Is there an absolute morality?

[Moral Orel]

"If moral non-realism is false then all moral statements are true?"
That doesn't sound right since not all moral statements are objective. In view of this, I don't see how any determination of whether all moral statements are true or not true could categorically hinge on non-realism.

It isn't right. "If moral non-realism is false, then some moral statements are true". They can't all be true, but they can all be false.

"All Moral statements are false".
This statement implies it's wrong/falsehood to make any claim to ever knowing what is right and wrong. It's a moral statement to begin with, because it uses the term moral as it's subject matter. If it's a true statement that all moral statements are false, then it's a false statement according to its own statement. That's a contradiction to its thesis.

Some terms have formal definitions. You need to learn what a "moral statement" is before you make arguments about them.

The statement seems to be alluding to statements about opinions of what's right and wrong from a subjective position on what's true or false about objective morality, while at the same time claiming there isn't any objective morality. That makes no sense to me. It sounds like it could simply be saying we don't always agree on what's moral. If that's the case then why not say so?

It looks like sophistry to me. It indicates that morality is not being viewed as a quality of goodness or virtue in mankind, such as caring, kindness, brotherly love, compassion, faithfulness, forthrightness, mercy, honesty. As if Maternal instinct or compassion is a matter of opinion or one's prerogative.

You need to learn what moral non-realism claims before you challenge it.

I get that this is what you meant.

Your words above indicate to me that you know lying is objectively wrong. You speak of valuing truth. To value Truth you have to value truthfulness. I take you at your word because I agree, and also because I see cynicism as a hypocritical subjective negative prejudice which we project onto others unfairly. I don't believe that was what you were doing. You were just making a point.

Nonetheless, what I would hope you realize, is that I was not claiming I never lie, nor expecting some respect that I hadn't earned; I was stating the objective Truth that honesty is a good Quality or virtue, in mankind. If I'm a liar in my unfaithfulness to that, it still wouldn't make what I said a lie.

You accused someone of being dishonest because they disagreed that morality is objective. My point is that I have no more reason to trust your claims than theirs. Accusing people who disagree with you of being dishonest is irrationally adversarial.

 

[Moral Orel]

Really?

The best answer you've got is, "It just is"?

Yep. In order to prove that there are moral facts, they need you to assume without reason that there are moral facts. And if you just do that then they can totally prove that morality is a reasonable process!

 

[stevevw]

Nope, I was right to begin with. Any statement of the form "People ought to X" is a moral statement, just like we agreed:




Every time you have said some form of "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." you were making a false claim. You're making this statement:

If X is true, then Y is true.

However, as we've established, in reality:

If X is true, then Y is false.

No matter what moral statement you put in for Y.

That cannot be right according to the folowing

To think of any set of considerations that they justify some conclusion is to make a claim concerning the value (albeit the epistemic as opposed to moral value) of a conclusion. To hold of science, or mathematics, or logic, that there is a difference between good evidence or good arguments and bad ones is again to commit oneself evaluatively. This raises an obvious question: under what conditions, and why, are epistemic claims reasonably thought justified? Whatever answer one might begin to offer will immediately provide a model for an answer to the parallel question raised about moral judgments.

There is good reason to think the kinds of consideration that are appropriate to judging epistemic principles will be appropriate too when it comes to judging other normative principles, including those that we might recognize as moral. This means that any quick dismissal of moral theory as obviously not the sort of thing that could really be justified are almost surely too quick.

In this essay I have argued that there is no fundamental problem with deriving ‘ought’ from ‘is’ claims, because ‘ought’ statements are in fact merely a special type of ‘is’ statements. In making this argument I first outlined Peter Railton’s reductive naturalist conception of moral good, and defended it against the objection of ‘nasty preferences’. I then argued that on the basis of this account, the ‘is-ought’ gap can be dissolved as resting on a conceptual confusion, because ‘ought’ claims simply are a special type of ‘is’ claims. Morality is validated, I argued, on the basis of our ability to construct a plausible naturalistic account of its relationship to objects in the real world.
How to get an Ought from an Is

Ethical naturalists contend that moral truths exist, and that their truth value relates to facts about physical reality. Many modern naturalistic philosophers see no impenetrable barrier in deriving "ought" from "is", believing it can be done whenever we analyze goal-directed behavior. They suggest that a statement of the form "In order for agent A to achieve goal B, A reasonably ought to do C" exhibits no category error and may be factually verified or refuted. "Oughts" exist, then, in light of the existence of goals.

This is similar to work done by moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, who attempts to show that because ethical language developed in the West in the context of a belief in a human telos—an end or goal—our inherited moral language, including terms such as good and bad, have functioned, and function, to evaluate the way in which certain behaviors facilitate the achievement of that telos. In an evaluative capacity, therefore, good and bad carry moral weight without committing a category error.
If a person is understood as having a particular purpose, then behaviour can be evaluated as good or bad in reference to that purpose. In plainer words, a person is acting good when that person fulfills that person's purpose.[5]
Is–ought problem - Wikipedia

Can an ‘Ought’ be Derived from an ‘Is’?
Philippa Foot says it’s super easy, barely an inconvenience.
Foot suggested that our moral lives could instead be based on hypothetical imperatives. These are “If… then” statements. For example, “ If you want some sugar then you should walk to the shop before it closes.” So if you do in fact want some sugar, you should walk to the shop. Otherwise not. It’s easy to invent examples in ethics: “If you want the happiness and safety of those you love, then…” and so on. Hypothetical imperatives can be proven true or false. They don’t require any crossing of the ‘is-ought’ gap, and Foot claimed that they could form the basis of our moral lives including voluntarily banding together with like-minded people to promote the common good. I found her argument plausible and actually rather inspiring.

