Is there an absolute morality?

[Moral Orel]

Okay, I take you at your word that I misunderstood your intent all this time. We need to qualify our terms. Morality/immorality implies subject matter. Morality implies the positive, the goodness. Example Honesty/dishonesty. Honesty is the moral virtue that is valued, while dishonesty devalues honesty. That is clarity in psycholinguistics.

A morality is a set of rules. "We ought to be honest" is an example of a rule and a moral statement. Prescriptive, normative statements are what make up a morality.

Moral realism claims that there are some moral statements that are true facts.
Moral non realism claims that there are no moral statements that are true facts.

"One ought not murder" is an example of a moral statement that you would claim is true.
"One ought murder" is an example of a moral statement that you would claim is false.

So what is moral non-realism, and what is immoral non-realism?
Moral/immoral non-realism is coherent.

Moral non-realism is a label for a set of claims. Evaluating and making arguments about the label is nonsense.

 

[childeye 2]

A morality is a set of rules. "We ought to be honest" is an example of a rule and a moral statement. Prescriptive, normative statements are what make up a morality.
"One ought not murder" is an example of a moral statement that you would claim is true.
"One ought murder" is an example of a moral statement that you would claim is false.

Respectfully, that's a misrepresentation of what I meant and said. I said Honesty is the moral virtue that is valued because it is the positive, while dishonesty devalues honesty. That's the objective fact of the matter when reasoning on a true dichotomy. The dichotomy is authoritative not subjective.

I would not use ought to say something definitive. Therefore, "Ought to" is subjective, as in indefinite, which supposes subjectively that we can be honest and dishonest, or that we are honest of ourselves. This is why you say "prescriptive normative statements are what make up morality". That statement will prove to be a contradiction. Gone is the consideration that we cannot give honesty value, and that it's our dishonesty that actually proves the value of honesty through real life experience.

That is why honesty is a virtue or quality of goodness in a person, that is admired by a good people. The person isn't what is admired. Good people don't claim to be good and honest, just as wise people don't claim to be wise. Just as humble people don't claim to be humble.

Moral realism claims that there are some moral statements that are true facts.
Moral non realism claims that there are no moral statements that are true facts.

"One ought not murder" is an example of a moral statement that you would claim is true.
"One ought murder" is an example of a moral statement that you would claim is false.

I would not use ought as I said above. It's a supposition. Hence a moral statement is one that has a moral intent or goal which must serve everyone in Love/compassion. It's the intention and goal that makes it moral or immoral, not the label of moral. Claiming piety is not morality, it's vanity.

Moral non-realism is a label for a set of claims. Evaluating and making arguments about the label is nonsense.

Exactly my point.

The question that must first be answered is what is morality in this dichotomy, Morality/immorality? If we can agree in all honesty that morality is never immorality and, that logically, a positive is never a negative, then we can move on in a logical thesis that can't be disputed because it's based on sound reasoning.

Otherwise, we find ourselves arguing semantics, saying things like "there are no moral statements that are true", as if no intention or goal of spoken word is ever pure. That's cynicsim. ( I didn't just call you a cynic).

 

[Moral Orel]

Respectfully, that's a misrepresentation of what I meant and said.

I know that what I said differed from what you said. I'm explaining what these terms mean. My post wasn't an argument, it was informational.

I would not use ought as I said above. It's a supposition. Hence a moral statement is one that has a moral intent or goal which must serve everyone in Love/compassion. It's the intention and goal that makes it moral or immoral, the label. Claiming piety is not morality, it's vanity.

Again, the definitions of the terms aren't up for debate.

 

[childeye 2]

I know that what I said differed from what you said. I'm explaining what these terms mean. My post wasn't an argument, it was informational.

Again, the definitions of the terms aren't up for debate.

Above you said you're explaining what the terms mean. What terms? The one's you called labels?
What do you mean the terms are not up for debate? Are you saying it's debatable whether a true dichotomy should be used for reasoning? A true dichotomy exists for clarity of thought. To be true to ourselves we must admit in all honesty, that honesty is never dishonesty so that morality is never immorality.

 

[Moral Orel]

What terms?

Things like "a morality" and "moral statement". There are already standardized formal definitions for these terms, so we're not going to use your personal definitions for them. If you have other concepts you want to discuss, you'll need to come up with your own personal terms.

A moral statement is any claim that prescribes correct behavior. "One ought to...", "People should...", etc.

A morality is a set of rules. I'm not going to use it in any other way to obfuscate the conversation.

What do you mean the terms are not up for debate? Are you saying it's debatable whether a true dichotomy should be used for reasoning?

No.

A true dichotomy exists for clarity of thought. To be true to ourselves we must admit in all honesty, that honesty is never dishonesty so that morality is never immorality.

Sure, I like dichotomies as much as the next fella. Honesty is not dishonesty. Agreed. Here's the dichotomy:

"One ought to be honest" is true.
"One ought to be honest" is not true.

And when I say "true" I mean it in the same sense that "The Earth is round" is true. It is a fact, or it is not a fact. That's the dichotomy in question.

 

[Kylie]

Every attempt at flying throughout history. Any attempt to climb anything as a profession, any attempt to lift ones body and/or any man made machine off the ground. All these areas are trying to defy gravity even when they know what gravity is through experiencing it.

How is that defying the laws of gravity? Taking advantage of one law does not mean you are violating a different law.

I have many times, I cannot believe you say that which shows you don't undertsand morla language and how it applies. When we say "Rape is wrong" we use specific language. You cannot say "LIking Star Wars is wrong" as its the wrong language. So there is specific language for morality. This represents a truth/fact because the only answers to "Rape is wrong" is either its wrong or right to do. Each of those options are objective because they both are the only answers possible and use an objective measure of some sort outside the subject.

No, "rape is wrong" is a claim, which you have not supported. All you can do is point out that nearly everyone agrees with it. But in and of itself, "rape is wrong" is no more supported than the claim "Blue is Tuesday."

No sometimes humans get things wrong. Just because there are moral truths doesný mean that people will find them and get them right every single time. I really think you need to read up on moral realism. Moral realism takes the position that moral statements are either true or false and that sometimes the true statements actually true statements about the world.

If Humans sometimes get it wrong, then you should be able to show how to work out that it is wrong. But you can't. All you can do is make unsupported statements which are nothing more than disagreeing.

But I never said that. I said Just because we cannot find The facts doesn't mean there are no facts.

What are you talking about?

In post 1088, you said, "Math is made fact through experience. The same with something like Gravity."

