Is there an absolute morality?

[stevevw]

You wont

You just acknowledge a a moral truth that "sex with infants and beating a girl unconcious and having forced sex" is clearly harmful and wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

That sex with infants and beating a girl unconcious and having forced sex is clearly harmful and wrong.

It is such a totally weird coincidence that the morals that are the most obviously objective are also the ones with the strongest emotional appeal. So freaky that it just happens to line up that way for no reason.

 

[stevevw]

It is such a totally weird coincidence that the morals that are the most obviously objective are also the ones with the strongest emotional appeal. So freaky that it just happens to line up that way for no reason.

That is not what I asked. I said can we ever say that these acts are ok do. Can we say that these acts are wrong objectively and that no one can say that they are OK to do.

Surely feelings or opinions is not enough for such important issues that require such a determination.

 

[Moral Orel]

That is not what I asked.

I quoted an assertion, not a question.

 

[stevevw]

Rubbish.

I can give lots of reasons to support the argument that Star Trek is better than Star Wars, and they're all subjective.

You mean "reasons why You think Star Wars is better. Thats just your opinion and means nothing in any objective way in the world and means the same thing to others who may have different reasons why they like Star Wars.

Besides you contradicted yourself. You say you can "support an arguement why Star TRek is better" and then say the arguement is based on subjective thinking. Yet an arguement means giving objective support beyond your subjective views.

an argument means a statement that is backed up with some kind of objective evidence.
Evaluating arguments and evidence - NUI Galway

An argument is a line of reasoning designed to prove a point. ... Regardless of length and complexity, all arguments have the same basic framework: the author states some central idea, and then presents supporting evidence, laying it out in a logical pattern.
The Argument

OBJECTIVE arguments are often those that have to do with logos, that is, reason, evidence and logic, generally dealing with material questions (things that can be sensed or measured and have to do with the real outside world, outside of oneself).

SUBJECTIVE arguments are most often those dealing with the personal situation, feelings or experiences of a particular individual, family or group, and are usually arguments from ethos or pathos.
Objective and Subjective Arguments

So as with morality how can you prove that Star Trek is better than Star Wars with objective evdience in the real world (that is beyond your subjective mind).

Therefore if we cannot subjectively argue about peoples preferences for TV shows being better then we cannot argue at all unless there is some objective basis for supporting that arguement.

Likewise we could not subjectively argue that rape is morally wrong. There we would have to accept that under relative/subjective morality we have no way of telling if something like "rape" is a truely wrong act.

 

[stevevw]

I quoted an assertion, not a question.

OK then your asserting doesn't follow. Its a logical fallacy as saying that our feelings match the moral issues we care about the most doesn't mean that morality is not objective. That is why I quipped that reply as your assertion doesn't really address the problem relatvists have in trying to explain regardless of feelings, preferences or opinions that some morals are just wrong objectively. No subjective thinking can change that. They are a fact outside a persons feelings, preferences and opinions.

Thats why I asked the question to show this.
Can we ever say that these horrible acts are morally good to do. Can we say that these acts are wrong objectively and that no one can say that they are OK to do. Anyone who does is mistaken.

So its more than feelings, preferences and opinions. WE cannot say that someone is objectively wrong in a true way in the world beyond our subjective thinking based on our feelings, preferences and opinions. Thats because people have different feelings, preferences and opinions and none of these have any objective basis to be wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

OK then your asserting doesn't follow. Its a logical fallacy as saying that our feelings match the moral issues we care about the most doesn't mean that morality is not objective. That is why I quipped that reply as your assertion doesn't really address the problem relatvists have in trying to explain regardless of feelings, preferences or opinions that some morals are just wrong objectively. No subjective thinking can change that. They are a fact outside a persons feelings, preferences and opinions.

Thats why I asked the question to show this.
Can we ever say that these horrible acts are morally good to do. Can we say that these acts are wrong objectively and that no one can say that they are OK to do. Anyone who does is mistaken.

So its more than feelings, preferences and opinions. WE cannot say that someone is objectively wrong in a true way in the world beyond our subjective thinking based on our feelings, preferences and opinions. Thats because people have different feelings, preferences and opinions and none of these have any objective basis to be wrong.

There is no problem to explain because we cannot say that anything is "objectively wrong". I know you can't accept that because it isn't as emotionally satisfying as being correct about how people ought to act, but that's reality. You just keep asserting that things you feel very strongly about are clearly objectively wrong.

