How do Naturalists/Materialists account for the immateriality of morals, laws of logic or information?

[Ken-1122]

Then why do you keep using science as a way to refute objective morality.

(Ken)
I didn’t.

You keep saying I have not given evidence for objective morals. I assume you mean scientific evidence.

No. I mean how the words are defined; Objective as an adjective

objective

1. something that you plan to do or achieve: 2. based on real facts and not…

dictionary.cambridge.org

And morality as a noun

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Using the correct definition of the terms "objective" and "morality" provide evidence that morality is objective.

That is the problem, that it is assumed that everything that exists is material in nature.

If something was shown to exist but not be material, what characteristics would it have for you to say it is not material?

Are you saying all thoughts are imaginary.

Yes.

If that is the case then even the thought that there is such a thing as a material world out there is imaginary and make believe because 'thought' and 'imagination' are of Mind and come first before anything real outside of the Mind.

Yes! The THOUGHT that there is such a thing as material world is imaginary, but that thought does not take away from the fact that the material world is real.

AS mentioned above, how can you tell what is 'real/physical' when all you have is Mind to work that out and you said 'thought' which comes from Mind is imagination and make believe.

We don’t only have our mind to confirm reality, we also have our 5 senses.

 

[Ken-1122]

The point was if there wasn't such a thing as math then all you would be doing is moving rocks around. So moving rocks around doesn't prove math unless there is such a thing as math in the first place.

But there is such a thing as math, and moving rocks around as I described, proves 1+1=2.

But your assuming that this is the case without evidence remembering that correlations of brain activity don't prove consciousness is created by brain activity. It only associates behavior of the brain with consciousness. But brain behavior doesn't equal cause.

Actually it does; because if you get rid of the brain, you get rid of consciousness as well; this happens 100% of the time. Consciousness has never existed without a functioning brain.

Yes. If a person understands how nuclear weapons work then they will know the devastation this causes people and the planet. If humans are moral, empathetic and rational creatures and are capable of being honest with themselves then they would be lying if they said destroying people indiscriminately and destroying the planet with nuclear bombs is normally ok.

So why are conventional bombs okay, but nuclear bombs are not? If 1 nuclear bomb has the destruction of 2000 conventional bombs, why is it immoral to drop 1 nuclear bomb on a city like Nagasaki, but perfectly acceptable to drop 2000 conventional bombs on a city like Tokyo, even though far more people were killed by conventional bombs in Tokyo than was killed in Nagasaki?

How is it subjective. Are you saying there are no facts we can find regarding human caused climate change. Can't we measure say the pollution from human activity and say that is a contributing factor. Can't we sort out the vested interests and bias and facts regarding what is natural and human made climate change.

They don’t know exactly how much is caused by humans, all they have are estimations; and these estimations are not agreed upon.

I disagree. There are many examples of how people work for companies/organizations who have to suppress their moral views in order to keep their job. I remember the Qantas boss coming out in support of Same sex marriage which reflected the ethics of Qantas. So any employee who was opposed to SSM was made to feel uncomfortable and even have their job put at risk if they expressed their opposition to SSM. This actually happened in some organizations.

Years ago I used to work at McDonalds restaurant. My personal view was that Burger King had better food than McDonalds. Had I took it upon myself to express my personal views to all the customers while working, I would have been fired and rightly so. McDonalds did not force me to say their food was better, they only prevented me from saying theirs was worse; I had to keep my opinions to myself. Had McDonalds took a position on SSM, they could not force me to promote such a position, they could only prevent me from speaking out against it while at work. Do you consider this unfair of them?

Once again I disagree. Say for example a person who disagrees with transgender or gender ideology is working for a company that supports trans ideology. Do you think the person who views transgender's ideology as morally wrong could freely express that view while at work, in the lunch room or maybe even in their private life if the news got back to the company. I don't think they would last long. So many keep their views to themselves to keep their job.

That is the control a companies ethical stand can have on others in real life and it happens all the time. We hear about the high profile cases but its common among everyday people. I as a Christian I have to button my lips sometimes at work or volunteering because I disagree on ethical grounds. But if I made a stand on something like say gender ideology it would not go down well.

I don’t think anybody should be allowed to express sensitive political or religious views at work because it often leads to a hostile work environment.

Ah that's what Popov called 'sciences promissory note. "If we haven't got the naturalistic explanation now it will come in the future". But this is more a belief than science itself that no matter what the explanation will always be material because matter is all there is.

Again; what characteristics must something have in order not to be considered matter?

That is not going to prove objective morals if there is dispute over what is objective morals.

This question is not about proving objective morals, I’m asking you to give an example; (assuming morality is objective) of a moral issue that does not objectively align with your personal moral beliefs. Care to try again?

Murder is objectively wrong by the fact its called murder and not killing in self defense, or manslaughter. Murder means the unjustified taking of someone's life.

Murder is a legal term. Just because an act is called “murder” does not mean it is an unjustified killing. Never confuse what is legal with what is right.

