Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

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".

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.

Just the very basics of logic.


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

Let me think about this for a while. I appreciate your patience and info on this. As I said I am learning as I go so I just need to digest this and get back to you. I think we are getting to some of the underlying issues about how we can determine truth.

But I think epistemic is more fundamental than an act of breaking a glass as a descriptive fact. Its more about the measurement of what process leads up to one breaking the glass.

But even this is not a true reflection of what’s involved as its not even about anything happening in the physical world. It’s all about cognitive states and whether they are justified or not and what methods we use to determine truth. So its more about metaphysics. What is the correct process for determining facts and truth in the first place as opposed to other ways..

But I still cannot get my head around how to articulate this so give me a bit of time. In the meantime I think I remember you stating there are no epistemic norms. Having epistemic norms is important to whether there are rules governing how we determine what is truth (proper and justified knowledge and belief).

I have read many articles that seem to take epistemic norms" as a given. So it seems there is much agreement on this. How can this be if you claim there are no epistemic norms?

 

[Moral Orel]

Let me think about this for a while. I appreciate your patience and info on this. As I said I am learning as I go so I just need to digest this and get back to you. I think we are getting to some of the underlying issues about how we can determine truth.

But I think epistemic is more fundamental than an act of breaking a glass as a descriptive fact. Its more about the measurement of what process leads up to one breaking the glass.

But even this is not a true reflection of what’s involved as its not even about anything happening in the physical world. It’s all about cognitive states and whether they are justified or not and what methods we use to determine truth. So its more about metaphysics. What is the correct process for determining facts and truth in the first place as opposed to other ways..

No, it's a perfect analogy.

But I still cannot get my head around how to articulate this so give me a bit of time. In the meantime I think I remember you stating there are no epistemic norms. Having epistemic norms is important to whether there are rules governing how we determine what is truth (proper and justified knowledge and belief).

I have read many articles that seem to take epistemic norms" as a given. So it seems there is much agreement on this. How can this be if you claim there are no epistemic norms?

Is that not what we're already discussing?

 

[Kylie]

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.

An act being carried out can be objective. "It's an objective fact that Kylie walked to her letterbox."

That is a very different thing to saying whether the action was objectively morally correct or not.

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.

Absolute rubbish. How many times do I have to tell you this? I do not have to tolerate any and all moral viewpoints just because I think morality is subjective.

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.

No. Again, I have told you this many times.

If a person is racist and thinks black people are inferior, then that affects other people. Specifically, it affects the black people this person encounters. He could deny a job to a black person, or refuse to serve them, for example.

But someone else liking Star Wars doesn't affect anyone else at all, does it? But if that person who loves Star Wars comes to me and says, "Okay, Kylie, I love Star Wars, so you aren't allowed to watch Star Trek any more, because it's an inferior show," then that is affecting me, and I'm going to tell the person to go away from me, probably using some very rude words.

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.

Again, rubbish.

If I see person A treating a black person in a racist manner, then I can use EMPATHY to put myself in the position of the black person, get an idea for how I would feel in their place, and base my conclusion on that.

I've explained this to you many times. I can only assume at this point you are ignoring me.

Just because there is an objective moral truth doesn't mean everyone has to agree on it.

But if there is an objective moral truth, then you should be able to explain and describe it using the kind of structured formal language we use for mathematics and logic. And yet, despite me asking you to do so for months now, you have completely failed to do so!

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.

Why not? Physics is objective, and people are forced into obeying the laws of physics.

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.

IU can not personally think of any such situation.

However, that is my own subjective point of view.

There are plenty of racist people who could give you lots of examples. They could say, "Use a racist slur whenever someone from Country X drives in a way that is not absolutely perfect, because we all know that people from Country X are terrible drivers and should not be allowed on the road."

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.

yes, you COULD say that, but you would need to support that claim, and so far you have failed to do so.

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.

And your problem here is that you are assuming that there MUST be an objective answer.

 

[stevevw]

No, it's a perfect analogy.

OK so you identified the act of breaking a glass as a fact. Its a physical act that we can observe and measure. Can you tell the the fact/s we can measure for cognitive states to determine proper and justified belief and knowledge.

