Is there an absolute morality?

[stevevw]

No, you have not argued that. You have asserted that it is true. You call it "self-evident" because you are incapable of arguing that it is true.

I have argued that the existence of "Life" has intrinsic value and becomes a self-evident truth once we understand this without proof or this truth being reasoned. Believing that we are conscious beings becomes a self-evdient truth. Once we understand this there are obligations to uphold certain qualioties that allow life to exist like certain basic rights including the persuit of happiness.

This also becomes the basis for morality because we are moral beings and therefore upholding these values that allow life to exist and flourish are necessary otherwise we don't exist and that would be contradicting our obligation as understood by how human existence "Life" is valuable in and of itself.

 

[stevevw]

Do you understand that you cannot use analogues between physical reality and metaphysics?

I am not using the analogies between physical reality and metaphysics to say that morality is like a physical thing. I have pointed this out many times.

I am only using the comparisons to show how morlaity would work if there were objective morals. Objective morals/truths means we can say that something is truthfully wrong beyond the subject. Just like in science (but not science) where there are objective facts beyond subjective views. Thats all I am saying.

The point is most people think of morality as getting at something true or factual about what is morally right or wrong. But this fact/truth is not physical. Cannot be picked up measured and tested. Yet it is still a fact/truth like in other abstract things such as Math.

So there is going to be difficulty in showing these truths but that doesn't mean there are no truths. It just means we havn't been able to explain this in physical terms.

This happens in epistemics and even in science. Look at the history of science where all sorts of non-physical ideas have been postulated until they were able to get a better understanding. QM is a modern day example where it actually causes explanations to fall into the non-physical realm.

So metaphysics is becoming more prominant in how we understand what is real or not. But we should not restrict what can be real/factual or a truth to the physical.

 

[Astrid]

I have argued that the existence of "Life" has intrinsic value and becomes a self-evident truth once we understand this without proof or this truth being reasoned. Believing that we are conscious beings becomes a self-evdient truth. Once we understand this there are obligations to uphold certain qualioties that allow life to exist like certain basic rights including the persuit of happiness.

This also becomes the basis for morality because we are moral beings and therefore upholding these values that allow life to exist and flourish are necessary otherwise we don't exist and that would be contradicting our obligation as understood by how human existence "Life" is valuable in and of itself.

What does value mean in this context.

 

[Moral Orel]

I have argued that the existence of "Life" has intrinsic value and becomes a self-evident truth once we understand this without proof or this truth being reasoned.

You have "argued" no such thing. To argue means to offer an argument in support of it. You are claiming it, and claiming that you don't need proof or reason. The basis of your "objective morality" has no reason to support it. In other words, you believe that morality is objective for no reason. That is, by definition, irrational.

 

[Moral Orel]

Look at the history of science where all sorts of non-physical ideas have been postulated until they were able to get a better understanding. QM is a modern day example where it actually causes explanations to fall into the non-physical realm.

This is very wrong. Quantum Mechanics is physics. All of science deals in what is physical, and nothing else. QM does not posit any "non-physical realm". I have no idea where you got that idea. The "quantum realm" people speak of is just really small physical stuff.

 

[Kylie]

This is what I mean by rather than defeating the objection you change the goal posts all the time. The example is not about proving objective morlaity. It was about showing how your logic is faulty is how you claim there is no objective morality. Lets stick within the boundaries of what we are talking about. You made the claim that moral differences mean theres no objective morlaity and not whether we can prove objective morality.

How is it moving the goalposts for me to point out flaws in your reasoning?

No the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise its a logical fallacy. Its quite obvious.

The conclusion is entirely consistent with the premise.

What your doing is only using examples that cannot possibly have an objective. Subjective morality cannot have an objective so of course its going to make sense. Now try the same logic with something that has an objective like the shape of the earth. People disagree about the shape of the earth so therefore theres no objective shapeof the earth. The logic doesnt follow. Its clear to see for all. If you used th9is logic people would see its a fallacy.