 

[Ken-1122]

Everyone acts like there are moral truths they disagree with by the simple fact that we use moral truths such as norms, Human Rights and Ethical codes and people break them. Assuming they break them or act in opposition to them because they disagree with them under a subjective moral system.

But why would anyone acknowledge a moral truth they disagreed with. The fact that they know its a truth would mean they agree with it otherwise they are going against their own morals. If it wasn't an objective moral then it would not even be up for consideration.

I could technically say that I disagree with something that society makes a moral objective like say 'transgender ideology'. This goes against my moral views. Or people may hold a moral truth that black people were subhuman as they did in the 1800's but then as more understanding is gained change they moral view that this is wrong and that all humans have equal rights. So during that time there would have been people who disagreed with that moral objective or disagreed with the moral objectives of the objectors to the idea that blacks were subhuman.

The problem is people can claim morals are objective. But that doesn't mean the moral truth to a situation cannot be found. That is why I think we embody moral truths. We try our subjective ways even if we call them truth and find they are not actually the truth through living them out. Then we may try another way and find its not the truth either. Eventually we find the truth as we did with giving equal rights to colored people.

(Ken)
You aren’t gonna answer my question are you. I’ve asked you this question; I don’t know how many times, and each time you skip around it refusing, or unable to answer it. Doesn’t that tell you something?

I think from memory I asked what sort of proof you wanted. Like testing in a lab or perhaps from some other way such as our experience and beliefs. Like I said we live out morality and find the truth through our experience. So our experience has led to humans making murder morally wrong through just about every aspect of society be it Ethical codes, Human Rights, social norms and criminal law.

If anything was to even express the idea that murdering people was morally ok they would be ostracized and condemned. Their can be no better evidence than coming straight from the conscious person themselves.

The fact that you can only find subjective proof, instead of objective proof, shows murder is subjectively wrong, not objectively wrong

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
I didn’t.

I don't think you realize like many people when they are engaging in materialist thinking and using science as the other means for knowing reality and morality. Here is an example of how you are using scientific measure as the basis for everything.

stevevw said:
But that is not scientific. It jumps from the physical brain to consciousness without any account of how that exactly happens.

Ken said
Actually those who study the brain ( neurology) do know how this happens;

Your argument has been that the only way we can measure consciousness and thus transcendent phenomena like moral truth is though the physical brain. To measure this we have to use science through as you pointed out neurology. Even your claim that consciousness is created by the physical brain implies science is the only ,measure. Your contention is transcendent phenomena can only be verified through empirical sciences.

No. I mean how the words are defined; Objective as an adjective

But surely semantics is not the basis for evidence. That seems to depend on word meaning rather than ontology. I think there is a degree of clarifying what people are actually meaning but that doesn't follow that the clarified meaning is actually what reality is.

objective

1. something that you plan to do or achieve: 2. based on real facts and not…

dictionary.cambridge.org

And morality as a noun

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Using the correct definition of the terms "objective" and "morality" provide evidence that morality is objective.

The point is 'what are real facts' when it comes to morality. As you pointed out Math can reveal facts like 1+1=2 and this is not a physical fact. The rocks don't make it a fact but rather we accept that math is a stand alone fact about an aspect of reality.

Or like 'Justice'. We accept and acknowledge a 'Justice' principle in the universe. Its a stand alone truism and not anything physical or material yet justice can have real impact in the world.

So its certainly not clear what is real or unreal and when it comes to morality. As I keep saying and as you have acknowledged morality is beyond science so using its measuring method is a false analogy. That is why I ask "if you think there are real things or truths that transcend the material view and the scientific method and yet have some influence or effect in the world.

If something was shown to exist but not be material, what characteristics would it have for you to say it is not material?

Well phenomena like conscious experience the experience of (what it is like). Math is an immaterial abstract, transcendent phenomena like love, justice, kindness, pain, color ect are all immaterial but exist in the world.

In some ways even ,matter, itself is a transcendent idea because it proposes some material thing that exists beyond our own minds out there is the cosmos or beyond.

Yes.

Then the thought of there being some material realty beyond our thoughts is imaginary. Any thought that we can use the same thinking to sort out an objective world through science is also imaginary.

Yes! The THOUGHT that there is such a thing as material world is imaginary, but that thought does not take away from the fact that the material world is real.

Why, how does the same thinking of the brain you say is only imaginary suddenly becomes non-imaginary just by saying so. Its like saying there is 'free will' to choose and then using your free will to say there is no free will. Its self defeating logic.

We don’t only have our mind to confirm reality, we also have our 5 senses.

Isn't our sense also our Mind. How else can we conceptualize what our senses tell use. If there was no mind our senses would just be robotic and reacting to environment without any sense of 'self' within the environment.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
You aren’t gonna answer my question are you. I’ve asked you this question; I don’t know how many times, and each time you skip around it refusing, or unable to answer it. Doesn’t that tell you something?

Why should I answer a logical fallacy. Its not the knock down argument you think it is. How can someone cite an objective moral truth that they don't support. If its an objective moral truth then its going to be supported as a moral truth. Not being able to cite one doesn't show that there are no objective morals. Its fallacious thinking. That's why I don't answer it in the way you would like because what you want is illogical.