This is on account of facts about humans – of what is the case in human life. Children are not able to look after themselves. Without adult care they would not even survive. And unless they are both cherished and taught by adults they are incapable themselves of such things as love and friendship – perhaps even of satisfying work. They may survive but cannot flourish in the way that is possible for human beings.

So we can say ‘adult human beings ought to protect and cherish and instruct children.’ This is a straightforward fact about what it is to be a good or bad human being, about what a person ought to do. And it is derived from other facts of a certain kind about what is necessary for flourishing in living things in a particular (i.e. here the human) species.

These are parallels that I am drawing on in relating the ‘oughts’ and ‘shoulds’ that we can predicate of human beings to flourishing in our case – in the case of our species.
Can an ‘Ought’ be Derived from an ‘Is’? | Issue 130 | Philosophy Now

 

[Moral Orel]

That cannot be right according to the folowing

Wrong. Remember, we are starting with "If moral non-realism is true" so we are assuming it is. Whether it is in fact true or not is actually irrelevant to our discussion. Trying to argue that it is false is a red herring.

 

[stevevw]

Given that the article here has no attribution whatsoever, I don't see why I should consider any of the arguments it presents as valid.

Yet what the article is saying is widely accepted and also contained in other mainstream scientific sources like
Is the Big Bang in crisis?
Could the Big Bang Be Wrong?

And anyway, a quick search through the arguments showed that there are proposed solutions for them.
For example, here are some of the proposed solutions for the first: Cosmological lithium problem - Wikipedia
And for the second. Baryon asymmetry - Wikipedia
I mean, even a quick check on Wikipedia shows that these problems are not death knells for the Big Bang theory.

Some scientists say they are especially when trying to unite QM with relativisty. Its a fundelemntal problem that cannot be fixed by adjusting the current theory. But your missing the point. Its because of these problems that the theory is not fact. Its inconsistent with observations. So you can't claim that science objectives even facts let alone being clear and concise.

An article written by this guy: https://ca.linkedin.com/in/david-rowland
Somehow, given the number of wildly different fields he is into, I doubt that he is well versed in any of them.

So your reply to his arguement is a logical fallacy.

Really?

The best answer you've got is, "It just is"?

Then you would have to ask the UN and just about every Nations Constitution and Declaration as to why they would make the same determination based on "Just Is" which is silly as they are not that stupid to not have reasoned and justified their determination that human "Life" is valuable enough to uphold and protect it with Rights, Conventions, Treaties and Laws.

Not its not "Just is". Its an assumption which is justified as a belief through testing this in real life experience. WW2 was the catalyst for enshrining Human Rights due to the devaluing of "LIfe". An intrinsic value is based on something being valuable in its own right and not dependent on any other thing to make it valuable. "Life" is intrinsically valuable. This is a self -evident truth. So far we only know of conscious "LIfe" on one tiny speck in an infinite universe so its pretty special.

The same self-evdience truths that the UN gives life with Human Rights. The same self-evdient truth in how most nations around the World make "LIfe" a natural born right that cannot be denied or taken away by individuals or governments and anyone who disrespects this can be prosecuted. Do you honestly think that this was just "Just is".

Of course, any alternative would have to explain EVERYTHING that the current theories do, as well as or even better than the current theories.

And as time goes by better alternatives do explain things better. But its hard for some to let go of the old ideas.

Can you show me any reputable scientist in a relevant field who claims that evolution is not the correct explanation for the variety of life? I think you'll find that if there are any, the split between the scientists in relevant fields who accept evolution and those who dispute it is extremely one-sided.

I never said evolution did not happen at all. I said that there is a growing number of scientists who dispute it happened in the way that mainstream supporters claim. Thus the evdience is not as clear as one claims and its musch more complicated. Some of the so called facts (central tenets) about evolution are what is being disputed so it could lead to a complete rethinking of the theories fundemental core assumptions.

The point is the current theory is not fact and like other theories it will be replaced and there is growing disagreement. It may have majority support now as did other theories that were eventually replaced but that will gradually change. So any claim that science has the majority agreement must mean its objective is wrong.

The paper I linked had the info.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? | Nature

So if you understand that people can think that something is objectively true when it isn't, why do you refuse to consider that morality may not be objectively true?

I don't rule out that morality may not be objective. I am saying that like the majority of philosophers that moral realism seems to be the most reasonable moral position to take.

Math is objective, it can be described in the kind of language I've been asking you to provide for morality for ages.

But if Math was invented then its humans who created the language. 2+2=4 doesnt mean anything. Its only because we can experience Math in real life that gives it truth. You cannot say that the language itself creates any truth value.

A person who never learned Math language can experience Math as a fact in real life. They see circles in nature, they count petals on flowers, they experience numbers and use them practcially. This is how we know Math truths and its the samw for morality.

 

[stevevw]

Wrong. Remember, we are starting with "If moral non-realism is true" so we are assuming it is. Whether it is in fact true or not is actually irrelevant to our discussion. Trying to argue that it is false is a red herring.

But I just gave examples with evdience of similar statements about goal directed statements that have "Shoulds" in them that are not moral statements.

 

[Moral Orel]

But I just gave examples with evdience of similar statements about goal directed statements that have "Shoulds" in them that are not moral statements.

No, they are moral statements, as you already acknowledged. Any statement of the form, "One should X" is a moral statement no matter what you fill it in with.

"People should..." is a moral statement.

The ... is there so that you can fill in whatever you want. "People should love one another" "People should not murder". For whatever act you put in place of the ... that statement is a moral statement. True or false?

