Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

Once again you run back to your black and white view of morality to avoid actually answering the question.

But it is black and white. Either rape is morally wrong or its morally Ok. There is no little bit of rape or grey area. If someone is harmed slightly its still wrong, if someone is harmed a little more its still wrong, if someone is harmed a lot its still wrong, if someone is not harmed at all its still wrong.

Rape, sexual assault and violence against women are severe human rights violations
Human Rights and Sexual Violence

International law on rape, whether human rights, humanitarian or criminal law, have advanced significantly over the past few decades. These developments have resulted in advanced standards on the criminalization and prosecution of rape.
Rape Is A Grave, Systematic And Widespread Human Rights Violation Yet Still Poorly Addressed

What I think your talking about is the subjects experience. But that doesn't change the fact that an objective even happened to them (being sexually violated). So yes the subjects experience is real for them and they may experience that event differently. Though any physical harm is measurable.

You could also say that the subjects experience is measurable as well (psychological harm). But the subjects personal experience doesn't alter the fact that an objective event occurred to them. Its whether that objective act is of rape is right or wrong.

As I mentioned ealier the only way subjective thinking can be applied to rape is to whether the subject experienced rape or not. This has been a recognised problem today for example the MeToo movement and the UN HR is in the process of clarifying the definition of sexual violation which centres around concent so that everyone is on the same page.

But this just shows that an objective definition is being formulated so that everyone is clear as to what sexual violation means.

 

[Kylie]

But it is black and white. Either rape is morally wrong or its morally Ok. There is no little bit of rape or grey area. If someone is harmed slightly its still wrong, if someone is harmed a little more its still wrong, if someone is harmed a lot its still wrong, if someone is not harmed at all its still wrong.

Rape, sexual assault and violence against women are severe human rights violations
Human Rights and Sexual Violence

International law on rape, whether human rights, humanitarian or criminal law, have advanced significantly over the past few decades. These developments have resulted in advanced standards on the criminalization and prosecution of rape.
Rape Is A Grave, Systematic And Widespread Human Rights Violation Yet Still Poorly Addressed

What I think your talking about is the subjects experience. But that doesn't change the fact that an objective even happened to them (being sexually violated). So yes the subjects experience is real for them and they may experience that event differently. Though any physical harm is measurable.

You could also say that the subjects experience is measurable as well (psychological harm). But the subjects personal experience doesn't alter the fact that an objective event occurred to them. Its whether that objective act is of rape is right or wrong.

As I mentioned ealier the only way subjective thinking can be applied to rape is to whether the subject experienced rape or not. This has been a recognised problem today for example the MeToo movement and the UN HR is in the process of clarifying the definition of sexual violation which centres around concent so that everyone is on the same page.

But this just shows that an objective definition is being formulated so that everyone is clear as to what sexual violation means.

And once again you run and hide behind extreme examples.

And you completely ignore the fact that one rape victim may be able to return to live the life they had before, while another rape victim may develop a complete and debilitating fear. Some rape victims develop a crippling fear of being around men, do they not? Yet not all rape victims do. The harm that some experience certainly seems to vary.

 

[stevevw]

And once again you run and hide behind extreme examples.

And you completely ignore the fact that one rape victim may be able to return to live the life they had before, while another rape victim may develop a complete and debilitating fear. Some rape victims develop a crippling fear of being around men, do they not? Yet not all rape victims do. The harm that some experience certainly seems to vary.

So how does the varying personal experience of an objective event like rape negate that the objective event of rape happened or didn't happened.

PS I am not accusing you of saying rape doesn't cause harm. Just trying to understand your reasoning. I think using peoples personal experience of rape is not a good way to measure if rape is wrong because it doesn't negate that the rape happened. So something objectively happened and as you say people vary in their reaction.

But its variations in reactions to an objective event that really happened to them. Its just then a case of whether that objective event is morally right or wrong. That is why they say that rape being objectively wrong is about the act itself and not the subjects experience of it.

 

[Kylie]

So how does the varying personal experience of an objective event like rape negate that the objective event of rape happened or didn't happened.

PS I am not accusing you of saying rape doesn't cause harm. Just trying to understand your reasoning. I think using peoples personal experience of rape is not a good way to measure if rape is wrong because it doesn't negate that the rape happened. So something objectively happened and as you say people vary in their reaction.

But its variations in reactions to an objective event that really happened to them. Its just then a case of whether that objective event is morally right or wrong. That is why they say that rape being objectively wrong is about the act itself and not the subjects experience of it.

Once again you run and hide behind your binary.

You reduce it to an "It happened" or "It didn't happen."

