Is there an absolute morality?

[stevevw]

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...

Actually there is scientific evdience that we are born with an innate knowledge of morality. Research shows even 6 month olds or younger understand the basics of morality. We then build on this.
The Moral Life of Babies
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.
The Moral Life of Babies

Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes'
babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

Wrong. The reason for choosing the measure is the basis.

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.

This isn't even an argument. Why should the measure be what it is?

 

[Moral Orel]

Thanks, I appreciate your effort.

So that's it? If we don't use your personal definition for the terms, then you've got nothing to say?

Just so you're aware, I didn't define the terms. I just informed you of what both sides of the debate already agreed to long before any of us joined these threads. If you're going to continue to use them in your personal manner with other folks who use them in the agreed upon manner, you're just going to be sowing confusion.

 

[childeye 2]

So that's it? If we don't use your personal definition for the terms, then you've got nothing to say?

Just so you're aware, I didn't define the terms. I just informed you of what both sides of the debate already agreed to long before any of us joined these threads. If you're going to continue to use them in your personal manner with other folks who use them in the agreed upon manner, you're just going to be sowing confusion.

I don't understand what you're referring to. Can you give me an example of what you mean when you say, "your personal definition for the terms?"

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't understand what you're referring to. Can you give me an example of what you mean when you say, your personal terms?

I didn't say "your personal terms".

 

[childeye 2]

I didn't say "your personal terms".

True. you said, "So that's it? If we don't use your personal definition for the terms, then you've got nothing to say?"

I can't answer the question until I know what personal definitions you are referring to, or claiming I have.

I put forth the absolute objective morality for mankind, "Love God with all your heart mind and soul". That's saying something.

 

[Moral Orel]

I put forth the absolute objective morality for mankind, "Love God with all your heart mind and soul". That's saying something.

That isn't even a moral statement. And since a morality is a set of moral statements, your claim is nonsense. Whatever your personal definitions are, they are not in line with the standard definitions that I informed you of.

 

[childeye 2]

That isn't even a moral statement. And since a morality is a set of moral statements, your claim is nonsense. Whatever your personal definitions are, they are not in line with the standard definitions that I informed you of.

You said, Moral non realism claims that there are no moral statements that are true facts. Why now does it have to be, Moral non realism claims that there are no sets of moral statements that are true facts?

You said a prescriptive statement:
"I prescribe love God with all you heart mind and soul as the absolute objective morality for mankind".
And "I prescribe love those you come in contact with as if they were yourself".

 

[Moral Orel]

You said, Moral non realism claims that there are no moral statements that are true facts. Why now does it have to be, Moral non realism claims that there are no sets of moral statements that are true facts?

It doesn't, and I have no idea where you got that idea.

You said a prescriptive statement. "I prescribe love God with all you heart mind and soul".

Okay, so you claim that "One ought to love God with all your heart mind and soul". You've got yourself a morality. Now, is it objective (realism) or is it subjective (non realism). If this is a true fact in the same sense that "The Earth is round" is a true fact, then it's objective.

How do you prove it?

 

[childeye 2]

It doesn't, and I have no idea where you got that idea.

Okay, so you claim that "One ought to love God with all your heart mind and soul" and this is a true fact in the same sense that "The Earth is round" is a true fact.

How do you prove it?

I don't claim "One ought to". That would make it an indefinite statement. I said:
"I prescribe love God with all your heart mind and soul" as the absolute objective morality.

God made the earth round. God made us. Godliness is therefore morality.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't claim "One ought to".

You do, because that's what "ought" means. It prescribes behavior. That's why it is so inextricably tied to morality.

God made the earth round. God made us. Godliness is therefore morality.

I don't follow this at all. What does God making stuff have to do with "Godliness"? How is God making stuff the reason that "Godliness" is a set of moral statements? How is "Godliness" a set of moral statements?

 

[childeye 2]

You do, because that's what "ought" means. It prescribes behavior. That's why it is so inextricably tied to morality.

I don't follow this at all. What does God making stuff have to do with "Godliness"? How is God making stuff the reason that "Godliness" is a set of moral statements? How is "Godliness" a set of moral statements?

The term "ought" is indefinite. It can only end up half true according to this dichotomy, morality/immorality. Hence, it would look like this to be true: One ought to both love God with all your heart mind and soul and not love God with all your heart mind and soul.

A positive proves itself through its negative in moral terminology. We can't value morality without experiencing immorality.

 

[Moral Orel]

The term "ought to" is indefinite. It can only end up half true according to this dichotomy, morality/immorality. Hence, it would look like this to be true: One ought to both love God with all your heart mind and soul and not love God with all your heart mind and soul.

A positive proves itself through its negative in moral terminology. We can't value morality without experiencing immorality.

Yeah, you're going to keep using your own personal definitions for the terms, and I'm not interested in deciphering them.

 

[childeye 2]

Yeah, you're going to keep using your own personal definitions for the terms, and I'm not interested in deciphering them.

What terms am I using that are my personal definitions? All the definitions I use are in the dictionary.
If I use ought to, then it's going to imply an obligation.