The fact that you can only find subjective proof, instead of objective proof, shows murder is subjectively wrong, not objectively wrong

But the evidence is not subjective as its objectively telling is what murder is and is not '. Your assuming that because there are different degrees of killing someone that this means they are personal subjective opinions. But degrees are not subjective as they are specific objective measures of behavior associated with a specific act.

Murder is 'unlawful and premeditated killing of someone with intent'. That draws a line as to what murder is and is not compared to say killing in self defense which is 'not premeditated or intentional'. These are objective measures of degrees. You can't have degrees of measuring the act of killing if you don't have an objective basis to go from.

So murder is the most wrong, then up a degree towards not as bad is 'manslaughter' then to the least bad 'killing in self defense'. But each degree has an objective measure that is based off the worst degree which is 1st degree murder. And we know that because we are most affected by murder of innocents but regard someone who takes a life to save others as justified even though they have still taken a life.

You seem to like word meanings. Even the dictionary meaning implies an objective base.

Murder—also called homicide—is the wilful killing of a person with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.
Murder, attempted murder and manslaughter.

 

[stevevw]

But there is such a thing as math, and moving rocks around as I described, proves 1+1=2.

Moving rocks around only reflects math, it is not Math in just moving rocks around. If there was no such thing as 1+1=2 then laying out 3 rocks would not mean anything. It only means something because there is such a thing as Math. But Math is a mind concept and has no direct link to anything physical. It only gives meaning to the physical which we can then say is something real because it can be applied to our lives.

Actually it does; because if you get rid of the brain, you get rid of consciousness as well; this happens 100% of the time. Consciousness has never existed without a functioning brain.

Getting rid of the brain doesn't get rid of consciousness anymore than getting rid of a radio box gets rid of radio waves. So the analogy is wrong. It may be that consciousness is something that exists in the universe and beyond. If Mind is behind the universe as with Math then perhaps Mind/consciousness is fundamental to all things and existed before all things. This seems to be a common idea that has been around for millennia from Plato, Aristotle to modern day ideas like the Wheelers Anthropic Participatory Principle
(John Wheeler's Participatory Universe), The mental Universe, Quantum Bayesianism and Panpsychism.

So why are conventional bombs okay, but nuclear bombs are not? If 1 nuclear bomb has the destruction of 2000 conventional bombs, why is it immoral to drop 1 nuclear bomb on a city like Nagasaki, but perfectly acceptable to drop 2000 conventional bombs on a city like Tokyo, even though far more people were killed by conventional bombs in Tokyo than was killed in Nagasaki?

Dropping bombs on people is not morally OK full stop. If you notice when we argue about when is it ok or not to drop bombs on people it comes down to reasoning whether its ethical. That considers all the circumstances and we then try to determine a truth about how we should act. That in itself points to some objective measure.

If it was just about 'how we feel' or 'what we prefer' to happen then it would not matter what the reasoning was. Therefore whoever makes the best case wins. But the best case could be any self proclaimed truth like in the case of the Iraqi war on terror, payback for the world trade center bombing or to get hands on resources or land.

But when we find the truth comes out later that these so called convincing arguments were based on a distortion of the truth we are outraged that the very people who proclaimed to represent peace and justice were themselves corrupt. All that would not happen if there was no way to determine what is moral or not.

They don’t know exactly how much is caused by humans, all they have are estimations; and these estimations are not agreed upon.

So does that means that we can never find out whether the estimations can be correct in the future. Even estimations are acknowledging the truth that humans have contributed to climate change. If we estimate that human % of contribution is somewhere between 5% and 10% then we still have evidence that humans contribute to climate change regardless of what degree.

The issue is 'do humans contribute to climate change'. Contributing somewhere between 5 and 10% is humans contributing to climate change. But what this also tells us is that perhaps our knowledge is yet to be updated about this issue. That we can measure if that % increases or decreases in the future. It also tells us that we need an objective basis to do that. That would be the human caused activities that pollute the world. We can measure that today and see if it increases. Then its a case that we model what those increases may do to the planet. Thats all science.

Years ago I used to work at McDonalds restaurant. My personal view was that Burger King had better food than McDonalds. Had I took it upon myself to express my personal views to all the customers while working, I would have been fired and rightly so. McDonalds did not force me to say their food was better, they only prevented me from saying theirs was worse; I had to keep my opinions to myself. Had McDonalds took a position on SSM, they could not force me to promote such a position, they could only prevent me from speaking out against it while at work. Do you consider this unfair of them?

Well yes because MacDonald's has nothing to do with SSM and peoples personal views on it. Its a retail food company. In fact according to Human Rights you have a right to express your views against SSM say in the lunch room or even the board room if it comes to it. So getting sacked for expressing your personal views on an issue that has nothing to do with the companies operations is unfair.

I don’t think anybody should be allowed to express sensitive political or religious views at work because it often leads to a hostile work environment.