And as I've said repeatedly now, there is clear and concise evidence for the shape of the earth that is measurable and can be communicated in clear scientific language that leave no room for ambiguity.

So, we have two possible situations...

If morality is subjective, we'd expect to see that there'd be significant numbers of people on both sides of the debate, and there'd be no way to describe morality in a scientific-type language.

If morality is objective, we'd see that the vast majority of people hold to one particular position, with those holding the other position being tiny in comparison. There would also be clear and unambiguous language by which morality can be described (such as what we have for mathematics and logic).

Which of those two situations do we see in the real world? Coz I see situation one.

But thats irrelevant to your claim that there must be no objective morals because people disagree. You have counted out the possibility of objective morality before we even try.

No it's not.

It's a case of, "If X is true, then there should be Y. I'd like to see Y, and that will count as evidence for X."

In the case of the shape of the earth, then X is "The Earth is spherical," and Y would be any of the evidence that the Earth is spherical. Boat masts still being visible when the hull has gone below the horizon as the boat sails away, for example.

When it comes to morality, then X is "Morality is objective," and Y is "A description of morality in clear and specific language such as the language we use for mathematics and logic."

And I'm still waiting to see that.

Lets pretend that there are moral objectives for the sake of showing you your fallacy. So therefore when you say that differences in morals means there is no objective morlaity that is the same type of faulty thinking as saying that there is no objective shape of the earth because people disagree about its shape.

Again, the two are completely different. When it comes to the shape of the earth, the split is like 99.9 to 0.1, not the almost even split between those who say morality is objective and those who disagree.

You have missed the point of the defeater. Its saying that there is an assumption that the subjective common morals you say society has are correct. They can als be incorrect so therefore you are making the assumption that they are correct. This is pointed out in the section I linked. The assumption is
“that any ethical judgement is an expression of a total pattern of culture” (Ibid) and therefore valid.


But that has not been verified by arguement but rather is assumed as being right because subjective morals are not argued to be correct in the first place, they are only personal opinions agreed upon ie

However, in light of the need for validity it is important to remember that ethical judgements are the result of enculturation and not reasoning, how could this then be used as a means to rationally justify the validity of one’s judgement?

In otherwords you are using the fact that because people agree about morals they must be right but you havnt argued they are really right. They could also be wrong. So your premise is invalid.

You assume that there is an objective "correct" and "incorrect," an objective "right" and "wrong." There is not, because it's subjective. Execution as punishment may be viewed as correct by one culture yet incorrect by another.

But as the above says you are assuming that the cultures view on execution being OK or not as being valid. How can it be valid if there are different cultures that have different opposing views on this. Either one of them is valid or none are valid.

They are valid to the people in the respective cultures.

It's like saying how can a Star Trek fan's view that Trek is better than Star Wars be valid when the Star Wars fan has an opposing view?

 

[stevevw]

What does value mean in this context.

Life as intrinsically valuable means it is valuable in and of itself and nothing is used to make it valuable.

 

[Kylie]

Life as intrinsically valuable means it is valuable in and of itself and nothing is used to make it valuable.

I've asked many times now: Is the life of a five year old more valuable than the life of a 95 year old? I don't think I've ever gotten an answer.

 

[stevevw]

How is it moving the goalposts for me to point out flaws in your reasoning?

Because I wasn't asking you to point out my flaws in reasoning about whether objective morality is true or not. I wanted you to address my objection that your logic is faulty in assuming that social conditioning means proves morals are subjective. But you changed the goal posts or rather made a Red Herring rather than answer the question.

The conclusion is entirely consistent with the premise.

The premise is morality is socially conditioned. The conclusion doesnt follow that this means morality is subjective or that there is no objective morality. This has been pointed out to you by independent support and even some on your side.

And as I've said repeatedly now, there is clear and concise evidence for the shape of the earth that is measurable and can be communicated in clear scientific language that leave no room for ambiguity.