My point, which you somehow still don't seem to understand, is that for two people for whom it did happen, the end result can be very different. One person can become crippled with fear due to the emotional trauma they experienced. Other people can recover and get back to their life, recovering so well that you could not even know they were the victim unless they told you. I've known people like both of these cases. And it is this variability that shows that you can't say that rape causes some objective amount of harm.

Now, I have explained this to you many times now. If I have to explain it again, I will have to conclude that either you just can't understand (in which case there is no point in discussing this topic further with you), or you are deliberately ignoring me (again, showing there is no point in further discussion).

 

[stevevw]

Once again you run and hide behind your binary.

You reduce it to an "It happened" or "It didn't happen."

Isn't that the point. An immoral act either objectively happened or didn't happen. It doesn't matter about how much the victim experiences harm. The objective act that caused the varying degrees of harm still happened in reality. So if the act of rape is an objective event that happened to the victim then it is a matter of whether that act is morally wrong regadless of varying degrees of harm.

My point, which you somehow still don't seem to understand, is that for two people for whom it did happen, the end result can be very different. One person can become crippled with fear due to the emotional trauma they experienced. Other people can recover and get back to their life, recovering so well that you could not even know they were the victim unless they told you. I've known people like both of these cases. And it is this variability that shows that you can't say that rape causes some objective amount of harm.

Now, I have explained this to you many times now. If I have to explain it again, I will have to conclude that either you just can't understand (in which case there is no point in discussing this topic further with you), or you are deliberately ignoring me (again, showing there is no point in further discussion).

I have understood your point all along. What I don't understand is what relevance it has to the fact that they were raped and a wrong had been done. Can you explain how this is relevant regarding the actual rape happening or not.

Ps I am not saying you dont think rape causes any harm.

 

[stevevw]

Red Herring.

Is it an absurd state of mind to be offered a hamburger or a hotdog and not know which to choose?

As I have said many times Food tastes don't equate to morality as moral statements are normative and food preferences are descriptive. The moral act in question is a judgement based on morals and morals are about right and wrong behaviour, how we should behave.

It doesn't matter whether you eat a hotdog or a hamburger as neither is morally wrong to do. There is no "should" in the first place. So you are giving a false analogy.

 

[stevevw]

lol "Brownie points" Who do you think I'm sucking up to? I argue with the unbelievers around here just as much as I argue with the believers. Bad arguments make me cringe; I don't care if people share my conclusions.

Sorry I added the "brownie" to your point collection as it sounded better lol.

I've already answered your question, I compare your statements to reality. Maybe you believe your statements to be true, maybe you don't. If you believe your own statements to be true then you're being honest, if you don't believe your own statements to be true, then you are being dishonest. Either way, I don't need to know what you believe to be true to show that what you say is false.

But its you who needs the value of "Honesty" to be able to measure falseness or truth of statements. Without it you would have no context, all my statements would just be statements with no reference point, just meaningless semantics. Your making a value judgement when you want to determine what I say is true or false and valuing whether something is true or false necessarily requires the value of "Honesty".

Saying you use reality to measure truth is irrelevant as all reality is sense experience without any value judgement so two different states of mismatching apple quantities won't mean anything apart from there being two different perceptive states without the injection of a value judgement that will make the differing quantities a case of being a true or false statement.

So because you like pointing out my false statements you are making a moral value judgement and implicitly prescribing "Honesty" to our debate whether you know it or not. So if someone claims there is no moral truths and then prescribes a moral value like "honesty" when they engage in a debate then they are actually being a moral realist and making "honesty" an independent measure and thus objective.

Let's stick to the simpler example. I'll copy the two scenarios here again for reference:

S1 Let's say you have an apple tree you want to sell to me. You believe it only has fifty apples, so you tell me that it actually has one hundred apples to entice me to buy. If the tree actually has one hundred apples, and your belief was wrong, you still lied.

S2 Now imagine the same scenario again, a tree with one hundred apples but you believe it only has fifty. You decide to be honest so you tell me the tree has fifty apples because that's what you believe. But in actuality it has one hundred apples. You were wrong, you didn't lie.
​

In scenario 1, you lied, but your statement wasn't false, so I won't bother proving anything. In scenario 2, you did not lie, but I will prove your statement false by counting apples. You see? Proving claims false does not involve honesty.

As I mentioned it is your ability to prove my statement is false that is why you need to prescribe "Honesty" to the situation. For you to be able to prove my statements true or false you need to make "Honesty" a value and fact. Without it all you have is different quantities which could mean anything or nothing.

And your argument for epistemic facts isn't any different from your argument for moral facts. Even if I did value honesty, that doesn't prove that I ought to value honesty. This is the argument you keep repeating:

P1 People value X
C X ought to be valued
It isn't even valid.

Yes it does as you have precribed "Honesty" to the debate. You have implicitly prescribed that we both "ought to be honest" and not misrepresent things or lie when you reply to someones debate.