That is not the fault of anyone who holds those views and may want to express them. That's the politically correct system the company operates in. It creates division and hostility towards difference. I can sit at a table with like minded people and be transparent and open about things. I can accept that the person next to me who may hold different views can express those and its not going to impact on our working relations and ability to meet the companies work.

We already know this about each other. But the current political system creates a divisive system where we now have to button our lips because its not about what

Again; what characteristics must something have in order not to be considered matter?

Its not that it has to be considered 'matter' but that there are such phenomenal facts or truth like laws in the world that are not made up of 'matter' yet can have an influence and effect on reality as we know it. Not like matter itself as a substance but in principle like 'matter' as a measuring stick for what is real or unreal.

I think you alluded to this when you said that consciousness and transcendent phenomena like justice and truth were different from scientifically measured quantities.

This question is not about proving objective morals, I’m asking you to give an example; (assuming morality is objective) of a moral issue that does not objectively align with your personal moral beliefs. Care to try again?

Its a wrong type of question to ask. Objective morals is about finding the moral truth about which way we should behave in a given moral situation. How can we know if there are objective morals that we disagree with when its not about what I think is morally right or wrong but what the truth of the matter is.

Like I said we all know these moral truths. Its just a case of finding them through intuition and reason. The fact that objective morals are the truth means its impossible for there to be objective morals outside the truth. So how can someone hold an objective moral outside the truth when it is the truth we are looking for.

Murder is a legal term. Just because an act is called “murder” does not mean it is an unjustified killing. Never confuse what is legal with what is right.

That is the common dictionary meaning, unlawful killing.

1: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2: to slaughter wantonly : SLAY

Definition of MURDER

the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person; specifically, law : such a crime committed under circumstances defined by statute; something very difficult or dangerous; something outrageous or blameworthy… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

As opposed to 'manslaughter' meaning
the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice

Manslaughter lacks malice which is an important difference between the 2 acts and implies an objective measure to tell that difference.

You could even add 'killing in self defense' for another difference between murder and manslaughter. Which only adds more support that there is an objective basis to tell these difference and its not based on personal opinion.

You do realize laws like murder are based on morality. Legal laws are not just about 'stopping people from behaving in certain ways. If that was the case we could have banned singing or dancing in public. Its about what is regarded as moral behavior as well. But even so even if we wanted to say that 'murder' is only about laws then we have an objective basis to not murder. Murder can be objectively wrong besides morality. But nevertheless objectively wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

Why should I answer a logical fallacy. Its not the knock down argument you think it is. How can someone cite an objective moral truth that they don't support.

(Ken)
Because in order to hold the position you are claiming, you must be able to cite an objective moral truth that you do not support; otherwise you have to claim you are the only one on earth morally perfect in your views and it doesn’t sound like you are willing to admit to something like that.

But the evidence is not subjective as its objectively telling is what murder is and is not '. Your assuming that because there are different degrees of killing someone that this means they are personal subjective opinions. But degrees are not subjective as they are specific objective measures of behavior associated with a specific act.

Murder is 'unlawful and premeditated killing of someone with intent'.

And what constitutes “unlawful” is completely subjective, making murder subjective.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
Because in order to hold the position you are claiming, you must be able to cite an objective moral truth that you do not support; otherwise you have to claim you are the only one on earth morally perfect in your views and it doesn’t sound like you are willing to admit to something like that.

I already said that we all have knowledge of these moral truths. So we all must have perfect knowledge of morality then if that is how you want to phrase it. I wouldn't say perfect knowledge. Its more like natural knowledge like knowledge of language or of music. Knowledge of moral truths are not as complicated or extensive as people think.

Basically all morals stem from how we treat others which can be summed up as 'treat others as you would want to be treated'. Just as Christ said that the entire mora law are contained in 2 commandments, the greatest was to love God with all your heart. The second was to 'love your neighbor as you loved yourself'.

So its not hard to come up with a list that relates to how you don't want to be treated such as others stealing from you, killing or assaulting you, cheating on you, hurting the ones you love, bearing false witness against you ect.

I think these are natural things we know because as conscious beings we can imagine and experience a sense of what that could be like and can put ourselves in the shoes of others. So I guess everyone has perfect knowledge of moral truths. Its not such a special thing after all.

And what constitutes “unlawful” is completely subjective, making murder subjective.

How can it be subjective. Can you explain how murder is measured subjectively.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't think you realize like many people when they are engaging in materialist thinking and using science as the other means for knowing reality and morality. Here is an example of how you are using scientific measure as the basis for everything.

stevevw said:
But that is not scientific. It jumps from the physical brain to consciousness without any account of how that exactly happens.

Ken said
Actually those who study the brain ( neurology) do know how this happens;

Your argument has been that the only way we can measure consciousness and thus transcendent phenomena like moral truth is though the physical brain. To measure this we have to use science through as you pointed out neurology. Even your claim that consciousness is created by the physical brain implies science is the only ,measure. Your contention is transcendent phenomena can only be verified through empirical sciences.

