But flavors are subjective so we can both be right so how can we ever disagree?

That logic would make rape OK. Thats why subjective tastes for food doesnt equate to morality.

 

[Moral Orel]

By the fact that rape being ok is absurd. By the fact rape destroys life.

Not thinking the Godfather is the greatest movie of all time is absurd!

That logic would make rape OK. Thats why subjective tastes for food doesnt equate to morality.

Argument from Consequences fallacy again.

And I never said it equates to food tastes, but it's analogous. It's also analogous to taste in movies, art, clothing, etc. And none of those things equate to each other either.