 

[Moral Orel]

What terms am I using that are my personal definitions? All the definitions I use are in the dictionary.
If I use ought to, then it's going to imply an obligation.

As I've already wasted my time explaining, philosophy topics such as this one already have formal definitions. Using those some words in a discussion on that topic, and meaning something completely different from the agreed definitions is just sowing confusion. I don't get the impression that you're even interested in being understood, let alone that you might be interested in understanding anyone else. No thanks.

 

[childeye 2]

As I've already wasted my time explaining, philosophy topics such as this one already have formal definitions. Using those some words in a discussion on that topic, and meaning something completely different from the agreed definitions is just sowing confusion. I don't get the impression that you're even interested in being understood, let alone that you might be interested in understanding anyone else. No thanks.

Please, take a moment and think about this:

Ought= Duty

It's set up by default so that it disallows for love/compassion to be the impetus of morality. You can't command someone to love or be kind or weep at the loss.

This duty stuff is just a projection of a subjective self-righteousness, debating over percentages of what should be true for everyone. Yet the actual moral things that are true for everyone in reality, they don't even allow.

 

[Moral Orel]

Please, take a moment and think about this:

Ought= Duty

It's set up by default so that it disallows for love/compassion to be the impetus of morality. You can't command someone to love. This duty stuff is just self-righteousness, and non-realism is cynicism.

Non-realism isn't cynicism. All it states is that we can't arrive at the moral statements we write via logic and reason and what is true or false. That's it, nothing more.

ETA I disagree with your take on "duty", but I don't care enough to stick up for my opposition.

 

[childeye 2]

Non-realism isn't cynicism. All it states is that we can't arrive at the moral statements we write via logic and reason and what is true or false. That's it, nothing more.

That's what I just said. You can't arrive at the moral statements you write via logic and reason and what is true or false in reality, because the morality in reality, things like love/compassion is disallowed, through the pretext of duty.

 

[Kylie]

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.

So? When did I ever say that morality has no objective components? I have never said that, and indeed I have said the opposite. I have agreed many times that rape causes harm, and this is an objective fact.

However, some objective components does not mean the end result is objective.

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.

Why isn't it good enough?

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..

Yes, that is indeed a problem with viewing morality as objective. You can use it to justify discrimination against those who disagree.

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.

Yeah, again, you just make the claim there are moral truths. You can't just assume that and then act as if it proves your point.

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.

How do you know moral language is correct?

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.

Yes he does. He does not say, "I think The Book of Boba Fett is bad, but that's my subjective opinion, and you may have a different view, and that's okay."

He says, "It stinks! It's terrible! It's garbage!" He's acting as though his subjective opinion is an objective fact.

Or do you know claim that something is an objective fact IF AND ONLY IF whoever makes the claim also produces a rationale for that claim?

If so, then the claim "Rape is wrong" is not an objective fact, because it does not provide any rationale for that claim.

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.

So what? We can use subjective measures just fine for many things.

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.

So if there's all these "complicated factors", how can anyone bring it down to one single number and claim that's objectively the best?

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.

So then you are not claiming that ALL morality is objective? You are claiming that only SOME morality is objective?

 

[Kylie]

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.

No, not at all.

You are the one who made the connection between laws and morality. I'm just showing you how objective morality is not determined by the laws a country makes.

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.

They acted in a way that most people agree was wrong, thus they made laws regarding it.

This isn't that difficult to understand.

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".

Got a source for that claim?

And even if true, I've already told you so many times I've lost count that people can act as though widespread agreement on a subjective issue means it's objective, even though that's not a correct conclusion.

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'm talking about extreme examples of moral situations, not the Human rights violations. Stop trying to derail the thread.

You ALWAYS resort to extreme examples like rape and murder and child abuse to show that morality is objective, yet if morality really was objective, you could use examples such as a child who throws their dinner to the floor because they don't want to eat their vegetables. Yet you NEVER use these examples. Why not? I suspect it's because if you do, you'll never be able to prove your point. After all, how could you say, "It's an objective moral fact that the only appropriate punishment for a child who throws their dinner to the floor because they don't want to eat their vegetables is to not let them have desert for a week"? Such a claim is obviously a statement of opinion, and you'll get lots of people showing that other punishments are also suitable, or that a week is not long enough, or that it's too long, etc. And so you resort to the extreme examples, hoping to use the widespread agreement regarding such examples to trick people into thinking that they are objective.

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.

Say it as many times as you like, you'll still be wrong.

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.

Yes there is a basis. And I'll point out again that some objective components does not mean the end result is objective.

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".

This does not answer my question. What would you differently? Would you decide to stop breathing, since breathing is just part of the simulation and you don't actually need to do it? After all, if it's just a simulation that has been programmed, then the designer could just as well have programmed you to not need to breathe.

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.

Very well. Please tell me how anyone can disagree with the claim that 1+1=2 in Base ten.

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 I showed how your examples failed.

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.

So your argument is, "If people can have subjective opinions, those opinions will be subjective, and since I might disagree with those opinions, subjective opinions must be wrong."