You want to show that something is objectively wrong, provide a formal logical proof. And none of this "it's self-evident" bologna.

 

[stevevw]

You can say whatever you want, and we can say whatever we want. But no, you have not shown morality to be objective.

By that criteria we can say no one has shown that morality is relative or subjective either.

You using emotionally loaded examples and emotional arguments supports that morality is not objective as you are not using cold hard facts and logic (that you claim will support objective morality).

Its a simple question. Can we state that immoral acts like "rape or child abuse or racial descrimination for that matter is morally OK to do. Can we say that these immoral acts are objectively wrong that is a fact in the world beyond subjective thinking.

We can say people to do things and how to behave, in fact thats what the justice system is all about. That in no way makes morality objective.

But I think you will find that we don't just abitrarily determine morality when we declare someone is wrong and they should not do something. WE don't just make up some arbitrary reasn and nor do we use feelings, opinions or preferences to determine this either as these things have no wrongness in thefirst place.

Math is a formal logical system. But please, make your proof that 2+2=4 (hint, its very complicated). But either way, math is not morals (neither is it physical reality).

But according to moral realism Maths works like morality.

1. The Realism/Antirealism Debate
If there are moral facts, how can we know them? For a realist, moral facts are as certain as mathematical facts. Moral facts and mathematical facts are abstract entities, and as such, are different in kind from natural facts. One cannot literally display moral facts as one could display, say, a plant. One can display a token of the type, for example one can write “lying for personal gain is wrong” or one can write an equation; however, one cannot observe moral and mathematical facts in quite the same way as one can observe, with the aid of a microscope, clorophyll in a leaf.

The moral realist may argue for the view that there are moral facts as follows:
(1) Moral sentences are sometimes true.
(2) A sentence is true only if the truth-making relation holds between it and the thing that makes it true.
(3) Thus, true moral sentences are true only because there holds the truth-making relation between them and the things that make them true.
Therefore,
(4) The things that make some moral sentences true must exist.
It is a short inference from the existence of the things that make some moral sentences true to the existence of moral facts.
Moral Realism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

You have not supported that "harm" is an objective value.

Because life is intrinsically valuable harming life goes against this value. In fact there is an obligation for us to uphold the value of life and the qualities that help make it thrive. Because we are rational and moral beings who can understand how certain understanding of the situation leads to certain responsibilities epistemically.

Therefore understanding "LIfe" has intrinsic value obligates us not to do anything that will contradict life as intrinsically valuable which includes harming people. As epistemological facts are sometimes aligned with morals this means we are morally obligated to not harm others.

There is however, a clear path to a universal and powerful moral objectivity, the view that morality (or most of it, anyway) is just as objectively true as science and mathematics. The key ingredient is the notion of harm.
The question now is “Why ought we to check (or mitigate) such harm.” The answer is because it is harm! Harm is bad by definition. Morality requires us to avoid doing bad things, again, by definition. Hence, we all have a moral duty not to harm other living things. This moral duty exists objectively because harm exists objectively. Just as 1 + 1 = 2 is objectively true, so “we should not harm other living things” is objectively true. This truth is based simply on the fact that harming exists and should be checked.

 

[stevevw]

There is no problem to explain because we cannot say that anything is "objectively wrong". I know you can't accept that because it isn't as emotionally satisfying as being correct about how people ought to act, but that's reality. You just keep asserting that things you feel very strongly about are clearly objectively wrong.

You want to show that something is objectively wrong, provide a formal logical proof. And none of this "it's self-evident" bologna.

OK, so if we cannot say that "rape" is objectively wrong, then its not really wrong to hold the view that "rape is good to do" in anyway beyond a personal feeling, preference or opinion.

 

[stevevw]

You cant define rape but you think its a moral truth.

I think to say that we cannot define rape because of some disagreement about the age of consent is a fallacious arguement of an "either and or". You are saying we either have a clear cut definition or we have no definition at all. That some disagreement around the edges of the issue mean there is no truth to it. It doesnt follow.

We have a clear definition of rape and I gave it to you here
rape, unlawful sexual activity, most often involving sexual intercourse, against the will of the victim through force or the threat of force or with an individual who is incapable of giving legal consent because of minor status, mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception.
rape | Definition, Effects, Motivations, & Facts

The fact that some people disagree on what age of consent is doesnt change the clear definition above. It just means that the jurisdictions that have different ages have different facts to base their "age of consent" on. Some may be using outdated science or use a different basis for measuring things. But the fact that people use some sort of objective basis in the first place shows they are basing things on an independent measure and not some old mans personal opinion.