Are you actually going back and reading the points in context because you seem to be giving totally irrelevant answers to what we were discussing. Thiis is what you said remember

I could very easily use the same reasoning to apply to other things:

1. Different fan groups have different views of which science fiction franchise is the best.
2. Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in which science fiction franchise is the best. Better and worse are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from fan group to fan group.

This obviously works well. No one, after all, would object to this if I were to use it to explain why Star Wars fans and Star Trek fans each have their own view of which franchise is the best. Thus, to claim this reasoning is "logically problematic and implausible" when it is applied to morality does not follow.
So, we have two possible situations...

You claimed that because people disagree morally that must mean there is no objective morality. I said people disagree even in science when there are objective facts ie the shape of the earth. My point was this shows your logic that because there is disagreement about something doesn't mean there are no facts/truth. So your logic that because there is disagreement about something means there is no truth/fact to the matter is wrong and a logical fallacy.

If morality is subjective, we'd expect to see that there'd be significant numbers of people on both sides of the debate, and there'd be no way to describe morality in a scientific-type language.

I agree but I am not using the example of the shape of the earth to say that objective morality is the same as determining scientific facts. I am saying that if there is objective morality then it has to work by the same principles as how we determine scientific facts but not by the same methods.

In otherwords scientific facts are independent of the subject so flat earthers are proven wrong and objective moral truths are independnet of the person and the skeptic who says murder is OK is proven wrong. But not in the same way science does things bit rather like Math is a fact ie 2+2=4 is a fact. murdering someone is wrong is a fact but the fact/truth is based on reasoning and self evident truths.

If morality is objective, we'd see that the vast majority of people hold to one particular position, with those holding the other position being tiny in comparison. There would also be clear and unambiguous language by which morality can be described (such as what we have for mathematics and logic).

There is clear language for morality. People use a different type of language in fact the same language as one would use in Math or science for claiming moral wrong. They don't say "in my opinion murder is wrong"or ï'd prefer that people didnt murder" as this would be insufficient for such an important matter. We say "Murder is truthfully wrong beond subjective views". So we actually use clear language that speaks about something being either right or wrong and not "maybe wrong".

As for the vast majority of people holdong to one set of morals research shows everyone does know and support one set of core morals regardless of culture or personal opinions. We all agree that murder, rape, stealing, fraud, breaking promises, neglecting children, sexual harrassment ect is wrong.

The so called disagreement isnt over morality but peoples understanding of how that moral should be applied. I have pointed this out before. ASk anyone is abusing a child morally good and most people will say no. But not anly that they will say anyone who things its OK is objectively wrong.

Which of those two situations do we see in the real world? Coz I see situation one.

This is still all logical fallacies. Look at the history of science. The vast majority of epople thought the sun revolved around the earth. But they were wrong. So it doesnt follow. It wasnt until we had progressed and come to understand differently.

It can be the same for morality we hold a core set of morals. There may be disagreement around the fringes of these morals but that may be because of different understandings and in time with more understanding we will see that there are moral truths.

No it's not.

It's a case of, "If X is true, then there should be Y. I'd like to see Y, and that will count as evidence for X."

In the case of the shape of the earth, then X is "The Earth is spherical," and Y would be any of the evidence that the Earth is spherical. Boat masts still being visible when the hull has gone below the horizon as the boat sails away, for example.

When it comes to morality, then X is "Morality is objective," and Y is "A description of morality in clear and specific language such as the language we use for mathematics and logic."

And I'm still waiting to see that.

Like I said you are changing the gaol posts. That is not what I was saying or asking you to explain. We were talking about how assuming moral disagreement means morality is subjective and there is not objective morals. You need to re-read the prior posts to ensure yo0u keep on the right track. Its not about proving objective morals but you addressing the objection that your making a logical fallacy about moral disdagrements.