Is that not what we're already discussing?

Yes so thats why I am posing the question. You claim there are no epistemic norms yet most philosophers claim there are. So I am faced with the problem of who do I believe with these two contradictory claims. Are you saying those philosophers who claim there are epistemic norms are wrong and in error or deluded in their thinking.

 

[Moral Orel]

OK so you identified the act of breaking a glass as a fact. Its a physical act that we can observe and measure. Can you tell the the fact/s we can measure for cognitive states to determine proper and justified belief and knowledge.

True or false:

N is not equal to not-N

Yes so thats why I am posing the question.

You're posing a question that's been asked and answered repeatedly. I won't indulge you wasting my time.

 

[stevevw]

An act being carried out can be objective. "It's an objective fact that Kylie walked to her letterbox."

That is a very different thing to saying whether the action was objectively morally correct or not.

But the act of walking to your letter box itself has no evaluative context. Moral acts are different to descriptive acts about the world. So for example the act of stealing. We have the physical act which can be judged as right or wrong.

Absolute rubbish. How many times do I have to tell you this? I do not have to tolerate any and all moral viewpoints just because I think morality is subjective.

I am not saying you have to tolerate abhorrent acts. I am saying the subjective moral system has to tolerate abhorrent acts. Just like the subjective view of someone liking sheeps brains may be abhorrent to someone it has to be recognised and accepted as a valid and legitimate subjective view because it is never wrong and therefore has to be tolerated by the subjective system.

Thats how a subjective system works doesn't it. In fact right and wrong don't even come into the equation as there is no right and wrong beyond the subject. Its just differences in views about something be it food or moral acts.

No. Again, I have told you this many times.

If a person is racist and thinks black people are inferior, then that affects other people. Specifically, it affects the black people this person encounters. He could deny a job to a black person, or refuse to serve them, for example.

So when that happens can we say they are objectively wrong regardless of personal opinion or is it just a matter of opinion.

But someone else liking Star Wars doesn't affect anyone else at all, does it? But if that person who loves Star Wars comes to me and says, "Okay, Kylie, I love Star Wars, so you aren't allowed to watch Star Trek any more, because it's an inferior show," then that is affecting me, and I'm going to tell the person to go away from me, probably using some very rude words.

Yet if subjective preferences for TV were anything like morality then disallowing you to watch a TV that is deemed wrong is OK. Just like its OK to disallow racist from being racist with laws that stop racism.

Again, rubbish.

If I see person A treating a black person in a racist manner, then I can use EMPATHY to put myself in the position of the black person, get an idea for how I would feel in their place, and base my conclusion on that.

I've explained this to you many times. I can only assume at this point you are ignoring me.

And I have explained many times that this is using an objective basis to determine what is right and wrong. You have used a specific measure outside your subjective view which is empathy (the golden rule).

So we have an independent measure and if anyone subjective disagrees we can say they are objectively wrong against that measure. Its not subjective because you are now making it the measure in the world and not just applying to you.

But if there is an objective moral truth, then you should be able to explain and describe it using the kind of structured formal language we use for mathematics and logic. And yet, despite me asking you to do so for months now, you have completely failed to do so!

I think I have. For example lets use the racist example. Racism = being wrong just like 2+2=4. There is no other answer, its a fact. If you think racism is not wrong then you would have to explain why it is OK to do. Just like if you thought 2+2 doesnt equal 4 you would have to explain why this is so.

Why not? Physics is objective, and people are forced into obeying the laws of physics.

No they are not. People defy the laws of physics all the time. Take anyone who disputes the laws of physics like the Flat Earth society or like those who think smoking, taking drugs or driving at high speeds through populated areas is OK ect ect.

IU can not personally think of any such situation.

However, that is my own subjective point of view.

So is racism wrong in the world, outside your personal subjective view.

There are plenty of racist people who could give you lots of examples. They could say, "Use a racist slur whenever someone from Country X drives in a way that is not absolutely perfect, because we all know that people from Country X are terrible drivers and should not be allowed on the road."

So can we say that they are wrong regardless of their subjective rationalizations, wrong outside yours or anyones personal view.

yes, you COULD say that, but you would need to support that claim, and so far you have failed to do so.

