Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

Abhorrent is a subjective thing, isn't it?

You really gotta stop presenting subjective things as though they are objective.

You keep confusing the subjective state of a person with the actual objective act. The subjective view of the person has nothing to do with the act itself being right or wrong or truely abhorrent or not.

For example take child abuse. Most people will think its abhorrent for good reason because its a violation of an innocent child who relies on adults for safety. Anyone who thinks its ok and not abhorrent we would say they are sick in the head and need locking up.

So thats why I am asking "is the other persons point of view wrong in any truthful way beyond the subjects involved even though their act is abhorrent to you and most people. Can we say they are wrong no matter what they subjective view is. Otherwise if we can't then we would have to say that they are not wrong for having that subjective view in any objective way and therefore not wrong at all.

No, I do NOT need to tolerate a differing view.

I think that racism is utterly reprehensible.

A person who thinks that black people are inferior will think their view is perfectly justified.

Yet somehow you think that I am supposed to say, "Well, I disagree with your view, but you are just as entitled to it as I am to my view, so I guess I have to let you treat black people like garbage." How in the world did you reach that conclusion? Absolutely I am NOT going to do that.

I reached that conclusion based on how subjective views work. How you explain subjective morality being like preferences for TV shows. Therefore similar to preferences for TV shows never being wrong in any objective way subjective views about racism are never wrong in any objective way because they are the personal views of the subject and personal views of subjects are never wrong in the world.

So how can you condemn and ban someone for thinking racism is OK to do when its not objectively wrong. It would be like condemning and banning someone for liking Star Wars.

You argument would be so much more convincing if you could actually SHOW US how to determine this moral truth. You've completely failed at this every single time.

Yet you have just proven my arguement by taking an objective position in saying that anyone who thinks opposite to you about racism is wrong. You can only do that if you know that you view is objectively correct and their view is objectively wrong.

You can't show that there is a moral truth to any situation that all people will agree on.

Just because there is an objective moral truth doesn't mean everyone has to agree on it. Just because some people defy moral truths doesn't mean they know that they are doing something wrong.

Objective morality doesn't have some magical power that forces everyone to agree with those objective morals. So you assumption is wrong in the first place about what is objective morality is and perhaps thats part of the problem.

And you're nowhere near showing us how to determine that alleged truth.

So if we do a little thought experiment. Lets say racism as you used. Do you ever think that there is a time when racism is ok to do. If you cannot come up with anytime when its ok to do then perhaps this is a good example of a moral truth.

Even though some may think its OK we can say that those subjective views are just mistaken and objectively wrong. That there is only one moral view on this and that is racism is wrong and always wrong no matter what subjective view people have.

Now I know your going to say something like this only happens because most people subjectively agree that its wrong. But that says nothing about whether its truely wrong or not. So that arguement doesn't work.

Or you may say that just because people make it wrong doesn't make it objective which I have agreed is correct. But then what gives people the right to make one view (thats its wrong by law) the only option when they have no leg to stand on as far as proving racism to be the only view allowed. That sounds pretty objective to me. Maybe people are just acting out the truth.

 

[stevevw]

Pick whatever you think is the strongest argument and clean it up and organize it. I'm not going through this post line by line to point out all the errors. If you can't write your argument in any kind of formal formatting, at least write out your reasoning as a list.

But thats my point. You are asking me to use some measuring method that you think shows proper knowledge and truth to prove your arguement when according to you there is no "should or ought" in how we determine what is fact, true, logically valid.

You have to prescribe some form of truth knowledge determination when you claim that there is no way to prove proper knowledge in the first place that "should" apply. Why "should" I go along with "your" truth determining method when there is no "should" in determining the truth about knowledge.

 

[Moral Orel]

But thats my point. You are asking me to use some measuring method that you think shows proper knowledge and truth to prove your arguement when according to you there is no "should or ought" in how we determine what is fact, true, logically valid.

There are ways of thinking that are more likely to produce true statements. You're free to avoid them if you like. I still have not told you what you "should" do. I merely told you what I require to bother responding to your arguments. But again, you're free to splatter my screen with whatever word salad you like.

You have to prescribe some form of truth knowledge determination when you claim that there is no way to prove proper knowledge in the first place that "should" apply. Why "should" I go along with "your" truth determining method when there is no "should" in determining the truth about knowledge.

I do not need to prescribe anything, and that's why I haven't. Does your whole argument rest on fantasy? If you dream that I prescribed something then you win?

 

[stevevw]

There are ways of thinking that are more likely to produce true statements. You're free to avoid them if you like. I still have not told you what you "should" do. I merely told you what I require to bother responding to your arguments. But again, you're free to splatter my screen with whatever word salad you like.

I do not need to prescribe anything, and that's why I haven't. Does your whole argument rest on fantasy? If you dream that I prescribed something then you win?

Yet you want me to provide a formal arguement or give my reasoning so you can determine whether its valid or not (fantasy or not). You are prescribing certain rules in doing that which you think are right and should be the rules applied.

You are more or less saying that formal logic is how we should determine truth. Otherwise no one should have to support anything as there are no rules for doing so that we should follow.

