Is there Objective Morality?

[Moral Orel]

What about in a situation where you want to find out whether I have ripped you off (intentional deception) in our apple tree transaction. Don't you need some value judgement.

I want to know if you told me the wrong amount of apples. Whether you lied or made an honest mistake is irrelevant. Honesty is irrelevant.

 

[stevevw]

I want to know if you told me the wrong amount of apples. Whether you lied or made an honest mistake is irrelevant. Honesty is irrelevant.

You set the scenario up as a moral issue by making it about whether you were being ripped off, whether I undersold you apples.

This is important as something "false" in a descriptive sense means nothing but a description of what "is". It has no ethical valuation. But something "false" in a normative sense implies a moral evaluation and judgement ie (I lied).

Sure you can determine if the amounts of apples don't match up and I have made a false statement of the fact about how many apples. But then there would be nothing wrong with me doing that if there were no moral valuation. You would be owed no compensation for there not being the same amount of apples I claimed.

So your trying to make it just about descriptive statements where my original example was about epistemic values and how this relates to moral values which require a prescription of values.

 

[Moral Orel]

So your trying to make it just about descriptive statements where my original example was about epistemic values and how this relates to moral values which require a prescription of values.

You claimed that I implied you should be honest merely by debating you. That is false. Lie all you want.

 

[stevevw]

You claimed that I implied you should be honest merely by debating you. That is false. Lie all you want.

No see I can also claim that you are not listening to me. I said that "you" also will imply honesty because you want to know if I lied or not ethically. I said you cannot tell if I have lied in an ethical sense without implicitly prescribing moral values like "honesty". Without "honesty" prescribed there is no such thing as lying in an ethical sense. So I have done nothing wrong if its just about a description of the world.

My point was we (thats both you and I) cannot have philosophical debates seeking the truth as a value to identify lies and misrepresentations without prescribing values like "honesty"as a rule and guide for those debates. When you reply to my posts in this debate you implicitly prescribe epistemic and moral values that we both should be "honest" and not misrepresent each others arguements or lie.

Otherwise we cannot have any meaningful or rational debate seeking the truth of a matter. So "reality" itself does not work for ethical situations as its just descriptive. You have to prescribe ethical evaluations just like we prescribe epistemic evatuations to justify proper knowledge and beliefs.

 

[Moral Orel]

you want to know if I lied or not ethically

No I don't. Pay attention.

 

[stevevw]

No I don't. Pay attention.

I understand your analogy. But I am talking about an ethical situation. Do you think there is ever a situation where we need to know if someone lied or misrepresented things ethically. Do you think there are epistemic values and facts that we need to apply in philosophical debates.

 

[Moral Orel]

I understand your analogy. But I am talking about an ethical situation. Do you think there is ever a situation where we need to know if someone lied or misrepresented things ethically. Do you think there are epistemic values and facts that we need to apply in philosophical debates.

Already answered.

 

[stevevw]

Already answered.

And I disagree. I am disputing your claims. We know that there are epistemic values in our philosophical diebates such as we should be good investigators of knowlkedge and beliefs justification by using good evdience rather than poorly investigateded evdience. You implicitly prescibe these when you challenge peoples evidence.

Likewise we know there is such a things as a lie, therefore we know there is such a thing as honesty. It follows that we can determine a truth from a lie in a normative sense rather than a descriptive sense. So lying matters to us ethically. We want to know and expose those who lie and misrepresent the truth and take advantage of us.

 

[Moral Orel]

And I disagree. I am disputing your claims. We know that there are epistemic values in our philosophical diebates such as we should be good investigators of knowlkedge and beliefs justification by using good evdience rather than poorly investigateded evdience. You implicitly prescibe these when you challenge peoples evidence.

Your argument relies on claiming I did something I didn't do. It's a garbage argument. It's been established that your claims are fantasy, I won't bother entertaining them further.

It follows that we can determine a truth from a lie in a normative sense rather than a descriptive sense.

And this is actual nonsense.

 

[stevevw]

Your argument relies on claiming I did something I didn't do. It's a garbage argument. It's been established that your claims are fantasy, I won't bother entertaining them further.

Fair enough.

And this is actual nonsense.

So if we are to believe this claim then we can never really determine a truth from a lie in a normative sense. Isn't lying a social and moral norm issue.

 

[stevevw]

You claimed that I implied you should be honest merely by debating you. That is false. Lie all you want.

I did not say what you claim. I said that we both will imply the value of "honesty" to a particular type of debate (a philosophical one seeking the truth of a matter). So you have misrepresented what I said. This requires some ethical value for you to determine if this is the case.

You call me a liar and that I have misrepresented your arguement. If there is no way to determine lies ethically/normatively then I havn't done anything wrong. If you want to abandon epistemic and ethical evaluations in our debate seeking the truth because there is no such things then I can lie and misrepresent things all I want and I have done nothing wrong as you have no way of judging things epistemically or ethically.

Lying means "decieving or misleading others" with intention.
What is the two meaning of lying?
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
Definition of LIE

lying is a social and moral norm
Regardless of one's attitudes about lying, it is indeed a norm in everyday interactions.
(PDF) Lying as norm in social interactions

Yet you are accusing me of doing something ethically wrong ie "lying" to decieve you in a business deal. Its pretty straight forward.