You keep missing part of the evidence. The fact that we cannot justify racism and make it wrong even as a law shows we are making it objective. Not just because of agreement but because as you have pointed out it harms others.

Objective morality means that the moral truth stands regardless of subjective views. It stands as a truth in the world independent from personal views. That is exactly what is happening with acts like racism. Anyone who has the subjective view that racism is ok to do will be shut down and even prosecuted.

Yet if morality was truely subjective then we could not do that as a subjective view would still be just a view of the subject and never wrong in the world. So agreement alone cannot justify forcing everyone to conform to a moral truth as agreement alone doesn't make it right or wrong. Even if the majority of people in the world said that racism was OK we would still make racism wrong for the objective fact that it affects people as you have acknowledged.

And your problem here is that you are assuming that there MUST be an objective answer.

But isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say morality must be subjective because people disagree about morality. So this shows that whichever way we want to claim what morality is whether subjective or objective that part of the evdience is about how humans behave. How they treat morality and make it what it is in the wrold. That then becomes the reality because that is a reflection of what people really believe.

When it comes to morality it doesn't matter which way we choose. The important thing is that it comes down to a choice of there is either objective morality or subjective morality. Either way thats an objective choice.

Most people just happen to think its objective when they measure acts like racism. They think racism is either right or wrong and they deem it wrong and there is no room for subjective thinking.

Otherwise if we make it subjective then racism is neither right or wrong in the world and then we end up with an undefined act which we can never say is really wrong in any objective way. People realize this and that is why morality requires a determination of being either right or wrong. Mosy people side with it being objectively wrong regardless of subjective views.

 

[stevevw]

True or false:

N is not equal to not-N

true.

You're posing a question that's been asked and answered repeatedly. I won't indulge you wasting my time.

So why do you think the majority of philosophers disagree with you and think there are epistemic norms.

 

[Kylie]

But the act of walking to your letter box itself has no evaluative context. Moral acts are different to descriptive acts about the world. So for example the act of stealing. We have the physical act which can be judged as right or wrong.

I don't know how you can go from saying one physical act (me walking to the letter box) has no evaluative context, and then immediately start saying that we can judge physical acts as right or wrong.

I am not saying you have to tolerate abhorrent acts. I am saying the subjective moral system has to tolerate abhorrent acts. Just like the subjective view of someone liking sheeps brains may be abhorrent to someone it has to be recognised and accepted as a valid and legitimate subjective view because it is never wrong and therefore has to be tolerated by the subjective system.

No, the subjective system says that such viewpoints can exist. It says nothing about whether they should be tolerated or not.

Thats how a subjective system works doesn't it. In fact right and wrong don't even come into the equation as there is no right and wrong beyond the subject. Its just differences in views about something be it food or moral acts.

I don't know where you get your ideas from.

A subjective system can easily lead to people deciding things are right or wrong.

So when that happens can we say they are objectively wrong regardless of personal opinion or is it just a matter of opinion.

It's a matter of opinion because in the opinion of one group of people, such behaviour is wrong, but in the opinion of other people, such behavior is acceptable.

Honestly, I don't understand why you have trouble grasping this concept.

Yet if subjective preferences for TV were anything like morality then disallowing you to watch a TV that is deemed wrong is OK. Just like its OK to disallow racist from being racist with laws that stop racism.

Just like how I decided not to let my daughter watch "Species" when she was very young. Funny, that.

And I have explained many times that this is using an objective basis to determine what is right and wrong. You have used a specific measure outside your subjective view which is empathy (the golden rule).

So we have an independent measure and if anyone subjective disagrees we can say they are objectively wrong against that measure. Its not subjective because you are now making it the measure in the world and not just applying to you.

How in the world do you figure that my sense of empathy is outside my subjective view?

I mean, really, how? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I think I have. For example lets use the racist example. Racism = being wrong just like 2+2=4. There is no other answer, its a fact. If you think racism is not wrong then you would have to explain why it is OK to do. Just like if you thought 2+2 doesnt equal 4 you would have to explain why this is so.

No, that isn't close to what I'm talking about.

I can just as easily say, "Star Trek is better than Star Wars just like 1+1=2. Look! I just objectively proved Trek is better than Wars!