If you notice that all of the different ages fall within a small scope at around the age we know women especially mature. So this shows everyone is using the science of human development. WE caeven determine individual levels of maturity nowadays. So theres no excuse for not knowing pretty well exactly when every individual is capable of consent.

The point is all this shows we at least try to use some objective basis for important moral issues. If we are wrong we are wrong because we got the science wrong or allowed our personal opinions to stand in the way.

 

[stevevw]

NO it is NOT " looking for exceptions"
You dont have to look. They are everywhere.
But you concede there are exceptions,
good, as it torpedoes your claim.

I'm not conceeding any exceptions. I am saying that in you claiming there are exceptions you are acknowledging that there must be an objective base to measuring what is an exception or not. Otherwise how do you tell what exceptions are if there no objective basis. It would not be an exception if there was no objective basis. It would just be something different.

Its the opposire of " believing there is some
Moral truth". I do not. How dare you just make that up about me,
or anyone else?

Not sure what you mean here as I have not accused you of anything.

Ive asked, what, ten times? For an example of a
moral truth that is always true. ( a Truth)
A GENERAL RULE.
Something that always works.
As in thread title-
Moral Absolute

All you do is handwave when shown
you cant think of one.
Last try.
Can you give us one example of a moral truth, an absolute,
no exceptions? For lo, the absolute knoweth no exceptions.

Thats what I have been trying to do. I am asking a couple of simple real life applied moral questions to determine moral truths.
1) Do you think torturing an innocent child for fun is objectively wrong.
2) If someone said "Torturing an innocent child for fun is morally OK do you think we can tell me they are mistaken and are objectively wrong.

 

[VirOptimus]

By that criteria we can say no one has shown that morality is relative or subjective either. Its a simple question. Can we state that immoral acts like "rape or child abuse or racial descrimination for that matter is morally OK to do. Can we say that these immoral acts are objectively wrong that is a fact in the world beyond subjective thinking.

But I think you will find that we don't just abitrarily determine morality when we declare someone is wrong and they should not do something. WE don't just make up some arbitrary reasn and nor do we use feelings, opinions or preferences to determine this either as these things have no wrongness in thefirst place.

But according to moral realism Maths works like morality.

1. The Realism/Antirealism Debate
If there are moral facts, how can we know them? For a realist, moral facts are as certain as mathematical facts. Moral facts and mathematical facts are abstract entities, and as such, are different in kind from natural facts. One cannot literally display moral facts as one could display, say, a plant. One can display a token of the type, for example one can write “lying for personal gain is wrong” or one can write an equation; however, one cannot observe moral and mathematical facts in quite the same way as one can observe, with the aid of a microscope, clorophyll in a leaf.

The moral realist may argue for the view that there are moral facts as follows:
(1) Moral sentences are sometimes true.
(2) A sentence is true only if the truth-making relation holds between it and the thing that makes it true.
(3) Thus, true moral sentences are true only because there holds the truth-making relation between them and the things that make them true.
Therefore,
(4) The things that make some moral sentences true must exist.
It is a short inference from the existence of the things that make some moral sentences true to the existence of moral facts.
Moral Realism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Because life is intrinsically valuable harming life goes against this value. In fact there is an obligation for us to uphold the value of life and the qualities that help make it thrive. Because we are rational and moral beings who can understand how certain understanding of the situation leads to certain responsibilities epistemically.

Therefore understanding "LIfe" has intrinsic value obligates us not to do anything that will contradict life as intrinsically valuable which includes harming people. As epistemological facts are sometimes aligned with morals this means we are morally obligated to not harm others.

There is however, a clear path to a universal and powerful moral objectivity, the view that morality (or most of it, anyway) is just as objectively true as science and mathematics. The key ingredient is the notion of harm.
The question now is “Why ought we to check (or mitigate) such harm.” The answer is because it is harm! Harm is bad by definition. Morality requires us to avoid doing bad things, again, by definition. Hence, we all have a moral duty not to harm other living things. This moral duty exists objectively because harm exists objectively. Just as 1 + 1 = 2 is objectively true, so “we should not harm other living things” is objectively true. This truth is based simply on the fact that harming exists and should be checked.

Just more assertions and no substance.

And you still have not adressed the authority problem.

 

[stevevw]

Why ask me?

Oh I just thought you had an opinion on the topic.

But your question shows you get the point that there is no absolute morality involved.