True

Any form of the statement, "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." is always false. This has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[stevevw]

But the human experience and assumptions you have been using to claim morality is objective, they're all SUBJECTIVE things.

No objectivity can be experienced as well. I just gave an example in Math. Math is made fact through experience. The same with something like Gravity. Seeing the equation of gravity on a blackboard doesn't make it fact. Most of us could not even recognise the equation.

It is made fact by our experience of it when we fall down. Then we really know its fact and don't doubt it. So our experience is very important in even science. Afterall it is the human who looks through the telescope and sees that the earth is a sphere who experiences that observation.

Stop avoiding the question.

If morality is really objective, then you should be able to answer the question of whether executing criminals for certain crimes is objectively morally good or objectively morally bad in just the same way that you can say if two plus two is objectively four or objectively five.

Your refusal to answer the question shows that you can't do it - which should not be the case if morality is truly objective as you claim.

So lets translate this into science objectives. We cannot work out all the facts of QM so there is no facts about QM. We cannot find any facts about how life began on earth so there are no facts about how life began on earth. We cannot find the true facts about the Big Bang so theres no true fact about the Big Bang.

Can you see the logical fallacy. Just because we cannot know the truth as to whether something is moral or not doesn't mean there is no moral truth to that matter.

I am not afraid to attempt to answer this question with rationality and logic but I find it irrelevant. Because if I succeed, fail or maybe give a good account but fall short it doesn't matter as its all irrelevant as too whether there really are moral facts. Do you honestly think you would prove there were no moral facts if I fail to give an answer.

So, in a system where you ought not rape people, raping people is something you ought not do.

That seems rather circular to me.

It would be if it only rested on that. But we know that rape harms people and disrespects and devalues "Life".

Because when people treat their subjective opinions as objective fact,

What do you mean by treat they subjective opinion like objective fact. Thats an oxymoron. You cannot treat subjective opinion like objective fact. Its like saying people are just too dumb or deluded to realise the difference between subjective thinking and objective facts. Like you can pretend or present some personal preference as objective fact.

It doesn't work like that in real life and this is a good example of how unreal relative/subjective morality is. When people argue about morality they appeal to real objective facts. They know the difference. Its common sense and natural to appeal to something outside yourself like if the debate was about abortion people would naturally use human rights, the suffering of the mother or fetus, the rights of the mother or fetus ect. These are objectives outside the subject.

you get people who disagree with each other and insist that they are right and the other is wrong, and neither of them can provide any actual testable evidence to support their position.

So then how do we get to a point where we can make moral determinations one way or the other. Surely its not just because of agreement. We already know that agreement alone is dangerous. Humans have agreed on some pretty horrible actions. There has to be some independent measure like ease suffering and promote kindness ect.

Except my explanation fits in better with what we see in reality.

Does it really. An objectivists can claim both subjectivity and objectivisty because though the subject experiences all they can experience objective morality. But a subjectivists can only ever exp[erience subjectivity. They can never say that there are moral truths.

So an objectvists can never be a hypocrite and contradict their own morality. But a subjectivists can as everytime they act and talk like morals are objective and actually take actions to make morality objective in real life situations like moral norms, laws, ethical codes, and condemantion they are not only "acting like" but making real which is reality.

Do you mean that people acting as though their opinions are objective contradicts the fact that their opinions are subjective?
Well, sure, but there's nothing that says such irrational behaviour is impossible.

I guess not. But irrational nevertheless.

People can not make a subjective opinion into an objective fact just by wanting it to be objective really hard.

Thats right so they enact it into society and therefore into reality. Its one thing to act like something is real. But when you make it real thats another thing. Afterall isn't it the observer who makes things real especially for morality.

People believing a thing does not mean that thing is real.

For some things it is and its the only way we can know and live like its real. Like I used the example before. We cannot tell that our physical world is really how we experience it with our 5 senses. For all we know we could be in a simulation. We cannot get outside our reality to verify its really real.

So we have to make an assumption about our physical world being the way it is so we can venture into that world and not worry about being sucked into some glitch in the matrix. Otherwise we would never venture outside. This is purely based on belief.

Likewise we believe our partner loves us. There is no scientifically verifiable evdience for this. But we believe they do and we live our lives like we believe they do.

 

[stevevw]

No, they are moral statements, as you already acknowledged. Any statement of the form, "One should X" is a moral statement no matter what you fill it in with.




Any form of the statement, "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." is always false. This has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So your saying the arguements are wrong without addressing them.

 

[Moral Orel]

So your saying the arguements are wrong without addressing them.

The arguments you presented are irrelevant to the discussion at hand that's why I'm not addressing them.

If moral non-realism is true, then then all moral statements are false.
Any form of "People should..." is a moral statement.
Any form of "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." is always false.

You've already acknowledge the premises are true. The argument is valid, the premises are true, so the conclusion must be true.

 

[VirOptimus]

The arguments you presented are irrelevant to the discussion at hand that's why I'm not addressing them.

If moral non-realism is true, then then all moral statements are false.
Any form of "People should..." is a moral statement.
Any form of "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." is always false.

You've already acknowledge the premises are true. The argument is valid, the premises are true, so the conclusion must be true.

Its no use, he dont understand logic.

 

[childeye 2]

It isn't right. "If moral non-realism is false, then some moral statements are true". They can't all be true, but they can all be false.

Exactly, which is evidence that moral non-realism is the hypocrisy of cynicism. Had it said, they can all be true/subjectively, but they can't all be true/objectively, then it would not be hypocritical in any way.

Some terms have formal definitions. You need to learn what a "moral statement" is before you make arguments about them.