Yes, we can experience objective things. That doesn't mean that everything that we can experience is objective.

So your saying that rape is not wrong outside subjective thinking.

Rape is a traumatic experience that affects the victim in a physical, psychological, and sociological way, Even though the effects and aftermath of rape differentiate among victims, individuals tend to suffer from similar issues found within these three categories.
Effects and aftermath of rape - Wikipedia

I am saying that there is no evidence that rape is objectively wrong.

Of course most people agree that rape is SUBJECTIVELY wrong. I am one such person.

But your own source says, "the effects and aftermath of rape differentiate among victims..." This does not happen with things that are objectively true. We don't see gravity pulling on different objects at different strengths. Also, we can not look at the crime and determine what the outcome for the victim will be. We can't determine the result from looking at the cause, yet with objective things we can. This is because the morality of rape is not objective. It is SUBJECTIVE.

Yes and they were just mistaken, deluded and we tell them that is the case.
A fact in maths can be proven. There is no room for any subjective views about rape in real life. Thats why I keep saying people can claim morals are relative but when we live them out we find they can only work if they are made objective.

And they would say that you are mistaken and deluded for disagreeing with them.

I just did above.

No you didn't, you just made a claim.

But like I said your implying that rape cannot be shown to be wrong. If thats the case then how do we stop rape if we can never tell or say its wrong. Like you just agreeing its wrong is not good enough. We need to have some objective basis outside our personal view to make it wrong for all.

No, I am saying that we can not show that rape is OBJECTIVELY wrong. Of course, I hold rape to be wrong, but that is a SUBJECTIVE opinion.

And again, you hold to the idea that there MUST be some outside basis for morality, not realising that subjective morality does not require any such basis.

I don't think your even following this debate as you don't even remember what you said. You said that "if morality is objective then we should be able to find the answer to whether executing criminals is morally right or wrong".

I said thats a logical fallacy because if we apply the same logic to science then we would have to say because we cannot find the facts/answers to difficult scientific questions then there must not be any facts to find. Your claim was that I was avoiding telling you the facts/answer to your moral situation of the death penalty and therefore if I cannot do this then there must be no objective morals and if I can then I prove objective morals. That in itself is a logical fallacy.

Ah. And here's your mistake.

First of all, you assume that I mean that we must have access to ALL scientific knowledge right now. We are able to find the answer to all scientific questions in principle, even if we currently lack the information required to answer them today. There is no law of the universe that prevents them from being answered.

Secondly, where we can not answer a scientific question, it is because we lack some information. Tell me, what information do we lack that prevents us from answering the question, "is executing criminals morally right or morally wrong?"

Oh, and by the way, you were the one who brought up the topic of QM regarding this.

Your missing the whole point. Its not about whether there are actually moral facts but rather the general fallacy you are claiming. You were saying that I must prove certain moral situations by providing you with specific answers and facts to prove objective morality. I was saying this is irrelevant as that doesn't prove there there are no objective moral facts just like it would not prove there were no facts about specific scientific issues we find hard to determine factually.

So you refuse to actually talk about a specific moral situation to show how you have objectively determined the objective facts regarding that specific situation. All bluster, no substance.

That wasnt the point as explained above so thats why I asked. Nevertheless lets take your logic to its conclusion. So if I failed to show there was an objective moral for a specific moral issue does that disprove objective morality.

No, but it does show that you are not justified in holding your position, since you are making a claim that you can not show is warranted.

And I'm not going to accept a claim from someone who can't show it is warranted to accept that claim.

No in reality we make rape objectively wrong. We don't say that a culture is allowed to rape because thats their relative moral view. Not we say all the way from accross the other side of the world that any culture who claims rape is OK to do is mistaken and objectively wrong as rape is an absolute wrong that applies to all cultures. That is taking an objective/absolute position.

That's not how objectivity works.

If we can just make rape objectively wrong, why don't we just make Star Trek objectively better than Star Wars?

Your pumping out the logical fallacies for just about every reply now. Saying that a rape case may not suceed in court doesn't deminish rape being objectively wrong. You creating a Red Herring.

How can it possibly fail if it's objective?

That's like saying that 1+1=2, but it could still fail in court. If it's objective, then it can be proved without any doubt!

So how is one TV show objectively better than the other beyond personal subjective views. If I was debating this with you what would you say to prove to me that Star Trek is a better TV show besides your personal view. You can't because preferences have no objective fact outside the subject. If you said to me that Star Wars is a better show I would say, so what thats just your opinion. Can you show me how it is better beyond your opinion. If you cant your claim is just an unsupported assertion.

That's the point!

Basically Cinematography is about trying to create as realistic a picture as possible with lighting, camera angles and movement ect as in real life or even even to create a mood that matches whats happening in the scene. The more it matches real life and whats happening in the story the better it is.

So therefore movies with poor lighting, film quality, camera angles ect are going to be inferior. Look at a film made on a cheap video with an ametaur compared to a high quality film with experts. If someone has too much lighting when its suppose to be dark and moody will create bad Cinematography compared to someone who matches the scene.

Cinematography comprises all on-screen visual elements, including lighting, framing, composition, camera motion, camera angles, film selection, lens choices, depth of field, zoom, focus, color, exposure, and filtration.

Cinematography sets and supports the overall look and mood of a film’s visual narrative. Each visual element that appears on screen, a.k.a. the mise-en-scène of a film, can serve and enhance the story—so it is the cinematographer’s responsibility to ensure that every element is cohesive and support the story. Filmmakers often choose to spend the majority of their budget on high-quality cinematography to guarantee that the film will look incredible on the big screen.
https://www.masterclass.com/article...s-a-cinematographer-do#what-is-cinematography

Okay, then tell me, in a scene where two people are talking across a table, what is the objectively best camera angle?

Another logical fallacy Red Herring. Somehow you create a new issue that has nothing to do with what we were talking about. This especially happens when you cannot answer my point and know you are wrong.

If a parent gives their child unconditional love then they have a good reason for doing so and not just because they feel like it or prefer that position. They obvioulsy think being Gay is part of being human and thats an objective basis. The fact that someone else may think being Gay is wrong and uses their own objective basis such as it causes harm doesn't change the fact that both examples are appealing to some objective basis outside themselves. It just means one of them is wrong.

To say that we make moral judgemnets based on a subjective whim like a feeling or opinion is dangerious IMO. We cannot make such impostant decisions without reasoning against some objective measure.

Just answer the question.