 

[Moral Orel]

You are prescribing...

So then that's a "yes", your argument does rest on fantasies. I am entertained by engaging arguments. I am not entertained by engaging fiction. I don't engage in activities that don't entertain me.

 

[stevevw]

So then that's a "yes", your argument does rest on fantasies. I am entertained by engaging arguments. I am not entertained by engaging fiction. I don't engage in activities that don't entertain me.

So what does entertainment got to do with whether something is a valid arguement or not. Your efforts are not about entertainment as that is subjective. You only seek a specific goals about rationalism, facts, truth, ect as oposed to fantasy, untruths or false evdience. You want to show the difference and so as to claim that one is valid and one is not. That comes down to 2 choices in which one is right and the other wrong.

Otherwise it doesn't matter if arguements rest on fantasies because there is no obligated way to determine fantasy from fact. Its just all about peoples personal reasons for why they engage in debates.

Therefore your efforts to prove me wrong cannot be valid as there is no criteria for what is fantasy or not. We are just playing a silly game of entertainment verses peoples fantacies, personal feelings, whatever idiosyncrasy they have.

WE don't have to be (shouldn't have to) use your method or anyones method to determine fact and truth as there is no method we "should" follow. Its a free for all where people battle each other in a meaningless and incoherent mess with no way to determine truth.

I could also ask the question that if you are not entertained by engaging in fiction and you think my arguement is fantasy (fiction) then why have you been engaging with me for so long. Your actions seem to contradict your claim.

 

[Moral Orel]

WE don't have to be (shouldn't have to) use your method or anyones method to determine fact and truth as there is no method we "should" follow. Its a free for all where people battle each other in a meaningless and incoherent mess with no way to determine truth.

If I drop a piece of glass it will shatter.
Should I drop the piece of glass?

I can state the method that leads to a result without prescribing that you "should" use that method or that you even "should" seek that result.

 

[stevevw]

If I drop a piece of glass it will shatter.
Should I drop the piece of glass?

I can state the method that leads to a result without prescribing that you "should" use that method or that you even "should" seek that result.

But I think there is more going on than just stating something. You are using the method to win arguements to prove someone wrong thus making normative claims as well such as this is how we should determine things as opposed to other ways of knowing.

Thats the whole point of formal arguements. Its about proper and improper ways of determining knowledge and beliefs.

Otherwise whats the point of even debating over differences in how we determine something as correct or incorrect, right or wrong, justified or unjustified. We have to have some rules to guide us as to what is proper and improper knowledge and beliefs.

 

[Moral Orel]

You are using the method to win arguements to prove someone wrong thus making normative claims as well.

There're those fantasies again. I'm just describing things in a true way, and you dream that I'm prescribing you "should" too. Last night I had a dream that a hamburger was eating me!

Are you done just making stuff up? Do you have an actual argument that can be addressed? If you just want to dabble in fiction, that's cool too.

 

[stevevw]

There're those fantasies again. I'm just describing things in a true way, and you dream that I'm prescribing you "should" too. Last night I had a dream that a hamburger was eating me!

Are you done just making stuff up? Do you have an actual argument that can be addressed? If you just want to dabble in fiction, that's cool too.

So what if someone was to say I disagree that your "way of desribing what is true"as the way we should determine what is true and what is fantasy. Don't we end up with a stalemate where one claimed way of determining the "true way" is being pitted against another way and because neither "should" be how we determine the "true way" we end up without any "true way" to know the "true way". lol.

If there are no "shoulds" about how we determine truth and facts then there are no truths and facts about what methid we use to determine truth and facts. I could claim my fantacies are how we determine the "true way" and that would be just as valid as your method as we have abandoned any rules about how we should determine truth and facts.

Along with your claim that you are only "describing things in a true way"you are also making an implicit claim that your way of "describing things in a true way" is the only way we should "describe things in a true way".

I think this is because we are dealing with "truth value" when we talk about "true way" because that implies an untrue way and makes it normative rather than just descriptive.

 

[Moral Orel]

So what if someone was to say I disagree that your "way of desribing what is true"as the way we should determine what is true and what is fantasy. Don't we end up with a stalemate where one claimed way of determining the "true way" is being pitted against another way and because neither "should" be how we determine the "true way" we end up without any "true way" to know the "true way". lol.

If there are no "shoulds" about how we determine truth and facts then there are no truths and facts about what methid we use to determine truth and facts. I could claim my fantacies are how we determine the "true way" and that would be just as valid as your method as we have abandoned any rules about how we should determine truth and facts.

Along with your claim that you are only "describing things in a true way"you are also making an implicit claim that your way of "describing things in a true way" is the only way we should "describe things in a true way".

I think this is because we are dealing with "truth value" when we talk about "true way" because that implies an untrue way and makes it normative rather than just descriptive.

When you can quote me explicitly stating what you "should" do, you can say I made a normative claim. Until then I'm done with your fictions.

 

[stevevw]

When you can quote me explicitly stating what you "should" do, you can say I made a normative claim. Until then I'm done with your fictions.