Actually it shows the opposite. The reason why I asked you "how do you think they determine the age of consent" was because most people base their reason on some basis like science (psychology and human development) which tells us what age on average people mature.

Using that basis we can say that certain ages definitely are not mature enough and for older adolescents we can test them and look for the signs which show a young person is not capoable of understanding consent. THat way we can know more acurately when its a case of statuatory rape.

But lets not forget that the same science tells us clearly what is non-statuatory rape. Therefore we have a clear basis for determining when someone rapes. Therefore we can say that rape is wrong when it doesn't meet this basis.

Closest is to take some objective facts like how
sex with a 6yr old is clearly harmful,

OK lets take this example. Can we say that it is absolutely wrong to commit this horrible act on a person so young. If someone said it was morlaly OK to do this act could we say that they are mistaken and are objectively wrong to take that position.

or beating a girl
unconsious the having sex isnt nice, and then, make a
subjective and arbitrary decision about when its rape
and when it isnt. ( regardless of age)

That doesn't make sense. You just said you can take some objective facts and use that to tell if the act is wrong. You cannot use subjective and arbitrary thinking if you are using objective facts. The objective facts are what the decision is based on not personal subjective opinions. Some like we know that underage sex is wrong, nonstatuatory rape is wrong. So we know these two examples are objectively wrong and are decidied by an objective base and not subjective opinions.

We can now learn how to find the objective base for other morals. Some may be harder to find but that doesnt mean the truth is not out there. Look at statuatory rape. Year ago there was not any such crime as statuatory rape. Why do you think they made a law. It s because we came to understand human maturity better and that certain people cannot give proper consent because they are immature. That is based on the science which is objective.

 

[Moral Orel]

OK, so if we cannot say that "rape" is objectively wrong, then its not really wrong to hold the view that "rape is good to do" in anyway beyond a personal feeling, preference or opinion.

Why don't you have an actual argument? Could it be, perhaps, because believing it is objectively wrong is just a feeling you have?

 

[Moral Orel]

Harm is bad by definition

False.
Merriam-Webster
harm
noun
\ ˈhärm \
Definition of harm
(Entry 1 of 2)

1: physical or mental damage : INJURY the amount of harm sustained by the boat during the storm
2: MISCHIEF, HURT I meant you no harm.

Sometimes it is good to cause harm, sometimes it is bad to cause harm. Sometime people like harm, sometimes people dislike harm. Harm is not "bad by definition"; that's ridiculous.

 

[stevevw]

Why don't you have an actual argument? Could it be, perhaps, because believing it is objectively wrong is just a feeling you have?

I have given various arguements. One of which is applying morality to reali life situations and seeing how they really work in reality.

This is done by posing moral situations to see how humans act. For example
If culture (a) has the relative view that torturing innocent children for fun was regarded as morally acceptable can other cultures such as western nations state that culture (a) is wrong as a fact/truth in the world beyond any individual or cultural view. Can we say that torturing innocent children for fun is objectively wrong as a fact/truth in the world beyond any individual or cultural view.

What it comes down to is
any argument against ethical realism, in order to justify us in rejecting the claim (e.g.) ‘you shouldn’t kill every living thing in the world, even if you want to,’ will have to be such that all of its premises have more overall-evidence than ‘you shouldn’t kill everyone in the world, even if you want to.’
Ethical Realism, or Moral Realism

 

[stevevw]

False.
Merriam-Webster
harm
noun
\ ˈhärm \
Definition of harm
(Entry 1 of 2)

1: physical or mental damage : INJURY the amount of harm sustained by the boat during the storm
2: MISCHIEF, HURT I meant you no harm.

Sometimes it is good to cause harm, sometimes it is bad to cause harm. Sometime people like harm, sometimes people dislike harm. Harm is not "bad by definition"; that's ridiculous.

Yet it is a common basis for morality. Harm can be qualified as an action that causes damage to a person which makes them less effective or successful than they were. In that sense any harm is wrong.

Sam Harris is a proponent of objective morality based on human wellbeing for which harm/pain plays a significant role. He uses a moral landscape where there are various degrees of moral wrong with valleys and peaks as the ultimate measure of wrongness. He uses human flourishing as a measure of what is right and wrong

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yet it is a common basis for morality. Harm can be qualified as an action that causes damage to a person which makes them less effective or successful than they were. In that sense any harm is wrong.