Again, the two are completely different. When it comes to the shape of the earth, the split is like 99.9 to 0.1, not the almost even split between those who say morality is objective and those who disagree.

I am not talking about morality being equivelant to science. Only that if there are moral truths they need to stand up like objective facts do in science and independnet of the subject. In that sense the flat earth example is a perfect example.

So lets say there are moral truths just like there is a truth to the shape of the earth. We can then say that anyone who claims there are no facts about the earth because people disagree about its shape is no different to say there is no facts about morals because people disagree about morals . The logic is faulty as you can see.

You assume that there is an objective "correct" and "incorrect," an objective "right" and "wrong." There is not, because it's subjective. Execution as punishment may be viewed as correct by one culture yet incorrect by another.

How does this show that they have different morals. What is the moral associated with execution. I'd say its whether we can take a human life or not. So both countries believe that killing innocent people is morlaly wrong. Both countries believe that criminal acts should be punished. They just disagree with the degree of punishment. But how does that have anything to do with the moral that we should not take inoocent lives.

They are valid to the people in the respective cultures.

It's like saying how can a Star Trek fan's view that Trek is better than Star Wars be valid when the Star Wars fan has an opposing view?

Except that western countries who claim to be the worlds moral conscience condemn other countries who practice immoral acts and demans they stop. So how can one culture infringe oin another is no one is morally wrong according to their own cultural views. It seems western nations are applying an absolute morality that all the world needs to follow. That is a contradictory position is morals are relative.

Plus thw west would not condemn and ask another culture to stop watching Star Trek. So that shows you that preferences for TV shows or anything doesnt equate to morality.

 

[Moral Orel]

But you changed the goal posts and rather than answer the question you went on the attack about another issue. This happens a lot where you avoid answering the question by bringing up something else.

That's not "Moving the Goalposts" that's a "Red Herring".

 

[stevevw]

I've asked many times now: Is the life of a five year old more valuable than the life of a 95 year old? I don't think I've ever gotten an answer.

First the intrinsic value of human "Life" is valued before we get into the arguements for "which life" deserves to be preserved. It values "LIfe" itself as a force that exists regardelss of age, race, culture, gender, ect.

All these other considerations about whose life is more valuable stem from this basic truth but any determination does not deminish human "LIfe" as intrinsically valuable because they stem from "Life" rather than "Life" steming from these considerations. In otherwords human "Life" existence (being) is a First Principle and all else comes from that.

I have addressed the issue of whose life is more important. These things would have to be reasoned against "Life" being valuable in itself. I would say all things being equal a young life may have more to offer humankind. But then there may be circumstances where an older person is highly valuable because of their value to the family unit and the community. So it needs to be reasoned according to the circumstances.

But heres the point which I think I told you last time you asked this. The fact that you are posing a scenario that requires reasoning out the best possible solution means that we are using some objective basis to measure what is best and what is not. So it doesn't matter if we cannot come up with a clear answer right now. Its the fact that we are using some sort of measuring stick to determine who should we allow to live or not which points to there being some objective.

Without that objective measuring stick if morals were subjective then we would be determining who should live by preferences such as "I think the old person whould die because I don't like their dress or hair style" or I think the young person whould die because a feel young people can cause a lot of problems ect. There would be absolutely no measuring stick and people would be picked off arbitrarily.

 

[stevevw]

That's not "Moving the Goalposts" that's a "Red Herring".

Yes thats a more accurate fallacy. Its sort of both. Someone is changing the topic by bringing up another issue to divert attention away from the true issue being discussed.

 

[Kylie]

Because I wasn't asking you to point out my flaws in reasoning about whether objective morality is true or not. I wanted you to address my objection that your logic is faulty in assuming that social conditioning means proves morals are subjective. But you changed the goal posts and rather than answer the question you went on the attack about another issue. This happens a lot where you avoid answering the question by bringing up something else.

I've already addressed this. I said that it doesn't prove that morality is subjective, but it is completely consistent with morality being subjective, and it is inconsistent with morality being objective.