I'm using your standards on record of what a moral statement is, not mine. This is what you're saying on the record: Every time you have said some form of "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." you were making a false claim. "No matter what moral statement you put in for Y".

So, to be clear: "If moral non-realism is true, then people should believe in moral non-realism".

According to your belief this above is a false statement. Moral non-realism is therefore antithetical to its own thesis, a contradiction in reasoning.

You need to learn what moral non-realism claims before you challenge it.

I know what it claims, and I don't challenge it. Moral non-realism claims there's no such thing as morality in reality. It therefore ends up proving morality/immorality is not a fantasy, because it's a contradiction to its own thesis.

You accused someone of being dishonest because they disagreed that morality is objective...Accusing people who disagree with you of being dishonest is irrationally adversarial.

With all due respect, your assertion that someone accused someone of lying because they disagreed with them, is your fantasy not mine. If moral non-realism is true, then people should not accuse someone of being dishonest because they disagreed that morality is objective. According to yourself, your accusation is of an accusation that doesn't exist in reality, so it's a false statement.

My point is that I have no more reason to trust your claims than theirs.

It's completely understandable. You can't expect to be able to trust a person's claims, when everyone whether right or wrong is always false. Cynicism is self-fulfilling.

My claim was that honesty is a good quality or virtue in a person that is admired by a good people, and dishonesty is not. My point was that I have no reason to distrust your claims or theirs, if in fact you both are claiming truthfulness/lying, does not exist in reality.

In moral terminology The Truth is a Virtue. It proves itself through its negative in the reality of it, and that's why scripture calls it the Word of God.

 

[Neogaia777]

Certain morals, or moral truths, or even some truths, etc, or whatever, etc, can be quote/unquote "objective" (absolute) within a "certain context", etc... that context being a race (including the "human race") or culture, or time period or age or era, etc, or situation or circumstance that a group is in and/or is facing, etc, or where they are or where they are at/from or where that culture or race was/were brought up or raised, etc... but some would argue that, "that", is not 100% completely objective (absolute) in it's broadest rage (or sense) of it's most broadest range of context and/or meaning, and is actually "very far from it" some would say, etc... and I would generally agree with that, etc, especially if there is a broader picture or range that goes beyond just the human race, and human race only, or our times and/or culture differences that we go through only, as I believe there "very well may be", etc...

But, right now, we might be able to all agree on certain things within the context of the entire human race, etc, and in the context of where we are all at right now currently as an entire human race, etc, but it/that could all be subject to change either for the better or the worse later on or in the future, etc, which might cause or lead some to say it's not completely objective, etc...

But it would also have to be like the federal and the state governments in America, where we would come up with a very general and broad and very basic set of general rules for the entire populace to go by, but then also with more individual ones being able and allowed to further define it/them more, or add to it/them more, or being able to elaborate more on them more, or build on that basic foundation more, etc, which would be regional and cultural for the most part, etc...

Could maybe be done maybe, etc...?

Some very very basic "human rights" that all would agree to go by right now, etc, and we'd probably have to make a distinction between adults and children also, etc, that we could all agree on, etc, and a general minimal/maximal age for that basic distinction, etc, but also maybe realizing that none of them are or would be completely timeless either, etc, and could be subject to change, either for the better or the worse, (subjective/situational/circumstantial terms), in the future maybe also, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Moral Orel]

Exactly, which is evidence that moral non-realism is the hypocrisy of cynicism. Had it said, they can all be true/subjectively, but they can't all be true/objectively, then it would not be hypocritical in any way.

Now I'm a hypocrite because I disagree with you, lol. Nothing can be true "subjectively". That's the sort of nonsense that leads to things like "My Truth" etc.

I'm using your standards on record of what a moral statement is, not mine. This is what you're saying on the record: Every time you have said some form of "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." you were making a false claim. "No matter what moral statement you put in for Y".

So, to be clear: "If moral non-realism is true, then people should believe in moral non-realism".

According to your belief this above is a false statement. Moral non-realism is therefore antithetical to its own thesis, a contradiction in reasoning.

This is false too:
"If moral non-realism is true, then people should not believe in moral non-realism".

Whether I suggest that someone "should" believe one thing or another has no impact on whether or not that thing is true or false. You got yerself one whopping humdinger of a non-sequitur there.

I know what it claims, and I don't challenge it. Moral non-realism claims there's no such thing as morality in reality. It therefore ends up proving morality/immorality is not a fantasy, because it's a contradiction to its own thesis.

And how exactly is "There are no true moral statements" self-contradictory?

As an exercise, tell me which one of these is true:

Everyone ought to enjoy chocolate ice cream.
Everyone ought not enjoy chocolate ice cream.

With all due respect, your assertion that someone accused someone of lying because they disagreed with them, is your fantasy not mine. If moral non-realism is true, then people should not accuse someone of being dishonest because they disagreed that morality is objective. According to yourself, your accusation is of an accusation that doesn't exist in reality, so it's a false statement.

I never said you "shouldn't" do anything. I merely described what you did. There are three threads on this topic, comprising hundreds of pages of posts. I've participated in all of them. Please scour through my posts to find me telling anyone, in any context, what they "should" or "should not" or "ought to" or "ought not to" do.

It's completely understandable. You can't expect to be able to trust a person's claims, when everyone whether right or wrong is always false. Cynicism is self-fulfilling.

My claim was that honesty is a good quality or virtue in a person that is admired by a good people, and dishonesty is not. My point was that I have no reason to distrust your claims or theirs, if in fact you both are claiming truthfulness/lying, does not exist in reality.