On the one hand you claim there are no ethical evaluations when it comes to lying. On the other hand you appeal to ethical evaluations to determine if someone is "lying". Its self evident by your actions.

 

[Moral Orel]

So if we are to believe this claim then we can never really determine a truth from a lie in a normative sense.

No one "determines" things in a "normative sense". That's the nonsense.

 

[Moral Orel]

You claimed that I implied you should be honest merely by debating you. That is false. Lie all you want.

I did not say what you claim.

I'm debating you. You are making a philosophical argument seeking the truth of a matter. Nothing is misrepresented.

Also, you took that last statement the wrong way. That wasn't an accusation. I meant it exactly the way I said it. Lie all you want, I don't care. I'm not telling you that you should be honest, I'm telling you to lie if you feel like it. I don't care.

Yet you are accusing me of doing something ethically wrong ie "lying" to decieve you in a business deal. Its pretty straight forward.

No, I'm not. I described a situation where the tree had 50 apples, you believed it had 100 apples, and you told me it had 100 apples. You did not lie in that situation, yet I corrected you for making a false statement by counting the apples. It's pretty straight forward.

 

[stevevw]

No one "determines" things in a "normative sense". That's the nonsense.

Then what are societal norms then.

 

[stevevw]

I'm debating you. You are making a philosophical argument seeking the truth of a matter. Nothing is misrepresented.

Then I have to ask again, how do "you" tell if I am lying to expose that its not the truth.

Also, you took that last statement the wrong way. That wasn't an accusation. I meant it exactly the way I said it. Lie all you want, I don't care. I'm not telling you that you should be honest, I'm telling you to lie if you feel like it. I don't care.

I though you said there was no such thing as a lie in a normative sense.

No, I'm not. I described a situation where the tree had 50 apples, you believed it had 100 apples, and you told me it had 100 apples. You did not lie in that situation, yet I corrected you for making a false statement by counting the apples. It's pretty straight forward.

So what if I did lie, say I misrepresented your arguement intentionaly. How would you know.

Are you saying there is no such thing as "honesty" and "dishonesty".

 

[Moral Orel]

So what if I did lie, say I misrepresented your arguement intentionaly. How would you know.

I wouldn't "know" you did it intentionally. But I can quote you, and then I can quote me to show that what you said ain't what I said. Whether you did it on purpose (a lie) or by accident (a mistake) is irrelevant. How many times do I have to say this? Will you read this post?

 

[stevevw]

I wouldn't "know" you did it intentionally. But I can quote you, and then I can quote me to show that what you said ain't what I said. Whether you did it on purpose (a lie) or by accident (a mistake) is irrelevant. How many times do I have to say this? Will you read this post?

I am reading your posts. I am just finding it hard to understand what you mean thats all.

So do you think people have an obligation to be honest at all when debating with each other. Certainly we may not be able to tell at first whether someone is lying.

But I think most debates are only able to go ahead and work because we do implicitly try to be honest. Its like the hidden rules of debate. Otherwise there would be a lot more confusion and conflict in a debate full of lies and misrepresentations which would breakdown the debate. We may not know when a lie happens but we will experience the consequences of them.

So if you did point out the difference between what you said and what misrepresentation I made what would happen if a person continued to make the same misrepresentation even if they admitted that they knew what you meant but still persitted in the lie. Wouldn't this be a case of dishonesty. Could not you claim that the person is now lying as some do in debates on this forum.

 

[Aussie Pete]

That's pretty close.
But the reason they were considered sinning is that they could not get married.
Obviously, at that time, marriage was not an option, so society did not allow them to be committed to one partner. So yes, they were sinners. They really had no choice at the time except to sleep around.

Same sex acts are forbidden in God's word. End of story. It is no different from adultery, fornication, witchcraft or any other sinful lifestyle. Man may designate same sex relationships as marriage, but it is not what God calls marriage.

Romans 1 gives the sorry account of the descent of man into the sorry condition that he is now. You will read there that homosexuality, both male and female was a direct result of conscious rebellion against God. People can be saved and born again. It is not the unpardonable sin. But if they continue in that lifestyle, they will be disqualified from the Kingdom of God. That does not mean going to hell, it does mean an eternity of regret at missing out on God's best.

 

[SkyWriting]

Same sex acts are forbidden in God's word. End of story.

The story is that "same sex acts" were limited to the only acts visible to the public.
And they were only visible because same sex marriages were forbidden. And the only same sex acts visible to the population were prostitutes or promiscuous persons with serial partners. And given that same sex marriage was not possible, then all sex was, by it's nature, outside of marriage. This also discouraged any attempt at monogamy. The effort to meet with the same person more than once automatically branded a person.

But when Jesus died on the cross, he explained that local secular law
was the will of His Father. Jesus died proclaiming that local law took priority,
even over his own life. When it comes to morality, Jesus was and is the last word.
According to Jesus, secular local law rules.

 

[Moral Orel]

I am reading your posts. I am just finding it hard to understand what you mean thats all.

So do you think people have an obligation to be honest at all when debating with each other.

If you read anything I wrote you'd know the answer to this question and wouldn't be bothering with asking.