This is where I get confused. So your not implicitly saying that we "should" conform to the way you are determining what is true. Then whats the point of our debate. Whats the point of your arguement.

 

[Moral Orel]

This is where I get confused. So your not implicitly saying that we "should" conform to the way you are determining what is true.

There's nothing confusing about the fact that I didn't claim what I didn't state.

Then whats the point of our debate. Whats the point of your arguement.

I guess you'll have to go back and reread my posts without dreaming about what you wish I was thinking to find that out. It ain't like I haven't stated my actual point explicitly over and over again.

 

[stevevw]

There's nothing confusing about the fact that I didn't claim what I didn't state.

I guess you'll have to go back and reread my posts without dreaming about what you wish I was thinking to find that out. It ain't like I haven't stated my actual point explicitly over and over again.

My point is that if I "shouldn't" have to conform to your way of determining the truth and facts of a matter then there are no rules for determining the truth and facts and therefore you cannot even make your arguement in the first place as being valid.

If you insist that your way of determining truth and facts is the only way to determine truth and facts that apply then you are making your way the only rule that we can apply to determine things.

If you insist that I have to conform to these rules so you can prove your arguement then isn't this another way of saying that I "should" therefore conform to your rules. Otherwise we abandon any rules to conform to a specific way of determining truth and fact.

 

[Moral Orel]

My point is that if I "shouldn't" have to conform to your way of determining the truth and facts of a matter then there are no rules for determining the truth and facts and therefore you cannot even make your arguement in the first place as being valid.

If you insist that your way of determining truth and facts is the only way to determine truth and facts that apply then you are making your way the only rule that we can apply to determine things.

If you insist that I have to conform to these rules so you can prove your arguement then isn't this another way of saying that I "should" therefore conform to your rules. Otherwise we abandon any rules to conform to a specific way of determining truth and fact.

You just keep saying the same thing over and over again. You lost, get over it.

 

[stevevw]

You just keep saying the same thing over and over again. You lost, get over it.

So do I have an obligation to conform to your way of determining truth and fact (logical arguements) or not.

 

[Moral Orel]

Likewise you are doing the same. So how can I lose if there is no way we "should" determine fact and truth. Like I said it becomes a stalemate.

It isn't a stalemate when my statements are true and your statements are false. Let's go back to the glass analogy.

If I drop glass on concrete it will break. I can state this as fact even if I do not state that "I should" or "I should not" break the glass. Do you understand that? Yes or no.

I have never seen you address whether we have an obligation to use a particular method to determine truth and fact.

Yes you have.

 

[stevevw]

It isn't a stalemate when my statements are true and your statements are false. Let's go back to the glass analogy.

If I drop glass on concrete it will break. I can state this as fact even if I do not state that "I should" or "I should not" break the glass. Do you understand that? Yes or no.

Yes I do. But I am not talking about an action. I am talking about epistemics (how we cognitively justifiy knowledge and belief). So what fact (method/rules) do you use to show whether knowledge and belief are proper and justified to prove your arguements.

Yes you have.

Ok I know that you have shown me your logical arguements based on validity. But that is not what I am saying. I am talking about whether anyone has an obligation to use any specific method to determine what is justified, valid, truth, fact. IE only evdienced based or rational knowledge is justified and proper as opposed to non-evdienced based, arbitrary or fantasy knowledge).

So I am asking "do I have an obligation to use your specific method/rules of showing whether knowledge and beliefs is proper and justified".

 

[stevevw]

I am interested in why so many people think moral realism is a reasonable position to take. I have noticed that antirealism usually objects to realism as either an error in thinking or an illusion because its really about our feelings/desires for something and we make it seem like morals.

But I am interested why this should be the case. Why is it that the objection to realism has to make realist deluded or incapable of thinking correctly. Despite this why do realist persist and isn't reducing objections to errors and illusion under appreciating that realist are capable of understand the objections but still supporting realism because of good reason.

Why can't it be that the reason most people think in realist terms is because realism is true. It seems to me as the most reasonable and simplest explanation. I know this sounds like a bunch of fallacies but I think they are legit questions.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes I do.

Then you understand that a method can exist and be described truthfully without "implying" a prescription. That we can know truthfully what results from that method without ever "implying" that the method "should" be undertook. And now you understand that there is a method which exists for justifying true statements that can be accurately described without ever "implying" that we "should" use that method. Dropping a piece of glass is a method for breaking the glass; and reasoning is a method for justifying claims. Neither requires any mention of the word "should" or "ought".

But I am not talking about an action. I am talking about epistemics (how we cognitively justifiy knowledge and belief).

Yes, you are talking about an action as well. The word "justify" is a verb, an action. All verbs are actions. There is a method for breaking glass whether we "should" or "should not" break the glass. There is a method for justifying true claims whether we "should" or "should not" justify them.

So what fact (method/rules) do you use to show whether knowledge and belief are proper and justified to prove your arguements.

Just the very basics of logic.

I know this sounds like a bunch of fallacies but I think they are legit questions.

They sounds like fallacies because they are text book shifting the burden of proof fallacies.