Sam Harris is a proponent of objective morality based on human wellbeing for which harm/pain plays a significant role. He uses a moral landscape where there are various degrees of moral wrong with valleys and peaks as the ultimate measure of wrongness. He uses human flourishing as a measure of what is right and wrong

What Sam Harris does is assert that morality is objective because it is based on objective facts. (Something others here do). While "if you can't tell why suffering is worse than not suffering, I can't help you" is an interesting statement and I find it perhaps useful as a way to decide what to do in general, I disagree with the sentiment that that moral system is objective. It does not transfer. That there is a rock in my yard may be objective does not entail that "I like the rock in my yard" is objective. Sam is just wrong.

 

[Kylie]

So are is Math yet that is a also a fact. So are theories in science and physical laws. Humans are capable to rational thought and determining facts and truths that stand independnet of subjective thinking.

Human Rights and other laws are based on an objective that it harms human life. So its not the laws that make it wrong but the objective basis that rape harms humans which is determined independently and objectively by facts such as psychology and medicine. HR and laws or ethical codes are just a the outward expression of the moral truth that rape harms humans so as to stop those raping.

The problem is that if all knowledge of things like science was lost, then we'd be able to find it again.

But if all knowledge of Human laws was lost, then there's a pretty good chance that they would never be recovered. We'd end up with new laws, yes, and they may be pretty close to the old laws, but they wouldn't necessarily be exactly the same.

Heck, even between different societies here today, the laws are not the same. For example, spousal rape (where one person forces their spouse to engage in sexual acts when they don't want to) was made illegal in Australia between 1981-1995, depending on state. In El Salvador, the law is not actually clear about it, in Ethiopia, the law says that rape can only occur outside wedlock not within marriages, in Russia it's been illegal from 1922, and in Morocco, the laws on rape specifically exclude marital rape, with the Moroccan Minister of Justice stating in 2013 that marital rape couldn't be criminalised: “you can't deprive a man of what is rightfully his.". In fact, when we look at all the different countries around the world, some of them go out of their way to say that marital rape is outlawed, other countries just rely on the same laws against rape that cover rape outside marriage, some countries hold that rape is wrong but any sex within a marriage is considered consensual, and some countries specify in their laws that it is impossible for a man to rape his wife. (SOURCE)

So where's this objective basis you speak of?

 

[Kylie]

You mean "reasons why You think Star Wars is better. Thats just your opinion and means nothing in any objective way in the world and means the same thing to others who may have different reasons why they like Star Wars.

Besides you contradicted yourself. You say you can "support an arguement why Star TRek is better" and then say the arguement is based on subjective thinking. Yet an arguement means giving objective support beyond your subjective views.

an argument means a statement that is backed up with some kind of objective evidence.
Evaluating arguments and evidence - NUI Galway

An argument is a line of reasoning designed to prove a point. ... Regardless of length and complexity, all arguments have the same basic framework: the author states some central idea, and then presents supporting evidence, laying it out in a logical pattern.
The Argument

OBJECTIVE arguments are often those that have to do with logos, that is, reason, evidence and logic, generally dealing with material questions (things that can be sensed or measured and have to do with the real outside world, outside of oneself).

SUBJECTIVE arguments are most often those dealing with the personal situation, feelings or experiences of a particular individual, family or group, and are usually arguments from ethos or pathos.
Objective and Subjective Arguments

So as with morality how can you prove that Star Trek is better than Star Wars with objective evdience in the real world (that is beyond your subjective mind).

Therefore if we cannot subjectively argue about peoples preferences for TV shows being better then we cannot argue at all unless there is some objective basis for supporting that arguement.

Likewise we could not subjectively argue that rape is morally wrong. There we would have to accept that under relative/subjective morality we have no way of telling if something like "rape" is a truely wrong act.

Oh look, someone acting like their subjective opinion (that me giving reasons to support the claim that Star Trek is better than Star Wars) is an objective fact (that those reasons would constitute an argument, even though per your definitions "argument" only applies to things with objective evidence)!

And let's not even bother to mention that your own source DOES talk about subjective arguments: SUBJECTIVE arguments are most often those dealing with the personal situation, feelings or experiences of a particular individual, family or group, and are usually arguments from ethos or pathos.

See what it says there? "...most often dealing with the... group..." That's what I've been saying about how our morality is formed from what is required for our society, or our group, to keep functioning.

And again you are coming at the issue from the point of view of needing to find a way for morals to be truly a right or wrong act. You are committing the argument from incredulity. You can't conceive that morality could be subjective, so you reject anything that indicates it is. Your own preconceptions are biasing your views!