No one said that lying and telling the truth don't exist. Now you're just making things up.

 

[childeye 2]

Now I'm a hypocrite because I disagree with you, lol.

A hypocrite is one who doesn't agree with their own self, as is evidenced when they condemn others according to standards of morality/immorality that they themselves don't keep.

Nothing can be true "subjectively". That's the sort of nonsense that leads to things like "My Truth" etc.

This is the very nonsense you're supporting when you say there's no objective moral Truth.

Subjectively true does not mean that every single individual idea or opinion of what is objectively morally true, cannot possibly be correct.

So, since moral non-realism claims there is no objective moral/immoral Truth, then it is also claiming that it's claim, is true only subjectively, not objectively. Moral non-realism is an opinion based on prejudice not fact. And it opines that each person has only their individual moral/immoral opinion of what can't factually be true in reality. And I agree that this is nonsense and vanity.

This is false too:
"If moral non-realism is true, then people should not believe in moral non-realism".

You claim both of these statements below are false. You are therefore claiming you have two contradictory opinions that objective morality both exists and does not exist.

"If moral non-realism is true, then people should believe in moral non-realism"
"If moral non-realism is true, then people should not believe in moral non-realism"

Whether I suggest that someone "should" believe one thing or another has no impact on whether or not that thing is true or false. You got yerself one whopping humdinger of a non-sequitur there.

If you're saying that objective morality doesn't come into existence and vanish from existence based on your contradicting opinions, I know that.

And how exactly is "There are no true moral statements" self-contradictory?

These are two moral statements you claim are both false according to your theory. In doing so, you are claiming that objective morality both exists and doesn't exist, which is a contradiction.

"If moral non-realism is true, then people should believe in moral non-realism"
"If moral non-realism is true, then people should not believe in moral non-realism"

As an exercise, tell me which one of these is true:

Everyone ought to enjoy chocolate ice cream.
Everyone ought not enjoy chocolate ice cream.

This is not a moral/immoral context and therefore no moral/immoral terminology. It's off topic.

I never said you "shouldn't" do anything. I merely described what you did.

Here are your exact words wherein you claim I accused someone of being dishonest because they disagreed with me, when in fact you were mistaken. You then proceeded to intimate that such an act was irrational and adversarial, which clearly indicates disapproval.

You accused someone of being dishonest because they disagreed that morality is objective...Accusing people who disagree with you of being dishonest is irrationally adversarial.

You know I see honesty as a virtue, a good quality in mankind, and that this is what objective morality implies. Here is the full post where you claim I accused the poster of being dishonest. Note that the question of "how do I know you're not lying is" is qualified as rhetorical because it's hypothetical, and contingent on an answer supplied by me, not the poster. In this hypothetical, if I had him say yes, then I would know he's lying.

If I said, "I reject objective morality", I would mean that I reject all goodness in reality and embrace all badness in reality. In other words, I'm evil and proud of it.

Is this what you mean? And if you say "No", how do I know you're not lying since you claim to reject objective morality which means you reject honesty? This is why morality has to be objective, or it doesn't even exist in reality. By objective morality I mean Love/compassion and all moral virtues.

No one said that lying and telling the truth don't exist. Now you're just making things up.

To be clear, I'm saying that no one who is supporting moral non-realism is saying that (honesty) is objectively moral, and (dishonesty) is objectively immoral. Everyone admits there is truth and lies, but no one is going to say they are always right and wrong because there are exceptions. So, I use the virtue of honesty and its negative, dishonesty. According to moral non-realism, honesty does not exist as an objective moral virtue, a good quality in mankind.

 

[Moral Orel]

A hypocrite is one who doesn't agree with their own self, as is evidenced when they condemn others according to standards of morality/immorality that they themselves don't keep.

I never "condemned" anything. Being skeptical isn't being cynical. Being cynical doesn't require being hypocritical or even condemning. There is simply no reason for your irrationally adversarial approach to debate. Do it if you like, just know that you're setting the tone for our conversation.

However, that doesn't mean every single individual idea or opinion of what is objectively morally true, cannot possibly be correct.

I haven't even made an argument as to why all moral statements cannot be true, and yet you're already arguing.

So, since moral non-realism claims there is no objective moral/immoral Truth, then it is claiming that it's claim is true subjectively, not objectively.

Wrong. Moral non-realism claims that there are no true moral statements. That claim is not "true subjectively". It's simply true.

Claiming that there are no true moral statements does not mean that there are no true statements about the subject of morality. That's ludicrous.

You claim both of these statements below are false. You are therefore claiming you have two contradictory opinions that objective morality both exists and does not exist.

"If moral non-realism is true, then people should believe in moral non-realism"
"If moral non-realism is true, then people should not believe in moral non-realism"

Wrong, they're both false with no contradiction.

If you're saying that objective morality doesn't come into existence and vanish from existence based on your contradicting opinions, I know that.

Making stuff up again. All I pointed out was that "One ought to" and "This thing is" are not equal to one another, so your argument was invalid.

This is not a moral/immoral context and therefore no moral/immoral terminology. It's off topic.

Logic is always on topic.

Everyone ought to enjoy chocolate ice cream.
Everyone ought to not enjoy chocolate ice cream.

One of them is true, and one of them is false. They are in direct contradiction with one another, so according to you, they cannot both be false. Which one is true?

Here are your exact words wherein you claim I accused someone of being dishonest because they disagreed with me, when in fact you were mistaken.

And here are your exact words, thanks for not making me look it back up:

you claim to reject objective morality which means you reject honesty

Yep, not mistaken.