You were quick enough to agree that a parent following the law of God was objectively correct when it came to disowning a gay child, but now you are unwilling to state the logical counter to that? If a parent following the law of God is objectively morally right, then a parent disobeying God's law by accepting a gay child must be acting in a way that is objectively morally wrong.

 

[Kylie]

And I asked then how do people and society work out what moral norms. How do they make some morals wrong even by law or by ethical codes. Surely they don't just say we cannot agree so lets just blindly make certain acts wrong and others OK.

How many times must I point out that they do this by using the moral views that just about everyone agrees on, and people have this widespread agreement because those are the views that were best suited to keeping our social groups functioning well?

I've said this so many times I have lost count. Why do you appear to keep forgetting it?

So what happens when they not only act that way but actually make it that way in reality (real life). Are you saying they are being hypocritical and inconsistent with their subjective moral position.

They can't.

No matter how much people act like their subjective view is objective fact, it doesn't make it objective fact.

If you disagree, please live your life like my bank account balance is one billion dollars. Surely if you act like it is objectively true, it will become objectively true, and then I can split the money with you fifty-fifty, and we'll both be rich.

Because moral language is different to descriptive language and is not normative and prescriptive so your comparison is wrong and irrelevant.

If that's the case, how can you prove it is objective?

Ok then show me how descriptive language can be normative. Give an example like with morality in how people can say that if someone likes Star Wars that they are objectively wrong to the point that we can say they need to be ostrasized and people will condemn them and cause them to lose their jobs.

Just recently I read a review of the first episode of "The Book of Boba Fett" in which the author presented his opinion as objective fact. Beware, spoilers for those who haven't seen it yet. 'The Book of Boba Fett' premiere is an abysmal failure on every level

This is a specific example of a person presnting his subjective opinion as objective fact. He presents the first episode of TBoBF as objectively bad.

Thats not a moral issue though. Its to do with workplace health and safety. You don't get a Google doctor to fix your health problems. Its to stop potential harm by unqualified people messing around with stuff that may need a qualified person .

Do you change your own lightbulbs?

Once again someone has made an objective determination that Dogs need walking to be healthy. Sure they may be wrong but that will be because someone has shown that walking a dog 3 times a day does not make any difference. They didn't just come up with the 3 times a day by picking a number out of a hat or by asking someone if they prefer a particular number or by asking someone what number they feel is best.

Would you care to show how it was OBJECTIVELY determined that dogs require walking three times a day? What about old dogs who suffer from arthritis? Are you going to force them to walk on their sore joints three times a day? What about highly active dogs who would love to go out walking a million times a day? Is it objectively morally right to limit them to just three walks?

Do you not see how ridiculous it is to make a blanket statement that applies to ALL, regardless of individual capacity, and then claim it is OBJECTIVELY correct?

Most laws are based on some objective measure in reality. Primarily its about "Not harming humans or keeping society in law and order so that things don't get out of control. These are objective measures and not left to the whims of subjective thinking for which any subjective determination is just as relevant as the next. Not any laws will do but rather specific laws relating to reducing harm and chaos for which society has decided is an important basis for right and wrong.

And most of the time, it's "Someone did a stupid thing one time, so let's make it a law that people aren't allowed to do that stupid thing again, even though the chances that someone will do it again are pretty much nil." That's why we get laws like, "it’s illegal to hold salmon under suspicious circumstances" or "it's illegal to fart after 6pm on Thursday." And yes, those are both real laws.

Once again a logical fallacy that because someone has not stepped in it must not be a moral truth. The UN has stated its wrong through Human Rights that applies to all cultures. Nations like ours have made trade sanctions and other penalties for cultures that engage in these practcies. You cannot do that with subjective preferences for TV shows.

And the UN rules about Human Rights are simply what most people agree to. Again, it's using the extreme examples to prove your point while ignoring the fact that the non-extreme examples show that your point fails.

Your example is wrong. You are talking about a private club that all Star TRek fans belong to. BUt try and force that position on other clubs that like Star Wars. It cannot be done as its not wrong to like Star wars. I have shown many times that these examples are wrong and don't apply to morality. Why do continue to use them.

I know of a lot of rabid Star Trek fans who would indeed claim it is wrong to like Star Wars. Even today, there are many Star Trek fans who hold that it is wrong to like Star Trek Discovery! I'm in quite a few groups on Facebook that have posts saying this sort of thing.

So are you saying these laws and Rights are irrational and there is no good basis for them.

No, I am saying that those laws do not become descriptions of something objective just because most people disagree with them.

It would mean everything I thought was real is not and its just a computer program attempting to make things real. That there is some reality beyond us like the one that the super intelligent beings who created the simulation live in that we are missing out on. Nothing we do or say can be regarded as real or true as the programmers can make us think anything is real when its not.

So the only thing we have at the moment that causes us to think that what we see is a true representation of reality and that there is no other reality beyond what we can know is our tested assumption that reality is that way. We can only test that assumption by the way we experience the physical world. So there is no direct evdience that our reality is what it is apaprt from our justified belief and yet we regard that as a fact. Just like with morality.

This doesn't answer the question.

If today you became convinced that what you are experiencing is just a simulation, what would you do differently tomorrow?

Another logical fallacy. If we apply this to science then every person should agree that the Big Bang is fact. Any disagreement means its not fact. But any disagreement doen't lead to there being no facts as I pointed out earlier. So under that logic because everyone agrees that our physical world is what it is then there can be no simulation. Yet that is a fallacy as there could be a simulation. Its faulty reasoning.

No, the logical fallacy here is yours.

I said "objective truth leads to everyone reaching the same conclusion."

You are twisting my words into meaning "everyone reaching the same conclusion leads to it being an objective fact."

That's called a strawman.

When it comes to proving something that is beyond our ability to prove we have to make some assumptions. We can then test those assumptions by experience. We experience the world as thought its the only reality. We don't see glitches in the matrix or have any evdience that its a similation even though the evdience would be impossible to show. So we are justified through experience to believe that reality is what we experience through our senses.

The same with morality. There is no direct evdience so we have to make assumptions based on our intuition that there are moral truths. We then test that by experience. We intuit that when somone is "raped" we know that its wrong factually in the world (reality) and that there is no alternative reality. That is what we go with and its the only way we can live morality.

And you make the assumption that there is some outside measure for objective morality, despite the fact that you can't produce the outside measure at all.

 

[childeye 2]

Things like "a morality" and "moral statement". There are already standardized formal definitions for these terms, so we're not going to use your personal definitions for them. If you have other concepts you want to discuss, you'll need to come up with your own personal terms.