All you have done is claim that your subjective morality is like objective maths and assumed people will just accept you at your word.

No they are not. People defy the laws of physics all the time. Take anyone who disputes the laws of physics like the Flat Earth society or like those who think smoking, taking drugs or driving at high speeds through populated areas is OK ect ect.

Yeah, those aren't violations of the laws of physics.

So is racism wrong in the world, outside your personal subjective view.

How in the world did you get that from what I said? I never said any such thing.

So can we say that they are wrong regardless of their subjective rationalizations, wrong outside yours or anyones personal view.

We cannot say they are objectively wrong in the same way we can say "1+1=3" is objectively wrong.

You keep missing part of the evidence. The fact that we cannot justify racism and make it wrong even as a law shows we are making it objective. Not just because of agreement but because as you have pointed out it harms others.

And as I've told you countless times before, there are plenty of people who CAN justify racism. The fact we disagree with their views is irrelevant.

And Again, as I've also ytold you countless times before, I do not dispute the fact that there are things which cause objective harm. I'm saying that the harm caused varies depending on the situation, thus we can not say that a particular racial slur causes X amount of harm.

Objective morality means that the moral truth stands regardless of subjective views. It stands as a truth in the world independent from personal views. That is exactly what is happening with acts like racism. Anyone who has the subjective view that racism is ok to do will be shut down and even prosecuted.

Yet if morality was truely subjective then we could not do that as a subjective view would still be just a view of the subject and never wrong in the world. So agreement alone cannot justify forcing everyone to conform to a moral truth as agreement alone doesn't make it right or wrong. Even if the majority of people in the world said that racism was OK we would still make racism wrong for the objective fact that it affects people as you have acknowledged.

So what?

There was once a time when people said sex outside marriage was objectively morally wrong, and yet now we do not share that viewpoint. If they could be wrong about the moral value of premarital sex, why not about any other moral viewpoint?

But isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say morality must be subjective because people disagree about morality. So this shows that whichever way we want to claim what morality is whether subjective or objective that part of the evdience is about how humans behave. How they treat morality and make it what it is in the wrold. That then becomes the reality because that is a reflection of what people really believe.

Don't know how in the world you reach that conclusion.

When it comes to morality it doesn't matter which way we choose. The important thing is that it comes down to a choice of there is either objective morality or subjective morality. Either way thats an objective choice.

The fact that a choice is made is objective. That does not mean that what we base our decision on is objective.

Most people just happen to think its objective when they measure acts like racism. They think racism is either right or wrong and they deem it wrong and there is no room for subjective thinking.

Of course. But people thinking something is objective is not enough to prove that it is objective.

Otherwise if we make it subjective then racism is neither right or wrong in the world and then we end up with an undefined act which we can never say is really wrong in any objective way. People realize this and that is why morality requires a determination of being either right or wrong. Mosy people side with it being objectively wrong regardless of subjective views.

Where do you get this ridiculous notion that we have to be wishy washy about something unless it's objectively right or wrong?

 

[Moral Orel]

true.

Well then you agree that the methods of logic and reasoning function without mention of whether we "should" or "should not" use it and nothing else needs to be said on the matter.

So why do you think the majority of philosophers disagree with you and think there are epistemic norms.

I don't care.

 

[stevevw]

I don't know how you can go from saying one physical act (me walking to the letter box) has no evaluative context, and then immediately start saying that we can judge physical acts as right or wrong.

So is there a difference in walking to a letter box to get a letter and walking to a letter box to put a bomb in it to kill the postman.

No, the subjective system says that such viewpoints can exist. It says nothing about whether they should be tolerated or not.

Yes it does. Subjective views are those of the subjects preferences and opinions which are never wrong to the subject.

I don't know where you get your ideas from.

A subjective system can easily lead to people deciding things are right or wrong.

If the subjective views of the subject can never be wrong for the subject then how can you be intolerant to a subjects view when it not wrong in any objective way.

You may think their view is abhorrent but each person thinks their view is correct and they all have a right to sit at the table of subjective views.

It's a matter of opinion because in the opinion of one group of people, such behaviour is wrong, but in the opinion of other people, such behavior is acceptable.