No one here claimed to "reject honesty". Most people value honesty. Moral realists say that they value honesty because it should be valued. Moral non-realists say that they value it simply because they like it.

To be clear, I'm saying that no one who is supporting moral non-realism is saying that (honesty) is objectively moral, and (dishonesty) is objectively immoral. Everyone admits there is truth and lies, but no one will say they are right and wrong because there are exceptions. So, I use the virtue of honesty and its negative, dishonesty. According to moral non-realism, honesty does not exist as an objective moral virtue, a good quality in mankind.

According to moral non-realism there is no fact about whether a person ought to be dishonest or honest. Talking about abstract concepts as existing or not existing is unnecessarily cumbersome.

 

[Kylie]

Yet what the article is saying is widely accepted and also contained in other mainstream scientific sources like
Is the Big Bang in crisis?
Could the Big Bang Be Wrong?

Given that the vast number of scientists in relevant fields accept the Big Bang as the best current explanation, these articles sound like the cosmological version of "Is the Earth Flat?" and "Could a spherical Earth be wrong?"

Some scientists say they are especially when trying to unite QM with relativisty. Its a fundelemntal problem that cannot be fixed by adjusting the current theory. But your missing the point. Its because of these problems that the theory is not fact. Its inconsistent with observations. So you can't claim that science objectives even facts let alone being clear and concise.

Some scientists? Who?

So your reply to his arguement is a logical fallacy.

Do you have any evidence that qualifies him to make an educated statement about the issue?

Then you would have to ask the UN and just about every Nations Constitution and Declaration as to why they would make the same determination based on "Just Is" which is silly as they are not that stupid to not have reasoned and justified their determination that human "Life" is valuable enough to uphold and protect it with Rights, Conventions, Treaties and Laws.

They're not the ones claiming their moral views are objectively true, though. They are just saying that their moral views are widely agreed on.

Not its not "Just is". Its an assumption which is justified as a belief through testing this in real life experience. WW2 was the catalyst for enshrining Human Rights due to the devaluing of "LIfe". An intrinsic value is based on something being valuable in its own right and not dependent on any other thing to make it valuable. "Life" is intrinsically valuable. This is a self -evident truth. So far we only know of conscious "LIfe" on one tiny speck in an infinite universe so its pretty special.

The instant you said "it's an assumption" was the instant you verified your argument is indeed, "It just is."

The same self-evdience truths that the UN gives life with Human Rights. The same self-evdient truth in how most nations around the World make "LIfe" a natural born right that cannot be denied or taken away by individuals or governments and anyone who disrespects this can be prosecuted. Do you honestly think that this was just "Just is".

Again, the "self evident" means that it's an assumption.

If it's true, provide the proof. Don't try to get out of it by saying "it's an assumption," or "it's self evident," or "it just is."

And as time goes by better alternatives do explain things better. But its hard for some to let go of the old ideas.

Great. When you got one, lemme know.

I never said evolution did not happen at all. I said that there is a growing number of scientists who dispute it happened in the way that mainstream supporters claim. Thus the evdience is not as clear as one claims and its musch more complicated. Some of the so called facts (central tenets) about evolution are what is being disputed so it could lead to a complete rethinking of the theories fundemental core assumptions.

The point is the current theory is not fact and like other theories it will be replaced and there is growing disagreement. It may have majority support now as did other theories that were eventually replaced but that will gradually change. So any claim that science has the majority agreement must mean its objective is wrong.

The paper I linked had the info.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? | Nature

We are always learning more details about the specifics, I agree, but that's hardly the same sort of disagreement that we find between people on opposite sides of the shape of the Earth debate, or this discussion about morality.

I don't rule out that morality may not be objective. I am saying that like the majority of philosophers that moral realism seems to be the most reasonable moral position to take.

And I've presented my responses as to why I disagree with your reasons to conclude that it's the most reasonable position.

But if Math was invented then its humans who created the language. 2+2=4 doesnt mean anything. Its only because we can experience Math in real life that gives it truth. You cannot say that the language itself creates any truth value.

A person who never learned Math language can experience Math as a fact in real life. They see circles in nature, they count petals on flowers, they experience numbers and use them practcially. This is how we know Math truths and its the samw for morality.

Who said anything about math being invented?

We invented the language we use, yes, but the concepts we are describing were not invented by us.

 

[Kylie]

No objectivity can be experienced as well. I just gave an example in Math. Math is made fact through experience. The same with something like Gravity. Seeing the equation of gravity on a blackboard doesn't make it fact. Most of us could not even recognise the equation.

It is made fact by our experience of it when we fall down. Then we really know its fact and don't doubt it. So our experience is very important in even science. Afterall it is the human who looks through the telescope and sees that the earth is a sphere who experiences that observation.

However, the difference is that math and gravity are the same for EVERYONE. No matter who studies it, they always get the same results as everyone else. And it can be described using equations. In the same way, logic can be described using equations.

Morality is nothing like this.

You're attempting to say that apples and golf balls are the same thing because they are both round and are sometimes found sitting underneath trees.

So lets translate this into science objectives. We cannot work out all the facts of QM so there is no facts about QM. We cannot find any facts about how life began on earth so there are no facts about how life began on earth. We cannot find the true facts about the Big Bang so theres no true fact about the Big Bang.

We can show that some things about QM are objectively true. That light behaves as a particle and as a wave, for example.

You cannot show ANY objectively true facts about morality. The best you can do is show a statement that nearly everyone agrees with.

Can you see the logical fallacy. Just because we cannot know the truth as to whether something is moral or not doesn't mean there is no moral truth to that matter.