A moral statement is any claim that prescribes correct behavior. "One ought to...", "People should...", etc.

A morality is a set of rules. I'm not going to use it in any other way to obfuscate the conversation.


No.


Sure, I like dichotomies as much as the next fella. Honesty is not dishonesty. Agreed. Here's the dichotomy:

"One ought to be honest" is true.
"One ought to be honest" is not true.

And when I say "true" I mean it in the same sense that "The Earth is round" is true. It is a fact, or it is not a fact. That's the dichotomy in question.

Thanks, I appreciate your effort.

 

[stevevw]

Well, since were not supposed to decide based on yours or mine or anyone's kinds of "feelings" (or just own personal just only personal "opinions" only, etc) either way, etc, at all, etc, then you tell me...?

Because that's exactly what I am looking for, etc...?

What do, or what should we base it on that is more "factual", etc...?

Morality is a rational enterprise. That is why when to people get into a philosophical arguement about whether some issue is right or wrong they wll appeal to some objective basis. Primarily its all about human "Life" being intrinsically valuable. All morals trace back to this but people may emphasize different aspects like happiness, and wellbeing.

This is not determined by feelings alone. Though we may feel passionate or even angry about an issue that is not enough to know the moral truth of an issue. We may be angry because we were personally affected by that issue. That skews our thinking and we may be biased. So rationality and logic help find the moral truth as measured against an objective basis.

Thats why we have moral norms as these are rationally determined standards of behaviour. It would be worryiong if moral norms were determined by how someone feels or prefers things.

And also "who decides" also...? Since it is supposed to be an overall agreement of all collectively...?

First to say that morality is decided by consensus alone is also a worry as humans are fallible and we have on many occassions justified immoral action based on consensus. But as morality is a rational enterprise measured against some basis the decisions are determined by reasoning. This can find some fact/truth that is grounded outside human subjective thinking which is basically what objective morality means.

The reason people find morality a hard concept to say has facts is because they are thinking in methological naturalistic terms (physical/material facts) when we know there are non-material facts/truths like Math or logic or like consciousness and concepts like colours which are all abstract ideas which are real entities that affect reality.

Or is something "wrong" inherently, (or objectively among humanity) (and we can all agree on what that, or all of those is, etc) but in dealing out justice and/or punishment, it is always a matter of "degrees" respectively...? And maybe even sometimes not even ever be wrong at all, in some great minority of cases respectively, etc...?

I think we all intuitive know moral truths but this can be skewed by our own biases or denied fro personal reasons. I think there is more moral agreement then made out. A lot of the time its not disagreement about morals but the facts around the moral issue.

For example they use to kill women who they thought were witches and we would think this is against our morals of respecting and protecting life. But back then they thought a witch cast spells to kill people like some murderer so they were actually respecting and protecting life just like us.

The facts of the matter were just different back then and not the morals. But gradually people came to understand that there was no such thing as witches. So differences between cultures is usually along these liones and not actually a disagreement about morality.

(Law and order/justice has always been a difficult subject for humanity, etc)...
God Bless!

Yep God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

How many times must I point out that they do this by using the moral views that just about everyone agrees on, and people have this widespread agreement because those are the views that were best suited to keeping our social groups functioning well?

I've said this so many times I have lost count. Why do you appear to keep forgetting it?

I am not forgetting, I just keep clarifying that this is what you mean because you keep contradicting yourself. Saying that people base morality on what keeps society functional is an objective basis. So you keep claiming morality is entirely relative/subjective but you keep slipping in an objective basis for why certain morals are chosen rather than others.

Saying morality is determined by agreement/consensus alone is not good enough and its a logical fallacy. First using agreement/consensus alone makes the assumption that humans know whats morally best when they don't. We know that humans are fallible and have committed immoral acts based purely on agreement. So there needs to be some objective basis outside relative/subjective thinking to ground morals as I keep saying.

They can't.

No matter how much people act like their subjective view is objective fact, it doesn't make it objective fact.

If you disagree, please live your life like my bank account balance is one billion dollars. Surely if you act like it is objectively true, it will become objectively true, and then I can split the money with you fifty-fifty, and we'll both be rich.

So when people make moral norms, ethical codes that state only one moral truths which is imposed on everyone even to the point they will lose their jobs, be ostrasized, condemned in public aren't they imposing one objective view onto others. Isnt that hypocritcial considering that there is no single moral truth under relative/subjective morlaity..

So the logic of your example doesn't work. It would be like people making everyone live like you have a billion dolars when you don't. But if there are moral truths and society makes people live under one moral truth then their justification is because you actually do have a billion dollars. Otherwise its hypocritical and a contradictory moral system.

If that's the case, how can you prove it is objective?

By the fact that moral language is actually correct and not some error or delusion. But heres the thing. You want to use descriptive language as being valid in describing why people like one TV show and not another. Yet you are not wiling to use the same logic for morality in that its still a language accounting for how things really are. You want to evaluate desciptive language as being correct and real but then say that moral language is some error or delusion.

Just recently I read a review of the first episode of "The Book of Boba Fett" in which the author presented his opinion as objective fact. Beware, spoilers for those who haven't seen it yet. 'The Book of Boba Fett' premiere is an abysmal failure on every level

This is a specific example of a person presnting his subjective opinion as objective fact. He presents the first episode of TBoBF as objectively bad.

No he doesn't. He doesn't offer any rational for his opinion. Though he does say
I’ve played iPhone games that have better special effects.
I’ve seen more convincing fight scenes on reality television.

So I guess we can measure the special effects against what is regarded as good special effects or against good and realistic fight scenes. Evenso with your logic applied to morality then someone could say that raping and pilging a village is good and we would have to say that this opinion is just as valid as it being a bad thing as people think that their opinion is objective.

That would be absurd. Yet we do take action to make morality objectively real by enforcing it on others. Could you imagine that the authors opinion was enacted by law and norms and forced onto others as a rule or law. That would also be absurd.

Do you change your own lightbulbs?

Yes so we can say with some rationality that the law is silly. We can only say its silly because we measure it against some objective such as the facts show that changing a light bulb is not dangerous and can be done by non-professionals. But you cannot make that determination on subjective thinking as the same logic would mean that even more dangerous electrical work is OK for non-professionals to do as there is no objective measures as to what is dangerious or not.

Would you care to show how it was OBJECTIVELY determined that dogs require walking three times a day? What about old dogs who suffer from arthritis? Are you going to force them to walk on their sore joints three times a day? What about highly active dogs who would love to go out walking a million times a day? Is it objectively morally right to limit them to just three walks?