The premise is morality is socially conditioned. The conclusion doesnt follow that this means morality is subjective or that there is no objective morality. This has been pointed out to you by independent support and even some on your side.

And if morality is socially conditioned, then it is subjective, isn't it? And it's entirely consistent with what we actually see.

Are you actually going back and reading the points in context because you seem to be giving totally irrelevant answers to what we were discussing. Thiis is what you said remember

I could very easily use the same reasoning to apply to other things:

1. Different fan groups have different views of which science fiction franchise is the best.
2. Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in which science fiction franchise is the best. Better and worse are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from fan group to fan group.

This obviously works well. No one, after all, would object to this if I were to use it to explain why Star Wars fans and Star Trek fans each have their own view of which franchise is the best. Thus, to claim this reasoning is "logically problematic and implausible" when it is applied to morality does not follow.
So, we have two possible situations...

You claimed that because people disagree morally that must mean there is no objective morality. I said people disagree even in science when there are objective facts ie the shape of the earth. My point was this shows your logic that because there is disagreement about something doesn't mean there are no facts/truth. So your logic that because there is disagreement about something means there is no truth/fact to the matter is wrong and a logical fallacy.

As I have stated already in this reply, and many times previously, I am NOT saying that the disagreement proves it is subjective.

I am saying that the disagreement is entirely consistent with morality being subjective and it is INconsistent with morality being objective.

I agree but I am not using the example of the shape of the earth to say that objective morality is the same as determining scientific facts. I am saying that if there is objective morality then it has to work by the same principles as how we determine scientific facts but not by the same methods.

In otherwords scientific facts are independent of the subject so flat earthers are proven wrong and objective moral truths are independnet of the person and the skeptic who says murder is OK is proven wrong. But not in the same way science does things bit rather like Math is a fact ie 2+2=4 is a fact. murdering someone is wrong is a fact but the fact/truth is based on reasoning and self evident truths.

Again, you assume your conclusion.

We can talk about science and maths in a clear and unambiguous language to make sure what we are talking about is clearly understood with virtually no capacity for any misunderstanding. We can also do the same with logical propositions. We can do this because science, maths and logic are objective things. It is because they are objective that we can describe them in clear and specific language.

You can not do this with morality.

There is clear language for morality. People use a different type of language in fact the same language as one would use in Math or science for claiming moral wrong. They don't say "in my opinion murder is wrong"or ï'd prefer that people didnt murder" as this would be insufficient for such an important matter. We say "Murder is truthfully wrong beond subjective views". So we actually use clear language that speaks about something being either right or wrong and not "maybe wrong".

As for the vast majority of people holdong to one set of morals research shows everyone does know and support one set of core morals regardless of culture or personal opinions. We all agree that murder, rape, stealing, fraud, breaking promises, neglecting children, sexual harrassment ect is wrong.

The so called disagreement isnt over morality but peoples understanding of how that moral should be applied. I have pointed this out before. ASk anyone is abusing a child morally good and most people will say no. But not anly that they will say anyone who things its OK is objectively wrong.

I'm talking about a clear and specific language like the one we have for logic: Logical connective - Wikipedia

This is still all logical fallacies. Look at the history of science. The vast majority of epople thought the sun revolved around the earth. But they were wrong. So it doesnt follow. It wasnt until we had progressed and come to understand differently.

And what showed them that they were wrong? An explanation that was delivered in clear and specific language. If you could provide such a description of morality, that would go a long way towards proving your position.

It can be the same for morality we hold a core set of morals. There may be disagreement around the fringes of these morals but that may be because of different understandings and in time with more understanding we will see that there are moral truths.

You make it sound like nearly all people hold one view and those who disagree are a tiny minority. That is simply not the case.