 

[Moral Orel]

@stevevw
What the what? We were already having a discussion and you just decided you didn't like that one so you dug up some old ones? No thanks. I have no interest in discussing things with folks who just ignore the things I say.

 

[Kylie]

Isn't that the point. An immoral act either objectively happened or didn't happen. It doesn't matter about how much the victim experiences harm. The objective act that caused the varying degrees of harm still happened in reality. So if the act of rape is an objective event that happened to the victim then it is a matter of whether that act is morally wrong regadless of varying degrees of harm.

I have understood your point all along. What I don't understand is what relevance it has to the fact that they were raped and a wrong had been done. Can you explain how this is relevant regarding the actual rape happening or not.

Ps I am not saying you dont think rape causes any harm.

Once again you run and hide behind the binary idea that morality is either good or bad. You ignore the shades of grey.

Tell me, is there any point in my trying to explain this to you?

 

[stevevw]

@stevevw
What the what? We were already having a discussion and you just decided you didn't like that one so you dug up some old ones? No thanks. I have no interest in discussing things with folks who just ignore the things I say.

Not sure which post your referring to. Sorry if I have repeated something as I am going through all the posts to check if I havn't missed something.

I just checked again and if its about post 2506 üsing food tastes as an anology for morality this has not been defeated as a poor analogy for morality. I just checked again and it can't be post 2507 because thats the first time Ive replied and its only few pages back.

I was questioning your idea of reality as a way to see if someone is lying and I disagree that reality can help us determine if someone has lied as its just a sensory perception without evaluation of morals. AS far as I understand we were still disputing epistemic values and facts.

The arguement
P1 if there are no moral facts then there are no epistemic facts.
P2 there are epistemic facts.
You disputed this but gave no evdience. I provided support through the paper linked. This also explained how epistemic facts and values are linked to moral facts and values. As far as I know thats all we got up to.

The rest of the arguement.
(3) So moral facts exist.
(4) If moral facts exist, then moral realism is true.
(5) So moral realism is true.

 

[stevevw]

Once again you run and hide behind the binary idea that morality is either good or bad. You ignore the shades of grey.

Tell me, is there any point in my trying to explain this to you?

Well considering that we can both say that we have repeated ourselves it probably points to more explaining needs to be done by both of us.

Therefore can you explain if something objective happens how varying degrees of experiencing that objective event change the black and white fact that the event happened. Then can you explain what role the varying experiences of people to that objective event have to make morality subjective.

 

[Kylie]

Well considering that we can both say that we have repeated ourselves it probably points to more explaining needs to be done by both of us.

Therefore can you explain if something objective happens how varying degrees of experiencing that objective event change the black and white fact that the event happened. Then can you explain what role the varying experiences of people to that objective event have to make morality subjective.

I'm not talking about changing the fact that the event happened. I'm talking about the effect that the event had on different people.

For example, two people on a plane that crashes, one may be able to get over that event and fly again without any problem. but the other person who experienced the exact same plane crash could end up with a crippling fear of flying which means they don't ever fly again.

The event was objective.

The effect the event had on people was SUBJECTIVE.

 

[Moral Orel]

You disputed this but gave no evdience.

See, you don't listen. I beat that premise from two different angles and you just forget both conversations ever happened.

I do not care if you are honest. So no "ought" is implied.
No ought can ever be justified rationally, so all ought statements are irrational.

I won't bother detailing these things all over again since you aren't going to read it anyways. You didn't bother reading it the first time.

 

[Amittai]

shades of grey

Shades of grey are where most things are most of the time. Why should we have a problem with that? Just tentatively, since "good" is to do with "goods" i.e benefits, and its opposite is deprivation of benefit already possessed, the blend of these - which we usually can't understand properly - comes to look grey (a metaphor).

Personal boundaries protect integrity. That is where degrees of inference help us keeping on looking into it. From the overlap of our partial observations it is reasonable to propose that there are probably what look like near absolutes. This doesn't conflict with the idea up for discussion in the OP.

 

[stevevw]

I'm not talking about changing the fact that the event happened. I'm talking about the effect that the event had on different people.

For example, two people on a plane that crashes, one may be able to get over that event and fly again without any problem. but the other person who experienced the exact same plane crash could end up with a crippling fear of flying which means they don't ever fly again.

The event was objective.

The effect the event had on people was SUBJECTIVE.

I agree. But as we are talking about the "act" itself being subjective or objective then we can say that a rape objectively happened and leave aside personal experiences of the objective "act". Now we just have to determine if that objective act is right or wrong. So it seems we are agreeing more than you think.

 

[stevevw]

See, you don't listen. I beat that premise from two different angles and you just forget both conversations ever happened.