So the issue is how many times a dog should be walked a day or whether a dog should be walked at all. What your doing is creating a logical fallacy again that because there may be some complicated factors involved that we cannot at all make any factual determinations at all.

Just a quick search on PetMD shows that we can at least minimize the subjective and home in on some facts about walking dogs. For example it talks about determining factors like
Dog Breed
Sporting or working breeds, such as Pointers, Collies and Shepherds, may have higher exercise requirements than dogs bred to be lapdogs, such as Yorkshire Terriers and Papillons.
Age
Younger dogs have more energy, and in general, will need more exercise than dogs who are middle-aged (5-8 years of age) and seniors dogs (9 years of age and over). Younger dogs also spend more time playing than older dogs.
Dog’s Exercise Tolerance.
Most dogs can tolerate 20-30 minute dog walks on a daily basis if they have a relatively good body condition. Some dogs in great physical health can tolerate walks up to 2 hours or go hiking for hours at a time. But it may be difficult for overweight or obese dogs to walk 10 minutes without taking multiple breaks or panting heavily due to the exertion.

These are objective measures and important to working out each individual dogs exercise levels. We may even be able to do an individual assessment on each dog to get more exact measures.

But to say that we just determine a dogs exercise levels by a whim, feeling or personal preference to be honest could be dangerious. If a dog was unsuited for long walks and a person did not do a proper assessment and just went with their feelings then that could harm the dog.

Do you not see how ridiculous it is to make a blanket statement that applies to ALL, regardless of individual capacity, and then claim it is OBJECTIVELY correct?

No one is making blanket statements apart from you. If we use subjective thinking as how to determine things then we are really making a blanket claim that there is no way to work out a dogs exercise regime and we should just go with what we feel or prefer which is not in the dogs interest as dogs depend on us.

 

[stevevw]

And most of the time, it's "Someone did a stupid thing one time, so let's make it a law that people aren't allowed to do that stupid thing again, even though the chances that someone will do it again are pretty much nil." That's why we get laws like, "it’s illegal to hold salmon under suspicious circumstances" or "it's illegal to fart after 6pm on Thursday." And yes, those are both real laws.

But they may not relate to morality. Not sure if farting is a moral issue. May more about ettiquette. But when it comes to mormal norms which most Nations have these are not stupid but actually about protecting and respecting human "LIfe" and even you acknowledge the objective basis ie to stablize society. They are not stupid as without them society would lose order and become choatic.

Once again you are creating a logical fallacy by trying to make out that some laws are stupid so all laws are stupid.

And the UN rules about Human Rights are simply what most people agree to.

So are you saying the only reason we have Human Rights is because people agree and theres no basis for why we have HUman Rights. Remembering that Human Rights was born out of a response to the atrocities of WW2. As an example at the Nurenburg trial the German officers were charged with crimes against humanity (which is an objective basis) because otherwise if relative morality is true then what the Germans did was just acting from their relative moral position and not really wrong to them.

But a united nations determination said that they were objectively wrong regardless of their relative view. They could only do that if they had some objective basis to say that the Germans were wrong regardlerss of culture. We cannot avoid appealing to objectives and in most cases its about protecting and respecting human "Life".

Again, it's using the extreme examples to prove your point while ignoring the fact that the non-extreme examples show that your point fails.

How does the non-extreme examples prove my point fails. In fact when it comes to Human Rights it covers everything from the extreme wrong to less extreme like the Right to hold a belief or political view or to not be descriminated against.

But once again you creating a logical fallacy which seems to just about every reply now. Your saying that we have to disregard obvious wrongs that clearly have an objective basis because there are others that may be harder to determine. That doesn't follow. The extreme and obvious wrongs are just as valid for supporting moral truths. Showing one obvious example is enough to support moral truths.

I know of a lot of rabid Star Trek fans who would indeed claim it is wrong to like Star Wars. Even today, there are many Star Trek fans who hold that it is wrong to like Star Trek Discovery! I'm in quite a few groups on Facebook that have posts saying this sort of thing.

That is irrational as saying something is "wrong" is normative and preferences for TV shows is not a normative issue. So once again a logical fallacy of a false analogy. You talk about you having to repeat things. How many times have I said this.

No, I am saying that those laws do not become descriptions of something objective just because most people disagree with them.

And yet you claim that morality is subjective because people disagree and not objective because people agree. You are inconsistent with your reasoning. So I will ask you again "is there a basis for those laws of not". Or are laws and codes or norms just determined by agreement along.

This doesn't answer the question.

If today you became convinced that what you are experiencing is just a simulation, what would you do differently tomorrow?

If I found it was a simulation then everyone would know its a simulation. It would change our reality as it would be affected by the glitches in the system. That would come from some glitch in the matrix. Therefore there would be other glitches that affect reality.

Finding that our reality is not real but the product of some experiemnet would bring all science under question. We could not be confident about anything. At the same time it would make ID a plausable option for reality. God is just another version of the simulation. Because of the glitches unreal things could happen like people disappearing before our eyes as the programmer deletes individuals or changes our physics. Think the "Trueman Show".

No, the logical fallacy here is yours.

I said "objective truth leads to everyone reaching the same conclusion."

You are twisting my words into meaning "everyone reaching the same conclusion leads to it being an objective fact."

That's called a strawman.

Its still a logical fallacy because it doesn't follow that objective fact/truths mean that everyone should come to the same conclusion. People can still disagree even if there are objective facts/truth.

And you make the assumption that there is some outside measure for objective morality, despite the fact that you can't produce the outside measure at all.

I just gave you several examples of how we cannot make moral determinations without having an objective basis ie moral norms use an objective basis beyond mere agreement, dog walking appeals to some objective measures, when people argue about morality they appeal to some objective measure.

And its not just a case of mere agreement as we know that mere agreement without an objective measure is dangerious as we can agree that even immoral acts are good based on subjective thinking.

 

[stevevw]

How is that defying the laws of gravity? Taking advantage of one law does not mean you are violating a different law.

Its still defying gravity as humans were not meant to fly. Despite understanding the mechanics of flight there is still no clear explanation for how a plane lifts and stays in the air. In some ways its like magic in that the science doesn't explain why this happens.
No One Can Explain Why Planes Stay in the Air

• On a strictly mathematical level, engineers know how to design planes that will stay aloft. But equations don't explain why aerodynamic lift occurs.

No One Can Explain Why Planes Stay in the Air

No, "rape is wrong" is a claim, which you have not supported. All you can do is point out that nearly everyone agrees with it. But in and of itself, "rape is wrong" is no more supported than the claim "Blue is Tuesday."