The question is can YOU see YOUR logical fallacy? You made it out to be that if we don't know ALL the facts then it's worthless. This is the "all or nothing" fallacy. All or nothing fallacy:

I am not afraid to attempt to answer this question with rationality and logic but I find it irrelevant. Because if I succeed, fail or maybe give a good account but fall short it doesn't matter as its all irrelevant as too whether there really are moral facts. Do you honestly think you would prove there were no moral facts if I fail to give an answer.

For someone who is not afraid to answer the question, you've certainly been avoiding it a lot. I find this puzzling if what you say is true, particularly since that you actually answering the question would prove your own point.

It would be if it only rested on that. But we know that rape harms people and disrespects and devalues "Life".

But the harm it does depends on the person. Some victims are able to move on with their lives. Other victims are deeply traumatized and find this greatly debilitating. There is no objective measure of the harm that is done.

What do you mean by treat they subjective opinion like objective fact. Thats an oxymoron. You cannot treat subjective opinion like objective fact. Its like saying people are just too dumb or deluded to realise the difference between subjective thinking and objective facts. Like you can pretend or present some personal preference as objective fact.

If someone says, "Star Trek is better than Star Wars because Star Trek is based in science and Star Wars is just fantasy," then that is someone treating their subjective opinion as an objective fact.

If you want other real life examples, how about the parent who kicks their child out of home because they are gay? Is that not the parent treating their subjective opinion (that homosexuality is wrong) as an objective fact?

It doesn't work like that in real life and this is a good example of how unreal relative/subjective morality is. When people argue about morality they appeal to real objective facts. They know the difference. Its common sense and natural to appeal to something outside yourself like if the debate was about abortion people would naturally use human rights, the suffering of the mother or fetus, the rights of the mother or fetus ect. These are objectives outside the subject.

It does indeed work like that in real life.

So then how do we get to a point where we can make moral determinations one way or the other. Surely its not just because of agreement. We already know that agreement alone is dangerous. Humans have agreed on some pretty horrible actions. There has to be some independent measure like ease suffering and promote kindness ect.

Why must there be some independent measure? Again, this is an example of your opinion that morality MUST be objective blinding you to other options. There is no need for an independent measure if morality is subjective, just as their is no independent measure regarding whether STar Trek is better than Star Wars.

Does it really. An objectivists can claim both subjectivity and objectivisty because though the subject experiences all they can experience objective morality. But a subjectivists can only ever exp[erience subjectivity. They can never say that there are moral truths.

So an objectvists can never be a hypocrite and contradict their own morality. But a subjectivists can as everytime they act and talk like morals are objective and actually take actions to make morality objective in real life situations like moral norms, laws, ethical codes, and condemantion they are not only "acting like" but making real which is reality.

I've already covered this many times, that sometimes speaking of our subjective views without prefacing them each with, "In my subjective opinion" is just easier. It's the same reason we speak of the sun setting rather than the Earth's rotation carrying us past the terminator and into the Earth's shadow.

Thats right so they enact it into society and therefore into reality. Its one thing to act like something is real. But when you make it real thats another thing. Afterall isn't it the observer who makes things real especially for morality.

You know, passing a law doesn't make it objectively true.

If they passed a law that said that every person was required to wear a hat while outdoors, would that make it immoral to go hatless?

For some things it is and its the only way we can know and live like its real. Like I used the example before. We cannot tell that our physical world is really how we experience it with our 5 senses. For all we know we could be in a simulation. We cannot get outside our reality to verify its really real.

So we have to make an assumption about our physical world being the way it is so we can venture into that world and not worry about being sucked into some glitch in the matrix. Otherwise we would never venture outside. This is purely based on belief.

Likewise we believe our partner loves us. There is no scientifically verifiable evdience for this. But we believe they do and we live our lives like we believe they do.

There's more evidence for morality being subjective than there is for the world being a simulation.

 

[stevevw]

Given that the vast number of scientists in relevant fields accept the Big Bang as the best current explanation, these articles sound like the cosmological version of "Is the Earth Flat?" and "Could a spherical Earth be wrong?"

Actually they all say a similar thing that the observations don't match the Big Bang Theory which is one of the fundelmental criterion for scienific verification.

Some scientists? Who?

You just need to lok it up. There are many sources with scientists talking about how the current cosmological model cannot unite with QM. I guess thats why ideas like String Theory are being proposed.
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
Relativity v quantum mechanics – the battle for the universe

Do you have any evidence that qualifies him to make an educated statement about the issue?

It should be you who should be checking his claims, evidence and logical proof as you are the one disputing his work. He states he has evdience so you need to understand that evidence and make a case against it rather than attack the source (Ad Hominem). The paper is peer reviewed and meets the criteria which includes Scientific Rigor. For example the authors claims

They're not the ones claiming their moral views are objectively true, though. They are just saying that their moral views are widely agreed on.

Yes they are. They have reasoned that there is only one moral position to take and relative/subjective views are not allowed even to the point that people and governments will be prosecuted or singled out as breaching these these Rights and Laws.

The instant you said "it's an assumption" was the instant you verified your argument is indeed, "It just is."

Then under that logic all scientific claims are "just is" because they are also based on assumptions. The point is they are not a "just is' as in flip a coin or have a uneducated guess. Its a rational and logical determination. ie

human "LIfe" is very rare and at present only on earth, we know there is a great loss when a life is gone. It would seem impossible for non-life to create life so this is a very amazing thing. Not valuing life will lead to our destruction. As Life came from none life and doesn't depend on anything else to make it valuable it is intrinsically valuable (it is valuable in itself).

Again, the "self evident" means that it's an assumption.

If it's true, provide the proof. Don't try to get out of it by saying "it's an assumption," or "it's self evident," or "it just is."