Honestly, I don't understand why you have trouble grasping this concept.

So are you saying we cannot objectively say a child molester is morally wrong. Because its only an opinion it cannot be wrong as opinions are never wrong.

We have to be able to clearly and independently determine what is right and wrong. Otherwise we would have to say we have no objective way to declare any act wrong. If its just an opinion then that doesn't mean they are really doing something wrong as "its just your opinion".

Just like how I decided not to let my daughter watch "Species" when she was very young. Funny, that.

And what was that determination based on. Perhaps that it was unsuitable because it contained inappropriate content.

Say your daughter was at a friends and their parent let her watch "Species" because they had the view that the movie "Species" is ok for kids to watch. You can't just force your opinion on others as there is no justification if you don't have any valid reason. They will just say "stop forcing your opinion on me". You have your opinions and I have mine".

If you choose to enforce your opinion anyway and stop your daughter then that is not a valid reason but rather dictating your moral views onto others.

How in the world do you figure that my sense of empathy is outside my subjective view?
I mean, really, how? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Well if your sense of empathy is only ever relevant and applied for you then how can empathy ever be something that can be applied to others/society to stop racism. The fact is we don't just feel others pain and then not do something about it. That would make any moral value you have mute as it can never become reality in the world.

We have to be able to apply our morals to others so that we can have a stable and just society. But when you take that empathy and apply it to others you are making it a measure beyond you and real in the world.

No, that isn't close to what I'm talking about.

I can just as easily say, "Star Trek is better than Star Wars just like 1+1=2. Look! I just objectively proved Trek is better than Wars!

All you have done is claim that your subjective morality is like objective maths and assumed people will just accept you at your word.

No saying Star Trek is objectively better than Star Wars is only an objective truth to you and only you. Its not an objective fact beyond you in the world like Math or morality.

We can point to Math facts beyond us showing 2+2=4 by using an independent formula. We can show rape or stealing = morally wrong by showing the destruction rape and stealing causes to individuals and society through an independent formula such as science.

Yeah, those aren't violations of the laws of physics.

OK so someone thinking the earth is physically flat and not a sphere is about physical laws such as a sphere as opposed to a flat object. To have a flat earth requires completly different physical laws and rejecting current ones.

How in the world did you get that from what I said? I never said any such thing.

I asked is racism wrong beyond the subjects personal view. You said that you and I think racism is wrong but thats our subjective view. You then gave examples of peoples and cultures subjective view where they are racist. So I asked you again "can we say that racism is wrong beyond the subject and cultures view. Its a simple and natural follow on question.

We cannot say they are objectively wrong in the same way we can say "1+1=3" is objectively wrong.

So therefore we cannot really say in any independent true sense outside personal views that racism is wrong. Is that right.

And as I've told you countless times before, there are plenty of people who CAN justify racism. The fact we disagree with their views is irrelevant.

Well it is relevant because if someone says racism is ok to do and another says its not ok to do then we have to make a determination as to who is correct.

And Again, as I've also ytold you countless times before, I do not dispute the fact that there are things which cause objective harm. I'm saying that the harm caused varies depending on the situation, thus we can not say that a particular racial slur causes X amount of harm.

But can we say that the act itself regardless of harm is wrong to do for anyone regardless of their personal views.

So what?

There was once a time when people said sex outside marriage was objectively morally wrong, and yet now we do not share that viewpoint. If they could be wrong about the moral value of premarital sex, why not about any other moral viewpoint?

The fact that we look back and say that it was wrong points to some objective measure to be able to say that past views were wrong. Otherwise if there is no objective measure then we could change our morals every year with any sort of behaviour and there would be no measure as to what is right or wrong.

It would only change like food tastes does and taste for food is never morally wrong just different. Therefore changing morals are never about what is right and wrong but just differences over time. We can't look back and say that actions were wrong back then and now we have got things right as there is no objective basis to measure things.

Don't know how in the world you reach that conclusion.

The evdience you use to support subjective morality is all about how people behave morally. How is this different to the way I am supporting mobjective morality.

The fact that a choice is made is objective. That does not mean that what we base our decision on is objective.