So your saying that there is no way to measure rape as being wrong just like we cannot old sayings.

We have facts that rape causes humans harm in one way of another and affects society. We use those facts to make rape illegal and anyone who claims its OK is mistaken and are objectively wrong even to the point of job losses, ostrazing people from society and denying their freedom. We can only do that if there is some independent evidence that rape is wrong. You even acknowledged one of those measures being that it helps keep society safe and functional.

By the way "Blue is Tuesday is based on a fact that the serotonin levels of drug users depletes after drug use where they will feel down (blue) around a couple of days after drug use on the weekend. The Urban dictionary even states this.

the objective of a Blue Tuesday event should reference a genuine occasion without disclosing any actual information of this occasion. The depressed day (or times) you have got within the 72-96 hours after consuming ecstasy.
What does Blue Tuesday Blue Tuesday mean? - All Dictionary

If Humans sometimes get it wrong, then you should be able to show how to work out that it is wrong. But you can't. All you can do is make unsupported statements which are nothing more than disagreeing.

I already gave a number of examples and you keep ignoring them. For example people use to think enslaving blacks was morally OK because they were sub-human. But now we understanding that all humans are equal regardless of race.

That led to a moral truth that all humans are born equal and set the basis for Human Rights and National descrimiation laws. So now we can say that back then people were objectively wrong as we now know the facts better.

But we cannot do that under a relative/subjective morla system as there is no such thing as moral progress for the better. Its just different views whcih are never actually wrong but just different according to times and relative positions.

What are you talking about?
In post 1088, you said, "Math is made fact through experience. The same with something like Gravity."
Yes, we can experience objective things. That doesn't mean that everything that we can experience is objective.

Its not just about experiencing something alone but matching that experience to objectives. So we have a theory of Gravity but on paper that means nothing. Explanations in science don't have any actual creative ability to make something fact or real. It has to be observed or experienced. So when we see the effects of gravity and see that they conform to the equations we can then know its fact or real.

The same with morality. We have a theory of objective morality. When we see people and society actually live objectively we can see that theory in reality and then it becomes real. When we see people acting in contradiction to what they claim we can say that the observations don't match reality.

I am saying that there is no evidence that rape is objectively wrong.
Of course most people agree that rape is SUBJECTIVELY wrong. I am one such person.

But saying something is wrong cannot be determined by agreement alone. You have already acknowledged that there needs to be some measure beyond human subjective thinking such as "it helps society". The question would then be "Why" do you think rape is wrong.

But your own source says, "the effects and aftermath of rape differentiate among victims..."

And different levels of harm don't mean there is no harm. Your making a logical falalcy that because there is not a clear and consistent level of harm that there is no harm. All the experts agree that rape causes some degree of harm and its not a good thing. The article doesn't say there is no harm but that harm may vary but its all still harm. [/quote] This does not happen with things that are objectively true. We don't see gravity pulling on different objects at different strengths. [/quote] Thats because you have made a straw man and an either and or fallacy by saying that varying harm means no harm. The article still states thatrape causes harm in one way of another. It doesn't say that rape never causes harm.

Also, we can not look at the crime and determine what the outcome for the victim will be. We can't determine the result from looking at the cause, yet with objective things we can. This is because the morality of rape is not objective. It is SUBJECTIVE.

Your making a logical fallacy again. If we apply your logic to science that we know is about finding objectives would be that because we cannot clearly know the effects of something like Quantum physics or consciousness that there must be no facts to find.

Of course we can look at crime stats and measure the harm. Thats why we have laws and moral norms to stop the disorder and bad efefcts lawlessness would have. These are objective measures.

And they would say that you are mistaken and deluded for disagreeing with them.

And then the person would say how am I deluded. The other person would then have to appeal to some objective measure outside their subjective views to show they are not deluded such as rape being harmful for individuals and society.

No you didn't, you just made a claim.

It was more than my personal claim. I supplied independnet evdience that rape is wrong.

I argue that rape is both properly defined as NCS and properly evaluated as a serious wrong. First, I distinguish the hurtfulness of rape from its wrongfulness; secondly, I classify its harms and characterize its essential wrongfulness;
I criticize mistaken attempts to discount the wrongfulness of rape for those who do not value sex; fifthly, I contrast two models for weighing interests, according to one of which rape is not seriously wrongful; finally, I sketch a defence of the view that our sexual integrity ought to be a central interest of ours.
Error - Cookies Turned Off

"Ripple effects" of sexual assault
This paper is about how the effects of sexual assault are wide-reaching. As well as the profound effects of sexual assault on victim/survivors, a victim/survivor's family members and friends, workers in the sexual assault field, and society as a whole are affected by sexual assault in detrimental and still under-recognised ways.
Trauma research has recognised that witnessing violence or abuse against a "significant other", or being exposed to traumatic material in other ways, is traumatic within itself, creating "secondary victims" of sexual assault and other traumas.
Australian Institute of Family Studies

No, I am saying that we can not show that rape is OBJECTIVELY wrong. Of course, I hold rape to be wrong, but that is a SUBJECTIVE opinion.
And again, you hold to the idea that there MUST be some outside basis for morality, not realising that subjective morality does not require any such basis.

So you don't have any way of qualifying your opinion. So someone could say that rape is morally good and you both have opposing and equal opinions and neither person can say anyone is really right or wrong and there is no way to determine things. Therefore with no independent basis someone who thinks rape is OK is not really doing anything wrong. Seems like a crazy and dangerious way to determine morality.

 

[Neogaia777]

You have felt love for others, have you not? I instinctively loved my brothers and nobody taught me. If someone attacked my brother or my friend, look out! There are ties that form because we enter the world absolutely dependent upon the love of others. I say that's true and an objective approach, even though it can only be stated from my subjective point of view.

In such a circumstance, the fear of others not being my brother is something we would learn. So, the impetus of morality is innate. Consider that in neuro-chemistry, the body is made to create chemicals that form what we perceive as both compassion and fear. We grieve and cry at the loss of others. We don't learn that. We were made and fashioned to experience it. Show me some hatred and I'll bet it came from a betrayal of some form (barring wordplay). I think a child starts out innocent and learns immorality. In other words, we start out trusting, and learn to distrust.


That's a theory and it's subjective in that it remains to be proven. I've read theories like that, some relying on city/states forming or dominant powers vs inferior powers. But I think this is talking about rules to govern, and who rules, makes the rules. Do we have rules that are immoral? Black people sit at the back of the bus? We've waged campaigns of genocide based on so called moralities such as Native Americans don't know god, so they're savages.