I do not care if you are honest. So no "ought" is implied.

My point was that "you" care about the value of "honesty" being relevant because you want to determine if I said something false. You cannot determine that something is false to find the truth of the matter unless you apply "honesty" to our debate.

Even if you use "reality" as the measure because reality is not evaluative its just sense perceptions. To add an evaluation as to whether I said something false "you" necessarily have to imply the value of "Honesty". That was your first angle which I am refuting.

No ought can ever be justified rationally, so all ought statements are irrational.

It canjustified epistemically because how we justify knowledge and belief is based on proper investigations and there are certain epistemic facts and values that involve "oughts" that are implicitly applied by anyone who chooses to engage in a philosophical debate.

Its the fact that if "you" want to engage with me in that debate seeking the truth as to whether I said something false that "you" have to apply the value of "honesty" whether you realise it or not.

Otherwise "you" cannot have that debate in any coherent and meaningful. Sure you can choose to not value "honesty" and try to debate me without it. But its not going to make sense in any evaluative way because you have no rules or guidelines regarding the value of "honest" or false statements. They would just be statements with no values.

This is a good example of moral realism where people claim that everying is subjective including truth but in reality we apply "oughts" in these situations. The fact that we want and need to have these discussions about finding the "truth" of a matter shows how necessary values like "honesty" are.

I won't bother detailing these things all over again since you aren't going to read it anyways. You didn't bother reading it the first time.

I do read them by the fact I understand your arguement as explained above but disagree. So don't confuse my disagreement with not listening.

Also just out of interest. As most societies use norms and laws and HUman Rights is a universal law that obligates everyone that these laws and norms "should" be adhered to are you saying that these are all irrational. That societies and the world have deluded themselves. Therefore anyone should be able to object and reject these laws, Rights and norms on the basis they are irrational and have no justification and basis in reality.

 

[SkyWriting]

Objective morality is set out in God's word. This is anathema to the world. God says

homosexuality

is wrong.

The word was created about 130 years ago. So you might be
using the wrong word because the Bible was written well before that.

Likely you are thinking a of a different word.

 

[Moral Orel]

I do read them by the fact I understand your arguement as explained above but disagree. So don't confuse my disagreement with not listening.

I have already addressed all the things you've said above. If you had read my previous posts you wouldn't be saying the same things all over again.

 

[stevevw]

I have already addressed all the things you've said above. If you had read my previous posts you wouldn't be saying the same things all over again.

Look I am sorry as I am sort of learning as I go along. I acknowledge you obviously have some experience/knowldge in this field but I am reading a lot about ethical theories especially moral realism. I think its a reasonable position to take and so do the majority of philosophers. But its not just a case of an ad hominem. I think there are good reasons why it is seen as the most reasonable position to take and I am trying to explain this.

But I could be wrong so I am also investigating things to understand better. You have taught me about formal arguements which I appreciate. But I still don't think thats enough. I know you say basically morality comes down to how we feel (the bigger the moral issue the more passionate we are).

But once again I don't think this is enough to dismiss moral realism because in reality we don't apply morality like feelings. Feelings are arbitrary and can be unpredictable and yet moral norms and laws are specific and predictable. Feelings vary where there can be as many feelings about an issue as people and yet there is only one right/truthful determination for morality. Theres more which seem to undermine subjective morality. So therefore I'm not convince and of course neither are you so I am skeptical.

Anyway back to the debate.
Your first angle for which you dismissed that you don't need a value like "Honesty" to engage with me in a philosophical debate seeking the truth was that you can tell I am saying something false (lying or misrepresenting) things by reality. I diagreed and as far as I have read you hve not responded. You cannot tell if someone is lying through reality. You can only do this by value system with values such as "Honesty". I think this is important for the understanding of moral realism.

The other angle was with a formal arguement that we cannot justify rationally an "ought". Before I address this I think its important to address your first angle as I think this is the key to the rest of the debate. So I am walking through the first two premesis to see if they are factual or not. Then we can deal with the rest of the arguement.

 

[Moral Orel]

Anyway back to the debate.
Your first angle for which you dismissed that you don't need a value like "Honesty" to engage with me in a philosophical debate seeking the truth was that you can tell I am saying something false (lying or misrepresenting) things by reality. I diagreed and as far as I have read you hve not responded. You cannot tell if someone is lying through reality. You can only do this by valuing "Honesty". I think this is important for the understanding of moral realism.

I already addressed this. I won't keep repeating myself to someone who refuses to pay attention. Go back and reread my apple tree analogy.

The other angle was with a formal arguement that we cannot justify rationally an "ought". Before I address this I think its important to address your first angle as I think this is the key to the rest of the debate.

We were in the middle of discussing this and you ignored my last reply to you on the topic.