So when you say that something is wrong because it harms others isnt that an objective measure. You have moved from your personal opinion to an objective measure of harm outside yourself.

If someone asked you why an act is wrong you will appeal to the fact that a person is affected negatively in some way be it wellbeing, trauma, costs the person something, has bad consequences in some way. You may give more detail such as the physical or psychological facts about how a person is negativeky affected.

Otherwise if its just a personal opinion it doesn't matter whether the person is affected negatively because its just your preference or feeling which can never be wrong outside yourself. So you are stepping from internal subjective thinking to applying independent measures outside your personal internal thinking.

Of course. But people thinking something is objective is not enough to prove that it is objective.

So therefore we are left with a situation where we can never say any immoral act is wrong in the world. Whereas I think we can and do make certain acts objectively wrong because we have good reasons to.

I think we can say that harming others with racism is always wrong no matter what opinions people have. That seems to be the most reasonable position to take. It allows us to condemn racism and disregard personal opinions.

Where do you get this ridiculous notion that we have to be wishy washy about something unless it's objectively right or wrong?

Because subjective views are wishy washy when they are applied outside the subject. They don't mean anything about whether an act is really right or wrong in the world.

 

[stevevw]

Well then you agree that the methods of logic and reasoning function without mention of whether we "should" or "should not" use it and nothing else needs to be said on the matter.

Except metphysically I could ask why do we have to use "logic and reasoning" as the exclusive method. Why can't we use another method like intuition or fantasy or picking the answers out of a hat. Why can't we use no method at all.

You may think logic and reasoning is a method of determing the truth but that means nothing if we are not oblighed to use it. I could disagree that we should use logic and reason in our debate because I don't want to be held to your method of determining things. What happens then.

I don't care.

I would have thought that was a concern in that it contradicts your claims. If someone on this site made certain claims and then I find most of the expert literature claiming the opposite I would be skeptical of their claim. I would want to address this issue if I like winning arguements.

 

[Moral Orel]

Except metphysically I could ask why do we have to use "logic and reasoning" as the exclusive method. Why can't we use another method like intuition or fantasy or picking the answers out of a hat. Why can't we use no method at all.

Those methods do not reliably give us true statements. You do not have to use reason and logic, you are free to use methods that lead to false statements as you please.

You may think logic and reasoning is a method of determing the truth but that means nothing if we are not oblighed to use it.

You may think that dropping glass on concrete is a method of shattering glass, but that means nothing if we are not obliged to shatter glass. You are speaking nonsense.

I could disagree that we should use logic and reason in our debate because I don't want to be held to your method of determining things. What happens then.

I've never stated "we should use logic and reason in our debate", so who exactly are you disagreeing with? So you see you can use fantasy because you do use fantasy. You make false statements when you do, but that's your choice and you are free to make it.

I can say truthfully that you do not use logic and reason in debate, and that is why I point out so many false statements made by you. I have no need for "should".

I would have thought that was a concern in that it contradicts your claims. If someone on this site made certain claims and then I find most of the expert literature claiming the opposite I would be skeptical of their claim. I would want to address this issue if I like winning arguements.

I'd gladly address an actual argument if you had one.

 

[stevevw]

Those methods do not reliably give us true statements. You do not have to use reason and logic, you are free to use methods that lead to false statements as you please.

But do false logical statement mean that something is really untrue. I remember you made the arguement about eating people which seemed absurd. I have read that logical arguements can still be false.

In logic, an argument can be invalid even if its conclusion is true, and an argument can be valid even if its conclusion is false.
What Is Logical Isn’t Always True

You may think that dropping glass on concrete is a method of shattering glass, but that means nothing if we are not obliged to shatter glass. You are speaking nonsense.

I've never stated "we should use logic and reason in our debate", so who exactly are you disagreeing with? So you see you can use fantasy because you do use fantasy. You make false statements when you do, but that's your choice and you are free to make it.

I can say truthfully that you do not use logic and reason in debate, and that is why I point out so many false statements made by you. I have no need for "should".

OK well at the end of the day despite formal logic it seems most people still think moral realism is a reasonable position to take and they also think epistemic norms are a given.