Like I said you are changing the gaol posts. That is not what I was saying or asking you to explain. We were talking about how assuming moral disagreement means morality is subjective and there is not objective morals. You need to re-read the prior posts to ensure yo0u keep on the right track. Its not about proving objective morals but you addressing the objection that your making a logical fallacy about moral disdagrements.

I've already addressed this many times.

I am not talking about morality being equivelant to science. Only that if there are moral truths they need to stand up like objective facts do in science and independnet of the subject. In that sense the flat earth example is a perfect example.

You have not shown that morality does this.

So lets say there are moral truths just like there is a truth to the shape of the earth. We can then say that anyone who claims there are no facts about the earth because people disagree about its shape is no different to say there is no facts about morals because people disagree about morals . The logic is faulty as you can see.

\

Are you serious? This is your argument?

"If we assume morality is objective, then anyone who says it's not objective is wrong."

That's it?

That's a terrible argument. It depends on a huge IF. I might as well say, "If we assume that aliens are in control of all governments worldwide, then anyone who says that aliens are not controlling all world governments is wrong," and then present it as proof that aliens are controlling all world governments.

How does this show that they have different morals. What is the moral associated with execution. I'd say its whether we can take a human life or not. So both countries believe that killing innocent people is morlaly wrong. Both countries believe that criminal acts should be punished. They just disagree with the degree of punishment. But how does that have anything to do with the moral that we should not take inoocent lives.

The difference is that some people hold the moral viewpoint that taking a life can be permissible in some circumstances, while other people hold the moral viewpoint that taking a life is NEVER permissible.

Except that western countries who claim to be the worlds moral conscience condemn other countries who practice immoral acts and demans they stop. So how can one culture infringe oin another is no one is morally wrong according to their own cultural views. It seems western nations are applying an absolute morality that all the world needs to follow. That is a contradictory position is morals are relative.

So what?

Where is it written that subjective morality means that everyone has to allow others to hold different moral viewpoints?

I mean, I've lost count of how many times I've said this.

People can act like morality is objective, but that doesn't mean it actually IS objective.

Plus thw west would not condemn and ask another culture to stop watching Star Trek. So that shows you that preferences for TV shows or anything doesnt equate to morality.

Wow, it's almost like you are deliberately going out of your way to miss the point.

 

[Kylie]

First the intrinsic value of human "Life" is valued before we get into the arguements for "which life" deserves to be preserved. It values "LIfe" itself as a force that exists regardelss of age, race, culture, gender, ect.

All these other considerations about whose life is more valuable stem from this basic truth but any determination does not deminish human "LIfe" as intrinsically valuable because they stem from "Life" rather than "Life" steming from these considerations. In otherwords human "Life" existence (being) is a First Principle and all else comes from that.

I have addressed the issue of whose life is more important. These things would have to be reasoned against "Life" being valuable in itself. I would say all things being equal a young life may have more to offer humankind. But then there may be circumstances where an older person is highly valuable because of their value to the family unit and the community. So it needs to be reasoned according to the circumstances.

So you can't answer the question. And even if there was a specific situation, different people would come to different conclusions. Some objective morality there...

But heres the point which I think I told you last time you asked this. The fact that you are posing a scenario that requires reasoning out the best possible solution means that we are using some objective basis to measure what is best and what is not. So it doesn't matter if we cannot come up with a clear answer right now. Its the fact that we are using some sort of measuring stick to determine who should we allow to live or not which points to there being some objective.

Without that objective measuring stick if morals were subjective then we would be determining who should live by preferences such as "I think the old person whould die because I don't like their dress or hair style" or I think the young person whould die because a feel young people can cause a lot of problems ect. There would be absolutely no measuring stick and people would be picked off arbitrarily.

Yes, we would see different people all coming to different conclusions if they were made to make the decision.

You don't think all people would actually AGREE, do you?

 

[stevevw]

I've already addressed this. I said that it doesn't prove that morality is subjective, but it is completely consistent with morality being subjective, and it is inconsistent with morality being objective.