We certainly have carnal impulses, but what keeps them at bay? This is what self-control implies. Self-control is therefore seen objectively as a moral virtue, even though the impulses they control are also innate in the person (See spiritual mind vs carnal mind). This creates semantical confusion since the same terms mean different things according to which mind is being served.

I've read about Scientific studies which purport to show that even rats show compassion. I've seen experiments where baby monkeys through adolescence were allowed time with their mothers ranging from 100%, 50%, 0%. The monkeys that were 100% of the time with their mothers through adolescence, turned out friendly trusting and happy. The ones who were raised 50% of the time with their Mothers were distrustful of others. The ones that were 0%, were insane with fear, and they were vicious. I'm no authority on the matter, I only know that the goodness in mankind is universal and it's corruptible.




I know. I can see that too. You're not wrong. But what is a fact or is it in fact a fact? The terminology for morality/immorality is positive/negative. This is for the sake of contrast. Therefore morality is proven through its negative in our reality.


Oh yeah. But for the sake of clarity, it matters what a person means when they say the word. Is it a subject matter of morality/immorality? Or is it Love/compassion, the actual morality? We teach our children right/wrong because we love them and want them to be good people for the sake of having productive lives.

If we're talking about rules, I think we'll find that immorality is the impetus for rules, which would make the negative an impetus for morality, if the rules are deemed the morality. This is antithetical to the term morality as a positive. This is how semantics form in subjective views. Immorality did not write the rules for morality. Morality wrote the rules because of immorality. So, accordingly, what came first in mankind, in regards to what is moral behavior, would be objectively perceived as ignorance of morality/immorality, since knowledge implies that there is a Truth that exists apart from ourselves, and this knowledge is about who we are.

Did humans advance morality, or did morality advance humans? What if we exist in a temporal setting, to learn the value of Who God is by being made in His Image? Because as a creature, we only become vain when we take God for granted.

Ok, you believe that humans, even way, way back when, are born with a certain kind of morality, etc, but even the Bible says we are not, but that we are "shapen in inequity" and that we had/have to "learn it", etc... Some say babies are born very, very selfish for example, but as they grow with their parents rearing them (and this could be even in the animal kingdom, etc) they are at least born very very acute observers before they can walk, or talk, or crawl, or even speak, etc, and that our morality begins there, and by taking cues from that, and also our environment and outside world also, etc... "Some say", etc... "Shapen in inequity" also means "shapen in or by sin", or "shapen by the evil both around us and in us", etc, and that is what the Bible seems to say, etc, and that, "that", is where our morals come from, and is where our "good" comes from, etc...

I don't claim to know which is true or right right now though...? Because you've got me questioning it for sure, etc...

I just also know that man also has a very "rebellious spirit" also, etc, and also that, "man don't we see that right now in the world today", etc...

People are questioning everything and asking "why", etc, and "why" to just about everything, etc, and this has lead to a lot of great wickedness in the world right now if you ask me...

"Why" should I follow such and such a moral rule, etc, etc, etc...

But then some also say that they do still have a "certain kind of morality", or that they are seeking a "higher morality", etc, but on their own terms, etc, don't like hypocrisy or injustice, etc, but I also see a lot of them being great hypocrites also, etc, and becoming very selfish, etc, and also very proud and egotistical in their own way, like they are becoming all of the things they are claiming they are against, and hate, etc...

It's almost like it's under the guise of claiming a higher or superior morality or moral ground, but it's really just having a very rebellious spirit, and deep down, they have no morality at all, and that is what they call "freedom", etc...?

And one thing I think I know for sure, etc, I think anyway, etc, is that a global collapse is inevitable at some point, etc, and how all forms of any kind of morality "at all", might go "right out the window" at that time, at least, for a time anyway...

And, in fact, I have been preparing for a world like that, in case it happens in my lifetime, I have a plan and everything, etc, as to how I would get through it or survive it, etc, at least until it hopefully goes back to some kind of normalcy again morally again anyway... But, we will lose a lot, or many or much of our advancements I think, etc, that part won't ever be going back to any kind of normalcy for a while again, etc...

But, anyway, enough of my talk about that...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Come on @stevevw, people do not know why planes stay in the air, or why aerodynamic lift occurs...? Come on man, really...? Just where are you finding or getting this stuff from anyway, etc...?

Because me thinks I smell just a little bit of "desperation" in the "air", etc...

No pun intended, etc...

The "formula" for it mathematically is very simple, etc...

They figured it out a long, long time ago actually, but lacked things like an internal combustion engine, or jet engine, to pull it off, or make it work, etc...

God Bless!

 

[stevevw]

Ah. And here's your mistake.
First of all, you assume that I mean that we must have access to ALL scientific knowledge right now.

Which is no different to morality?

We are able to find the answer to all scientific questions in principle, even if we currently lack the information required to answer them today. There is no law of the universe that prevents them from being answered.

The same as for morality.

Secondly, where we can not answer a scientific question, it is because we lack some information. Tell me, what information do we lack that prevents us from answering the question, "is executing criminals morally right or morally wrong?"

It’s the same thing for the examples I gave such as for slavery. We lacked information that humans were equal regardless of race and once we came to know those facts slavery began to cease. So we can say that back then people did not have all the information and were wrong in the light of that new information. So that alone tells us that morality can progress towards a greater truth with new information.

The same with executing criminals. I can give some insights like they use to execute people for all sorts of things like stealing and other acts we consider not worthy of execution. So therefore we came to realise that this was not warranted or justified. The punishment was too extreme for such a minor crime. So some objective basis was used to stop execution of criminals for minor matters.

The same logic can apply to execution itself. We can look at the justifications and rational for execution to see if there are any facts that can help us. For example stats showing if execution works, the effects on society if there was no execution. Rationales can be made that for some heinous crimes execution is justified and rational as it is a deterrent and is warranted because of the seriousness of the act.

I am sure that those who determine if execution is rational have asked all these objective questions. The point is we don't just make these determinations based on how we feel or prefer things and it’s not just about consensus as usually when people agree they base that agreement on a common objective basis regardless of what it is.

We can look at reasons for execution more closely to see if there is any rational for it and each culture will have their objective basis be it to stop those acts or because a life for a life is never warranted based on the value of human life.

So you refuse to actually talk about a specific moral situation to show how you have objectively determined the objective facts regarding that specific situation. All bluster, no substance.