So I am left with this problem of why is this so. Is there a good reason for this. Is there something else that informs people about this that I am missing or is it some intuitive sense that is weighty enough to still give good support to think moral realism is true. That I am still pondering.

I'd gladly address an actual argument if you had one.

Like I said I am not good at formal logic. I know what I am reading makes arguements for epistemic norms but I will have to be able to understand this enough to break it down to a formal arguement which for me will be hard.

I may be able as you say at least give reasoning which I thought I had already done. But I will try to refine this better and get back to you. Somehow I think if its not purely logical that this is not going to be good enough for you. But I do like that you provide challenges as this helps define things.

 

[Moral Orel]

But do false logical statement mean that something is really untrue. I remember you made the arguement about eating people which seemed absurd. I have read that logical arguements can still be false.

In logic, an argument can be invalid even if its conclusion is true, and an argument can be valid even if its conclusion is false.
What Is Logical Isn’t Always True

Arguments can appear to use logic when they actually don't.

OK well at the end of the day despite formal logic it seems most people still think moral realism is a reasonable position to take and they also think epistemic norms are a given.

So I am left with this problem of why is this so. Is there a good reason for this. Is there something else that informs people about this that I am missing or is it some intuitive sense that is weighty enough to still give good support to think moral realism is true. That I am still pondering.

Intuition is what you are trying to prove is accurate. Using the thing you are trying to prove, as evidence for proving itself, is an example of not using logic while giving the appearance of using logic.

Like I said I am not good at formal logic. I know what I am reading makes arguements for epistemic norms but I will have to be able to understand this enough to break it down to a formal arguement which for me will be hard.

I may be able as you say at least give reasoning which I thought I had already done. But I will try to refine this better and get back to you. Somehow I think if its not purely logical that this is not going to be good enough for you.

Correct. If you require things other than logical things to prove your argument, then you are being irrational by definition. But by all means, be irrational if you please.

 

[Kylie]

So is there a difference in walking to a letter box to get a letter and walking to a letter box to put a bomb in it to kill the postman.

Stop trying to shift the goalposts. You said that physical acts does not have an evaluative context, and then you said it does.

Face it, you're just wrong, and your attempts to shift the goalposts are obvious.

Yes it does. Subjective views are those of the subjects preferences and opinions which are never wrong to the subject.

So what?

If we are talking about someone else's view, then I'm not the subject, am I?

If the subjective views of the subject can never be wrong for the subject then how can you be intolerant to a subjects view when it not wrong in any objective way.

Because it goes against my own preferences! Where in the world do you get the ridiculous idea that I must be tolerant of ANYTHING that is not objective?

Seriously, this is not a complicated thing.

Given your inability to understand even simple concepts regarding morality, even when I have explained them multiple times, I can only conclude you are trolling at this point.

You may think their view is abhorrent but each person thinks their view is correct and they all have a right to sit at the table of subjective views.

So what?

A person is welcome to believe that manure is the most delicious thing in the world, but I still have every right to turn them away when they turn up at my dinner party with a big plate full of it.

So are you saying we cannot objectively say a child molester is morally wrong. Because its only an opinion it cannot be wrong as opinions are never wrong.

Either you're trolling or you are suggesting that I think child molestation is acceptable, and that I would allow it to happen even if I don't want to do it myself.

So, which is it? Are you trolling, or are you accusing me of saying that child abuse is permissible?

We have to be able to clearly and independently determine what is right and wrong. Otherwise we would have to say we have no objective way to declare any act wrong. If its just an opinion then that doesn't mean they are really doing something wrong as "its just your opinion".

Absolute garbage.

We have to be able to clearly and independently determine what TV shows are good and bad. Otherwise we would have to say we have no objective way to declare any show bad. If its just an opinion then that doesn't mean the show is bad as "its just your opinion".

See how ridiculous that logic is? Is it any wonder that I can only conclude you are trolling?

And what was that determination based on. Perhaps that it was unsuitable because it contained inappropriate content.

Strong sexual scenes, scary scenes. But I can acknowledge that my belief that the movie was too sexual and too scary for her were my subjective opinions. That doesn't mean I wasn't able to use them as a basis for whether I let her watch the movie.