OK then something being consistent doesnt prove anything. We could say that a common core of morlaity that everyone agrees on is consistent with objective morality. But as you have said many times "just because people live like that doesnt mean that morality is objective. The same then applies to you. So it seems you have just as much trouble proving subjective morality.

And if morality is socially conditioned, then it is subjective, isn't it? And it's entirely consistent with what we actually see.

You have just contradicted yourself. You said "it doesn't prove that morality is subjective". Now your saying it does.

As I have stated already in this reply, and many times previously, I am NOT saying that the disagreement proves it is subjective.

You just said it above that it does.

I am saying that the disagreement is entirely consistent with morality being subjective and it is INconsistent with morality being objective.

So if consistency doesnt prove anything then why do you keep repeating this like it actually means its evidence for subjective morality.

Again, you assume your conclusion.

We can talk about science and maths in a clear and unambiguous language to make sure what we are talking about is clearly understood with virtually no capacity for any misunderstanding. We can also do the same with logical propositions. We can do this because science, maths and logic are objective things. It is because they are objective that we can describe them in clear and specific language.

You can not do this with morality.

Yes we can. People speak clearly about moral wrongs being objectively wrong. They don't say "well maybe its morally wrong in my opinion but I could be wrong" or " I feel its wrong but I do have a personal reason on this so my feelings may be bias". No they say "Murder is wrong" as a moral truth that applies to everyone.

We can also argue that certain acts are wrong against an objective basis such as "Life" being intrinsically valuable and by using human "wellbeing or flourishing" as the basis as some do like Sam Harris. That way we can measure what is right and wrong behaviour against that basis.

 

[stevevw]

I'm talking about a clear and specific language like the one we have for logic: Logical connective - Wikipedia

Im going to do this point seperately as it is an important one. This article argues that moral language seems to show that in reality we speak like morals are right and wrong objectively.

The argument we shall advance in this paper is quite simple. It’s that the meaningfulness of moral language presupposes the objective existence of moral properties. That is, if moral claims are the sort of statements that can be in the first place either true or false, then it follows that some of them are in fact true.

The relevance of this tautology to ethics is revealed when P and Q are substituted by indicative moral propositions. In this case, P = “eating people is right” and, Q = “eating people is wrong”. The tautology can now be transformed into a true statement that has some relevance to the real world: Either [“eating people is right” or “eating people is wrong”] or [“eating people is not right” and “eating people is not wrong”] which of course means the same as, either “eating people is right” or “eating people is wrong” or “eating people is neither right nor wrong”.

The moral sceptic, however, holds that all moral propositions are false. It follows from this, if the sceptic is correct, that both P and Q are false because they are moral propositions. This in turn entails the truth of [not-P and not-Q] because the tautology in question is true. The sceptic therefore has to conclude that “eating people is neither right nor wrong”. This means the same as “eating people is not a moral issue”.

However, the sceptic holds that it is not only the activity of eating people that is neither right nor wrong. Rather, he holds that all actions are amoral. No moral issues exist. All is amorality.

The logical consequence of this is that the claim that “all actions are amoral” is senseless. IThe sceptic has destroyed the meaning of the words he uses by eliminating the contrast between the classifications. He apparently fails to understand that there can be no counterfeit coins without genuine currency. The claim that an action is not a moral issue is meaningful if and only if moral issues do actually exist.

It follows from this that moral issues exist. In turn, the logical consequence of this is that some indicative moral propositions are true, just as the realist claims they are.

To return to the original example, it is mindnumbingly obvious that whether or not you eat people is a moral issue. Then, the truth of the statement “either eating people is right or eating people is wrong” ensures that at least one of these moral claims is true and, therefore, ‘objective’. But which one? Of course, eating people is wrong.
The Necessity of Moral Realism | Issue 6 | Philosophy Now

This shows that moral language shows we do speak in terms of true or false statements about moral behaviour. Either a moral act is right or wrong. To say that our moral language is not about right and wrong statemnets is to commit to ammorality.