(Ken)
A Neurologist is a doctor, not a scientist.

But surely semantics is not the basis for evidence. That seems to depend on word meaning rather than ontology. I think there is a degree of clarifying what people are actually meaning but that doesn't follow that the clarified meaning is actually what reality is.

The point is 'what are real facts' when it comes to morality. As you pointed out Math can reveal facts like 1+1=2 and this is not a physical fact. The rocks don't make it a fact but rather we accept that math is a stand alone fact about an aspect of reality.

Or like 'Justice'. We accept and acknowledge a 'Justice' principle in the universe. Its a stand alone truism and not anything physical or material yet justice can have real impact in the world.

So its certainly not clear what is real or unreal and when it comes to morality. As I keep saying and as you have acknowledged morality is beyond science so using its measuring method is a false analogy. That is why I ask "if you think there are real things or truths that transcend the material view and the scientific method and yet have some influence or effect in the world.

Again; using the correct definition of the words “Objective” and “Morality can you give me evidence that morality is objective?

Well phenomena like conscious experience the experience of (what it is like). Math is an immaterial abstract, transcendent phenomena like love, justice, kindness, pain, color ect are all immaterial but exist in the world.

Again; you’re just mentioning a bunch of stuff that doesn’t have an actual existence, they are only a part of our thoughts. I’m talking about something that exist outside of our imaginations.

Then the thought of there being some material realty beyond our thoughts is imaginary. Any thought that we can use the same thinking to sort out an objective world through science is also imaginary.

Yes

Why, how does the same thinking of the brain you say is only imaginary suddenly becomes non-imaginary just by saying so.

It’s not by saying so, if I think of my car, that car becomes a part of my imagination, even though the car exists in reality.

Isn't our sense also our Mind.

No, our brain is not one of our senses. Our senses are what our brain uses to detect things that are real.

 

[Ken-1122]

Moving rocks around only reflects math, it is not Math in just moving rocks around. If there was no such thing as 1+1=2 then laying out 3 rocks would not mean anything. It only means something because there is such a thing as Math. But Math is a mind concept and has no direct link to anything physical. It only gives meaning to the physical which we can then say is something real because it can be applied to our lives.

(Ken)
You asked me how I would provide proof of a specific mathematical equation, and I explained how I would do it. Nothing you’ve said thus far has refuted my explanation.

Getting rid of the brain doesn't get rid of consciousness anymore than getting rid of a radio box gets rid of radio waves. So the analogy is wrong. It may be that consciousness is something that exists in the universe and beyond. If Mind is behind the universe as with Math then perhaps Mind/consciousness is fundamental to all things and existed before all things. This seems to be a common idea that has been around for millennia from Plato, Aristotle to modern day ideas like the Wheelers Anthropic Participatory Principle
(John Wheeler's Participatory Universe), The mental Universe, Quantum Bayesianism and Panpsychism.

If what you are saying were true, everybody would be able to experience the same consciousness just like each radio can experience the same radio wave. But consciousness doesn’t work that way, each person has their own consciousness, I can’t experience yours, and you can’t experience mine.

Dropping bombs on people is not morally OK full stop.

So if your country is at war, and the enemy is using a battle ship to attack your cities, and kill your neighbors, it is immoral to bomb that battle ship because there are military people on that battle ship? Is that the position you are taking?

Well yes because MacDonald's has nothing to do with SSM and peoples personal views on it. Its a retail food company.

This has nothing to do with SSM, my question is; if I work at McDonalds and I wish to tell customers that come into McDonalds that there are better restaurants down the street, I should be allowed to do this; is this what you are saying?

That is not the fault of anyone who holds those views and may want to express them.

It doesn’t have to be anyone’s fault. If the company has a policy preventing you from speaking about controversial religious or political issues, they have a right to enforce that policy. If you don’t like it, find another job.

Its not that it has to be considered 'matter' but that there are such phenomenal facts or truth like laws in the world that are not made up of 'matter'

That’s what I’m asking! What characteristics would something with an actual existence have, that is not considered energy or matter?

Its a wrong type of question to ask.

This is a discussion forum; there are no wrong type of questions to ask (unless it’s something against forum rules) You just don’t wanna answer the question because it exposes the flaws of your argument.

That is the common dictionary meaning, unlawful killing.

1: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2: to slaughter wantonly : SLAY

Definition of MURDER

the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person; specifically, law : such a crime committed under circumstances defined by statute; something very difficult or dangerous; something outrageous or blameworthy… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

As opposed to 'manslaughter' meaning
the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice

Manslaughter lacks malice which is an important difference between the 2 acts and implies an objective measure to tell that difference.

You could even add 'killing in self defense' for another difference between murder and manslaughter. Which only adds more support that there is an objective basis to tell these difference and its not based on personal opinion.

You do realize laws like murder are based on morality. Legal laws are not just about 'stopping people from behaving in certain ways. If that was the case we could have banned singing or dancing in public. Its about what is regarded as moral behavior as well. But even so even if we wanted to say that 'murder' is only about laws then we have an objective basis to not murder. Murder can be objectively wrong besides morality. But nevertheless objectively wrong.