I just did above. Self evident truths are not just based on a whim. They need to be justified and there is a process to do that as explained above. Do you honestly think that entire Nations and world organisation who make Human Rights and "LIfe" an inalienable natural born Right just did that based on an uneducated guess.

Great. When you got one, lemme know.

I already gave you one. The Standard Evolutionary Theory verses the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. There is evidence that the EES fits the evidence better but the SET is still being pushed. Gravity is another. We know that Gravity has already been reformulated with relativity.

Well now relativity is being questioned thanks to QM. Which also brings into question most other theories about reality hense String Theory which is a radical and counter intuitive idea that doesn't meet scientific verification. Yet it is put forward as the best idea to unite physics.

We are always learning more details about the specifics, I agree, but that's hardly the same sort of disagreement that we find between people on opposite sides of the shape of the Earth debate, or this discussion about morality.

I don't know about that. Take rape or torturing innocent kids. Thats pretty much in line with the shape of the Earth debate. The vast majority agree those acts are objectively wrong just like the vast majoirty think the earth is a sphere.

But if we look at more complex issues like QM, consciousness or causes of personality disorders in psychiartry we will have far more disagreement and may not even be able to find the facts at the time just like with some more complex moral issues. In both cases disagreement and the fact we cannot find agreement or a fact/truth does not follow as with science that there are no facts/truths to find.

And I've presented my responses as to why I disagree with your reasons to conclude that it's the most reasonable position.

Which are logical fallacies. You have presented no reasoned arguement to refute moral realism. Thats why I reduce everything down to applying morality to practical real life situations. This is when we see that relative/subjective morality is impossible and impractcial to apply.

Case in point as you acknowledged taking the relative/subjective position would mean having to both declare morality as having not truths while at the same time declaring there are moral truths when we apply them in real life. It doesn't matter if you say people only act that way. The point is they are acting that way and not in a relative/subjective way. That makes it reality because thats how morality works. Humans make it real.

Who said anything about math being invented?

We invented the language we use, yes, but the concepts we are describing were not invented by us.

Yes Math is both invented and discovered. But the point is if its dicovered then there must be some Math facts/truths out there to be found and we just put some language to it to help explain observations.

In that case its even more like morality in that moral truths can be discovered through intuition, logic and reasoning. Moral language is just like Math Language explaining an invisble law or truth of some sort.

 

[VirOptimus]

Actually they all say a similar thing that the observations don't match the Big Bang Theory which is one of the fundelmental criterion for scienific verification.

You just need to lok it up. There are many sources with scientists talking about how the current cosmological model cannot unite with QM. I guess thats why ideas like String Theory are being proposed.
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
Relativity v quantum mechanics – the battle for the universe

It should be you who should be checking his claims, evidence and logical proof as you are the one disputing his work. He states he has evdience so you need to understand that evidence and make a case against it rather than attack the source (Ad Hominem). The paper is peer reviewed and meets the criteria which includes Scientific Rigor. For example the authors claims

Yes they are. They have reasoned that there is only one moral position to take and relative/subjective views are not allowed even to the point that people and governments will be prosecuted or singled out as breaching these these Rights and Laws.

Then under that logic all scientific claims are "just is" because they are also based on assumptions. The point is they are not a "just is' as in flip a coin or have a uneducated guess. Its a rational and logical determination. ie

human "LIfe" is very rare and at present only on earth, we know there is a great loss when a life is gone. It would seem impossible for non-life to create life so this is a very amazing thing. Not valuing life will lead to our destruction. As Life came from none life and doesn't depend on anything else to make it valuable it is intrinsically valuable (it is valuable in itself).

I just did above. Self evident truths are not just based on a whim. They need to be justified and there is a process to do that as explained above. Do you honestly think that entire Nations and world organisation who make Human Rights and "LIfe" an inalienable natural born Right just did that based on an uneducated guess.

I already gave you one. The Standard Evolutionary Theory verses the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. There is evidence that the EES fits the evidence better but the SET is still being pushed. Gravity is another. We know that Gravity has already been reformulated with relativity.

Well now relativity is being questioned thanks to QM. Which also brings into question most other theories about reality hense String Theory which is a radical and counter intuitive idea that doesn't meet scientific verification. Yet it is put forward as the best idea to unite physics.

I don't know about that. Take rape or torturing innocent kids. Thats pretty much in line with the shape of the Earth debate. The vast majority agree those acts are objectively wrong just like the vast majoirty think the earth is a sphere.

But if we look at more complex issues like QM, consciousness or causes of personality disorders in psychiartry we will have far more disagreement and may not even be able to find the facts at the time just like with some more complex moral issues. In both cases disagreement and the fact we cannot find agreement or a fact/truth does not follow as with science that there are no facts/truths to find.

Which are logical fallacies. You have presented no reasoned arguement to refute moral realism. Thats why I reduce everything down to applying morality to practical real life situations. This is when we see that relative/subjective morality is impossible and impractcial to apply.

Case in point as you acknowledged taking the relative/subjective position would mean having to both declare morality as having not truths while at the same time declaring there are moral truths when we apply them in real life. It doesn't matter if you say people only act that way. The point is they are acting that way and not in a relative/subjective way. That makes it reality because thats how morality works. Humans make it real.

Yes Math is both invented and discovered. But the point is if its dicovered then there must be some Math facts/truths out there to be found and we just put some language to it to help explain observations.

In that case its even more like morality in that moral truths can be discovered through intuition, logic and reasoning. Moral language is just like Math Language explaining an invisble law or truth of some sort.

This is not the subfora for your ID crap.