Thats another way of saying that there is no way to say an act is morally right or wrong because all moral statements are false. Yet for something like Ëating people" we have to be able to say its just plain wrong objectively otherwise we cannot say its right or wrong at all.

 

[stevevw]

So you can't answer the question. And even if there was a specific situation, different people would come to different conclusions. Some objective morality there...

The question would then be is all those peoples different opinions just as valid as each other. Can we say that if someone said its OK to kill them all and not worry about age could we say they are objectively wrong.

Yes, we would see different people all coming to different conclusions if they were made to make the decision.

You don't think all people would actually AGREE, do you?

The moral that they would agree on is that its wrong to kill innocent people unless there is a greater moral that trumps this ie killing in self defence to save lives , killing in war against a dictator who is threatening innocent people or in your scenario where someone has to die because of a greater reason like there is not enough resources which may threaten many more lives ect like the Eskimo example. Everyone agrees on this and if they don't then we can say they are objectively wrong.

Otherwise we are faced with the prospect that its OK to kill innocent people for fun or without any reasoning about whether its right or wrong. I don't think anyone would seriously advocate that and if they did we would say they were like a terrorist or psychopath. So as you can see we don;t just allow any subjective opinion willy nilly. We still rationalize what is best whether thats against human wellbeing, how a younger life amy be more benefical to society, ect. That points to some objective basis.

But let me ask you once again if people came to different decisions does that mean all moral views are equal and there is no determination as to what may be the best thing to do. Is that what you are saying. How would you determine who to kil. Have a lottery, throw a dart blinded foled and whoever you come closest to hitting is killed. Leave it to luck. Allow personal opinions which can be biased against age (agism) ect. How would you decide this important issue.

But once again I have to say that the idea that people will have different opinions doesnt mean there is no moral truth. I also think the differences are exaggerated. The issue is about which innocent person to kill in a difficult situation that requires someone to be killed for a greater moral reason. Disagreeing who should be killed is not the moral issue. The moral issue is that an innocent life no matter who it is has to be taken.

If the issue is explained and that we have no choice but to take a persons life regardless so that we can save 10 other lives then most people will say that it ius better to takem the 1 life to save as many people as possible. Anyone who says we should take 10 lives and spare the one would be regarded as wrong just based on the numbers involved and that we care about the value of any life.

So I don't think the disagreement is as big as you make out. We could make a list of all the subjective reasons that should be dismissed and that should leave us with only one option, the best one considering the circumstances.

 

[Moral Orel]

This shows that moral language shows we do speak in terms of true or false statements about moral behaviour. Either a moral act is right or wrong. To say that our moral language is not about right and wrong statemnets is to commit to ammorality.

We use the same language for subjective things. Substitute "chocolate ice cream is tasty" for P and "chocolate ice cream is not tasty" for Q and your argument follows the exact same form. If your argument proves that some things are truly right or wrong, then it proves that some things are truly tasty or not tasty.

 

[stevevw]

We use the same language for subjective things. Substitute "chocolate ice cream is tasty" for P and "chocolate ice cream is not tasty" for Q and your argument follows the exact same form. If your argument proves that some things are truly right or wrong, then it proves that some things are truly tasty or not tasty.

The problem is that subjective tastes don't translate to moral issues. You can't be ostrasized, or be physically stopped by others from for liking "chocolate ice cream". If they did do that people would be fighting for their right to enjoy "chocolate ice cream". Food tates is not a normative issue.

 

[Moral Orel]

The problem is that subjective tastes don't translate to moral issues. You can't be ostrasized, or be physically stopped by others from for liking "chocolate ice cream". If they did do that people would be fighting for their right to enjoy "chocolate ice cream". Food tates is not a normative issue.

I'm not making an argument here for subjective morality. I'm making the argument that your argument you just presented is bad. Other reasons you think are evidence for objective morality are irrelevant. Do you see how this specific argument fails?