None of that takes away from the fact that what is legally considered murder, is not always considered wrong; hence subjectivity.

 

[Ken-1122]

I already said that we all have knowledge of these moral truths. So we all must have perfect knowledge of morality then if that is how you want to phrase it.

(Ken)
That is not how I want to phrase it, because we don’t all have perfect knowledge of moral truths.

How can it be subjective. Can you explain how murder is measured subjectively.

Murder is not something measured, it is a judgment. Consider the scenario:

Joe is a soldier at war defending his country. He kills 10 enemy soldiers during the war, but eventually his country loses the war, and the country that has taken over his impose new laws that include killing their soldiers to be murder. Now because Joe has killed 10 of those enemy soldiers in the process of unsuccessfully defending his country, he is now a convicted murderer.
This example shows how what is considered murder is determined subjectively.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
A Neurologist is a doctor, not a scientist.

Nevertheless I assume you were using a Neurologists objective expert understanding of the nervous system to refute that consciousness was beyond brain. Actually its a neuroscientists who deals with brain neurons.

Again; using the correct definition of the words “Objective” and “Morality can you give me evidence that morality is objective?

Like I said there are transcendent truths or facts beyond subjective feelings or opinions such as the principles of truth and justice. The fact that you want the 'truth or fact' about morality in our debate shows that 'truth' is a real or a fact. Otherwise why ask for the truth of the matter.

Again; you’re just mentioning a bunch of stuff that doesn’t have an actual existence,

That is why I keep asking you what do you mean by evidence. When you say exist what do you mean. Are you saying that only things that exist like objective material things exist and therefore any evidence must conform to only material things. What about non-material phenomena like experience, say the experience of colors, pain, love, beauty, joy.

Do you think these phenomena exist in the world but are not material. Do you think that non-material things exist in the world but in a different way to material things.

they are only a part of our thoughts. I’m talking about something that exist outside of our imaginations.

We cannot verify anything outside our Mind or imagination. How do you get outside you Mind to check if there is actually something that exists outside your mind.

Yes

Then why are you asking for evidence that proves there is something real outside our Minds. When you say you want evidence of things that exist I assume you mean evidence from the objective world outside our Minds. But the idea of an objective world outside our Mind and that we can measure it is a Mind idea which would make it imaginary.

It’s not by saying so, if I think of my car, that car becomes a part of my imagination, even though the car exists in reality.

What if you were a brain in a vat who only thinks the car exists in their Mind and there is actually no car. How do you tell the car is real outside the vat which your brain is in.

No, our brain is not one of our senses. Our senses are what our brain uses to detect things that are real.

Yes but its our Mind that then interprets what we sense and gives it meaning and realness.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
That is not how I want to phrase it, because we don’t all have perfect knowledge of moral truths.

I cannot see how this is not the case. The research says we are born with basic morals which all morals are built on such as empathy, justice, kindness etc.. It can be supported a number of ways.

Even evolutionary theory claims that we evolved empathy. Its a fact that we are conscious beings that can experience kindness, empathy, justice, love and know that other conscious beings can experience the same makes us sensitive to these core moral truths because we know what its like to suffer them. So we know that injustice, cruelty, hate, and callousness is not right for us then its not right for others.

There is not some hidden objective moral out there we have not yet experienced. We have experienced all the moral truths because we are moral agents who naturally have to live out these morals because we have to live with others.

Murder is not something measured, it is a judgment. Consider the scenario:

You can only judge something if there is some objective measure to base that judgement on. It is judged on whether the act meets the criteria for murder or not i.e. intentional and with malice as opposed to unintentional and without malice.

Joe is a soldier at war defending his country. He kills 10 enemy soldiers during the war, but eventually his country loses the war, and the country that has taken over his impose new laws that include killing their soldiers to be murder. Now because Joe has killed 10 of those enemy soldiers in the process of unsuccessfully defending his country, he is now a convicted murderer.
This example shows how what is considered murder is determined subjectively.

But what Joe did in killing those soldiers in war does not meet the criteria for murder. Murder is intentional, premeditated and with malice. Killing in war is regarded as more like killing in self defense for a just cause. At least that is what the soldiers think even though the government may have hidden agenda's that are not noble.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
You asked me how I would provide proof of a specific mathematical equation, and I explained how I would do it. Nothing you’ve said thus far has refuted my explanation.

I actually asked you to provide proof that Math is something real or factual in the world. Using rocks to show a math equation doesn't explain math itself.

If what you are saying were true, everybody would be able to experience the same consciousness just like each radio can experience the same radio wave. But consciousness doesn’t work that way, each person has their own consciousness, I can’t experience yours, and you can’t experience mine.

Nevertheless we all have consciousness. It doesn't matter that we don't have the exact same experience of something like joy but that we have all have an experience of joy. Its the fact that we can experience 'what something is like' which unconscious matter cannot do. The experience of a certain kind of 'joy' which may be different to another persons experience of 'joy' is still the experience of 'joy'. Its still something that non-conscious matter cannot do.