How does not proving that there is an objective moral determination prove there are not objective morals.

No, but it does show that you are not justified in holding your position, since you are making a claim that you cannot show is warranted.

And I'm not going to accept a claim from someone who can't show it is warranted to accept that claim.

So basically you demanding that I give specifics of a moral issue about how morality its objective has no bearing o whether there are objective morals. Then why even ask if its irrelevant. I have given specific about moral determinations and you just said it doesn't count as its an extreme example. So how do I know you will just continue or are not already just dismissing things out of hand?

That's not how objectivity works.

If we can just make rape objectively wrong, why don't we just make Star Trek objectively better than Star Wars?

Ah when you have no arguement appeal to logical fallacies again. As I said over and over TV shows don't work like morality because morality is normative and preferences for TV shows is not. The fact you keep relying on this fallacy shows you have no arguement.

The fact is we do condemn other cultures for acts like rape and even place sanctions on them for bad behaviour. We cannot do that with preferences for TV shows. Have you ever seen anyone lose their job for liking Star Wars. But you do see people losing their job for sexual harrassment never mind rape which is far worse. So analogy is based on faulty thinking.

How can it possibly fail if it's objective?

That's like saying that 1+1=2, but it could still fail in court. If it's objective, then it can be proved without any doubt!

Yet another logical fallacy. Its subject to the evdience. So the evdience may be inconclusive or insufficent or the lawyer did not present a good case. But these factors have nothing to do with whether rape is a crime of not. Likewise it has nothing to do with whether rape is objective or not.

That's the point!

Yet because mmorality is normative we can cite objective measures. ie rape causes harm for individuals and society. Liking Star Trek is not normative and does not cause harm to society that we can measure it.

Okay, then tell me, in a scene where two people are talking across a table, what is the objectively best camera angle?

Are you serious. So I just gave independent evdience for how movies can be objectively measures as better or worse and you still want to throw in objections. For one I am not a film maker so your asking the wrong person. I don't think you are either so anything you say will be unqualified. So why even ask this.

Nevertheless an expert would have some measure depending on what the scene wanted to achieve. That may be to include all parties the best angle amy be from the side so that we can see both peoples faces. It may be that the director wants to create some mystery about one of the people so an angle from behind that person not showing their face is best.

But all these have objective measures and reasons. What your trying to do is muddy the water by trying to complicate things like we cannot have any measure which is another logical fallacy.

Just answer the question.

You were quick enough to agree that a parent following the law of God was objectively correct when it came to disowning a gay child, but now you are unwilling to state the logical counter to that? If a parent following the law of God is objectively morally right, then a parent disobeying God's law by accepting a gay child must be acting in a way that is objectively morally wrong.

Like I said its a logical falalcy of an ether or or. Your have created the false dichotomy. I never said that Gods moral law was objectively right. I said that the parents may use Gods law as one way to base morality on. That is their objective measure outside themselves. But other parents may use other objective measures like Human Rights such as equality, anti-descrimination laws, unconditional love ect.

The point is all are using some objective measure and not their personal whims. We could then reason what is the most rational measure. Saying Gods determines objective morality is not a good one for rationality as we cannot even prove God let along that objective morlaity comes from Him. But appeals to Human Rights or anti descrimination laws stands up rationally as we can measure this practcially.

 

[Moral Orel]

The point is all are using some objective measure and not their personal whims.

I call this "faux-objective morality". You haven't established that anyone chose these measures based on anything other than their personal whim. Why should the measure be what it is?

 

[childeye 2]

Ok, you believe that humans, even way, way back when, are born with a certain kind of morality, etc, but even the Bible says we are not, but that we are "shapen in inequity" and that we had/have to "learn it", etc...

Excellent post. Yes, we are "shapen in iniquity". That's how energy completes a cycle and also why moral terminology has a positive and a negative. In other words, Morality, in this dichotomy morality/immorality, is the positive that is proved through the negative, in our real-life experience.

We not only learn right from wrong. We learn how to value what makes us righteous. We were made good to begin with, but did not know what that good means. So we were corruptible, and when tested, we fell.

God gave mankind His Spirit which is absolutely good to begin with, but mankind takes it for granted in two ways.
1) We think we are righteous of our own selves, and in taking credit for God's attributes, we become vain.
2) We cannot fully appreciate the value of what is given us, without losing it. So, we have to learn, through experiencing what happens in the absence of it, in a real-life temporal experience.

Morality/immorality, Positive/negative.

 

[childeye 2]

This is the absolute objective morality for mankind:

"Love God with all your heart mind and soul".

 

[stevevw]

Come on @stevevw, people do not know why planes stay in the air, or why aerodynamic lift occurs...? Come on man, really...? Just where are you finding or getting this stuff from anyway, etc...?

Because me thinks I smell just a little bit of "desperation" in the "air", etc...

No pun intended, etc...

The "formula" for it mathematically is very simple, etc...

They figured it out a long, long time ago actually, but lacked things like an internal combustion engine, or jet engine, to pull it off, or make it work, etc...

God Bless!

Actually I got the support from Scientific America which is a scientific source. Yes we can Mathically work out all the equations as to what makes a plane fly but this doesn't explain how it actually flies. Did you read the artcile. The article is now behind a paywall so you must only get one viewing. So I found another one saying the same thing. If you can read it and then let me know what they mean as I am scratching my head as well.

So how do aircraft fly? Some will point to Bernoulli's Law, others to Prandtl's boundary layer theory and some to the Navier Stokes equations.

But in the end, all aircraft are carried aloft on wings made from metaphors, none of which capture the true nature of reality.
The secret to airplane flight? No one really knows

Its actually doern't matter if its not the case as my point was that when we experience gravity it becomes real for us rather than any equation on some blackboard and that can happen a number of ways like just falling down.

 

[stevevw]

I call this "faux-objective morality".

Ah faux objective morality. The objective morality you have when your not having objective morlaity. Makes a lot of sense. Its still an objective basis to measure morality.

You haven't established that anyone chose these measures based on anything other than their personal whim. Why should the measure be what it is?

Wait a minute so what is regarded as right and wrong is determined by society on a whim. Wow that is amazing. So if someone decided that rape is ok on a whim does that mean rape is ok to do. If not then tell me how we can be sure that its not OK to do in that we can take actions against people for committing the act.

Surely we don't sack people based on a whim. If I got the sack based on a personal whim I would sue them for basically having no good reason to sack me. My case would be based on them having no justification because its their personal opinion and a whim which is basically sacking someone without explaination.