Say your daughter was at a friends and their parent let her watch "Species" because they had the view that the movie "Species" is ok for kids to watch. You can't just force your opinion on others as there is no justification if you don't have any valid reason. They will just say "stop forcing your opinion on me". You have your opinions and I have mine".

If you choose to enforce your opinion anyway and stop your daughter then that is not a valid reason but rather dictating your moral views onto others.

Me asking them not to show "Species" to my daughter is not me pushing my opinion on them, since I am not saying that they can't show the movie to their own child.

Your inability to understand this point despite the fact I have spoken of one person pushing their ideas onto others many times leads me to conclude you are either ignoring me or you are a troll.

Well if your sense of empathy is only ever relevant and applied for you then how can empathy ever be something that can be applied to others/society to stop racism. The fact is we don't just feel others pain and then not do something about it. That would make any moral value you have mute as it can never become reality in the world.

Once again, you are acting like a troll. I've gone over this many times.

And I'm leaving it here. Everything you are saying here indicates to me you are nothing more than a troll, and I'm done wasting my time on you. If you aren't a troll, then you need to pay attention to my responses, because you repeatedly ask me the same questions even after I have answered them. In either case, trying to have a discussion with you is a waste of my time, and I've got better things to do.

 

[stevevw]

Arguments can appear to use logic when they actually don't.

Intuition is what you are trying to prove is accurate. Using the thing you are trying to prove, as evidence for proving itself, is an example of not using logic while giving the appearance of using logic.

Correct. If you require things other than logical things to prove your argument, then you are being irrational by definition. But by all means, be irrational if you please.

Then it would folow that the majority of philosophers who support moral realism are irrational.

 

[Moral Orel]

Then it would folow that the majority of philosophers who support moral realism are irrational.

So what if they are? It isn't such a vast majority that it would make such a thing seem Earth-shattering.

 

[stevevw]

So what if they are? It isn't such a vast majority that it would make such a thing seem Earth-shattering.

I would say 62.1% supporting moral realism as opposed to 26.1% supporting anti-realism is a pretty big majority. I cannot believe that the vast majority of philosophers are irrational.

Supoport for moral realism has actually increased since the last Phil survey so it seems as we come to understand morals better more philosophers are siding with moral realism as being the most reasonable position to take. They think its reasonable and its not just some irrational position or quasi theism.

So something else is going on. Perhaps they take into consideration other factors. I know that most philosophers also support intuition as the basis for moral realism as evdience so perhaps this has something to do with it.

Another significant finding was that only 26.1% supported anti-realism. I think in reality anti-realism is the more irrational position as its contradictory, self defeating and impracticle to apply.

 

[Moral Orel]

I would say 62.1% supporting moral realism as opposed to 26.1% supporting anti-realism is a pretty big majority. I cannot believe that the vast majority of philosophers are irrational.

62.1% is not a vast majority. I know you have some crazy math going on in your head, but even that is wrong. Let me spell it out for you.

62.1% of philosophers believe moral realism is true.
Moral realism is not true.
62.1% of moral philosophers believe something that is not true.

The other 37.9% are irrelevant.

I think in reality anti-realism is the more irrational position as its contradictory, self defeating and impracticle to apply.

None of those things are true.

 

[Kylie]

I would say 62.1% supporting moral realism as opposed to 26.1% supporting anti-realism is a pretty big majority. I cannot believe that the vast majority of philosophers are irrational.

Supoport for moral realism has actually increased since the last Phil survey so it seems as we come to understand morals better more philosophers are siding with moral realism as being the most reasonable position to take. They think its reasonable and its not just some irrational position or quasi theism.

So something else is going on. Perhaps they take into consideration other factors. I know that most philosophers also support intuition as the basis for moral realism as evdience so perhaps this has something to do with it.

Another significant finding was that only 26.1% supported anti-realism. I think in reality anti-realism is the more irrational position as its contradictory, self defeating and impracticle to apply.

When it comes to other things, though, the difference is far greater than a 62% for, 26% against.

Do we see 26% of astronomers against a heliocentric universe? Or a flat earth? Do we see 26% of biologists saying evolution isn't real?

No. When it comes to morality, the split is far closer to being an even split than it is for things that can actually be objectively shown.