So if your country is at war, and the enemy is using a battle ship to attack your cities, and kill your neighbors, it is immoral to bomb that battle ship because there are military people on that battle ship? Is that the position you are taking?

I never said that fighting an enemy is wrong if they are killing innocent people. To not defend those innocents would be immoral. But notice how a greater moral has taken over. It means we have to balance not doing anything against stopping a madman and their army from killing innocents. Just like a person may defend their family from a crazed gunman.

This has nothing to do with SSM, my question is; if I work at McDonalds and I wish to tell customers that come into McDonalds that there are better restaurants down the street, I should be allowed to do this; is this what you are saying?

No that is different. That is a direct breach against the organizations product which is commercial law. You signed a contract not to undermine McDonalds products and services. McDonalds then has a right to sack you.

That is different to ethics which are more personal. If McDonalds ethics supported SSM and you spoke out against SSM and then McDonalds sacked you then McDonalds has overstepped the mark because SSM has nothing to do with McDonalds. Its a personal moral view and that should not be imposed on its employees as they have a right to their own personal views.

It doesn’t have to be anyone’s fault. If the company has a policy preventing you from speaking about controversial religious or political issues, they have a right to enforce that policy. If you don’t like it, find another job.

So what is controversial. Is that what the company decides. If so then that is simply another example of the company controlling peoples personal views. Is disagreeing with SSM controversial. It shouldn't be as its just a personal view that people have for which they have a right to express.

If the company or another person wants to make out its controversial then that is their problem and should not be used to deny another persons right to express and hold their views. That's a form of dictatorships where the company controls what people can say and what is regarded as off topic and if anything is displaying an objective stand that the only true and acceptable ethical position is the companies one.

That’s what I’m asking! What characteristics would something with an actual existence have, that is not considered energy or matter?

But I thought you said you were not using science to refute consciousness and transcendent truths like morals such as justice and kindness. If you are asking what else can be considered real except for 'matter' then you are saying that empirical science is the only true way to measure what exists.

You are already taking a biased position before any measurement can be made because your saying unless it conforms to science then it doesn't exist. That's not science but a metaphysical and ontological belief that 'matter' is all there is.

This is a discussion forum; there are no wrong type of questions to ask (unless it’s something against forum rules) You just don’t wanna answer the question because it exposes the flaws of your argument.

Ok I just re-read your post. I am not sure you are wanting me to give you an objective moral truth that I disagree or just any so called moral issue that I disagree with. If you want an objective moral truth that I disagree with that is where I am saying its the wrong question because a person how holds that morals are objectively true cannot in principle not have an objectively moral truth they disagree with because the moral they are suppose to disagree with is itself an objective moral truths which would automatically mean that they cannot disagree with it.

But if you want any moral I disagree with then there are many. Like SSM, or infidelity, or abortion to name a few. Modern western society regards these things as morally ok and I disagree.

None of that takes away from the fact that what is legally considered murder, is not always considered wrong; hence subjectivity.

How can the act of murder be sometimes considered not wrong. Murder by definition means wrong. That is why its called murder and not manslaughter or self defense.

 

[Ken-1122]

Like I said there are transcendent truths or facts beyond subjective feelings or opinions such as the principles of truth and justice. The fact that you want the 'truth or fact' about morality in our debate shows that 'truth' is a real or a fact. Otherwise why ask for the truth of the matter.

(Ken)
I didn’t ask for the truth of the matter, I asked for evidence that morality was objective as you claim. I used the definition of words as evidence morality is subjective, perhaps you can provide evidence to prove your point.

That is why I keep asking you what do you mean by evidence. When you say exist what do you mean.

I mean evidence that can be experienced and verified using at least 1 of our 5 senses.

We cannot verify anything outside our Mind or imagination. How do you get outside you Mind to check if there is actually something that exists outside your mind.

When I think of my car, that is my imagination; that car has become a part of my thoughts. But the car exists in reality, not just my thoughts thus outside of my head/mind.

What if you were a brain in a vat who only thinks the car exists in their Mind and there is actually no car. How do you tell the car is real outside the vat which your brain is in.

If I were a brain in a vat, that would mean everything I believe about reality would be wrong. However until I am given evidence that I am just a brain in a vat, I will continue to believe everything that appears real IS real.

 

[Ken-1122]

I cannot see how this is not the case.

(Ken)
If there were such a thing as perfect knowledge concerning moral issues, and everybody had such knowledge, everybody would agree on moral issues. The fact that we do not makes my point.

You can only judge something if there is some objective measure to base that judgement on.

Untrue. Judgment can be based on a subjective measure as well.

But what Joe did in killing those soldiers in war does not meet the criteria for murder. Murder is intentional, premeditated and with malice. Killing in war is regarded as more like killing in self defense for a just cause.

No. Each country determines it’s laws. Just because killing during war isn’t murder in your country (or mine) doesn’t mean that is the case for all countries. Remember; what the Nazi’s did to the Jews in Germany was not considered murder under German law during that time.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
If there were such a thing as perfect knowledge concerning moral issues, and everybody had such knowledge, everybody would agree on moral issues. The fact that we do not makes my point.

That's a logical fallacy which doesn't follow. Just because there may be moral truths that we all know doesn't mean we have to agree with them. Just like the law is an objective and people still disagree with it or at least act in contradiction to it and yet still know its against the law.

The fact is we have free will and can choose and decide despite knowing the truth to act in contradiction to it. If we are born with the knowledge of right and wrong like for example its wrong to steal someone else's stuff and we choose to steal someone else's stuff do you honestly think that we don't know its wrong.

Untrue. Judgment can be based on a subjective measure as well.

The meaning of Judgement is about making considered decisions and sensible conclusions. Saying that 'in my opinion or I feel that murder is morally ok because that's my opinion and how I feel' doesn't contain any considered or sensible conclusion. Its just an expression of the psychological state of the subject. Whereas 'murder' is a considered and sensible judgement because it considers what exactly is regarded as murder and what is not. It reduces all subjective opinions and feelings down to one option 'killing a human with intent and malice'.

No. Each country determines it’s laws. Just because killing during war isn’t murder in your country (or mine) doesn’t mean that is the case for all countries. Remember; what the Nazi’s did to the Jews in Germany was not considered murder under German law during that time.

Yes and the prosecution of the Nazi's at the world court shows that their actions were morally wrong because it was determined as murder and not the justified killing in war which is to stop maniacs like Hitler. Hitler initiated the war based on an idea that some people were inferior and needed to be exterminated or experimented on.

There is no way to justify the Nazi's actions morally and that is why everyone acknowledges that they acted immoral and that the allies acted in moral good faith to stop the unjustified killing of innocents.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
I didn’t ask for the truth of the matter, I asked for evidence that morality was objective as you claim. I used the definition of words as evidence morality is subjective, perhaps you can provide evidence to prove your point.

Asking for evidence is asking for the truth of the matter. You are saying that unless I can provide the type of evidence that will satisfy what you think determines the truth of the matter (whether morals are objective or not) then my argument is false or has no basis. Your assumption is there is a truth to the matter so you are relying on the principle of 'truth'. If there was no truth to the matter then why ask me to prove there is objective morals.

I mean evidence that can be experienced and verified using at least 1 of our 5 senses.

That doesn't prove anything. I could have an experience about seeing a mirage and yet its not real. I could hear noises that were not there and experience it. Our senses are a poor base to measure reality. We need more than that.

When I think of my car, that is my imagination; that car has become a part of my thoughts. But the car exists in reality, not just my thoughts thus outside of my head/mind.

But in reality that car in the so called real world is only a mental image you have come up with or were programmed to have. There may not be an actual car you think is there in the world or at least be what you conceptualize it as. You may be in a simulation, you may be a brain in a vat that only thinks that the car is real or you may only be seeing a surface reflection of something that if more fundamental. In fact the science points to what we think is real in the objective world is not actually real.

The problem is you cannot get outside your mind to check. If at the fundamental level there is basically nothing but potentialities then perhaps our minds are creating reality.

If I were a brain in a vat, that would mean everything I believe about reality would be wrong. However until I am given evidence that I am just a brain in a vat, I will continue to believe everything that appears real IS real.

Well then that's not science but a belief as you can never get the evidence because if you were just a brain in a vat you could not get outside the vat to check. But we sort of have evidence that we are like some brain in a vat in that evidence seems to point to Mind being fundamental and what we think we see in the objective world is just an illusion of something more fundamental like Mind or consciousness and information.

So if anything the science supports there not being any objective world out there beyond mind.

 

[Ken-1122]

I actually asked you to provide proof that Math is something real or factual in the world. Using rocks to show a math equation doesn't explain math itself.

(Ken)
No, you asked for evidence that 1+1=2. I used the rocks as an analogy to demonstrate how I would provide said evidence. Obviously math does not have an actual existence, it’s just a system humans made up to get things done.

Nevertheless we all have consciousness. It doesn't matter that we don't have the exact same experience of something like joy but that we have all have an experience of joy.

My point is; consciousness is not something that exists independent of people.

I never said that fighting an enemy is wrong if they are killing innocent people. To not defend those innocents would be immoral.

You said using bombs to kill people was wrong. Now you seem to be changing it to exempt soldiers. What about if they are not soldiers, but work in a factory where weapons are made? Are they exempt too?

But notice how a greater moral has taken over. It means we have to balance not doing anything against stopping a madman and their army from killing innocents. Just like a person may defend their family from a crazed gunman.

If morality were objective, there cannot be a greater moral to take over whenever you see fit. What you are describing is subjective morality.

No that is different. That is a direct breach against the organizations product which is commercial law. You signed a contract not to undermine McDonalds products and services. McDonalds then has a right to sack you.

No I didn’t! There was no such contract.

So what is controversial. Is that what the company decides. If so then that is simply another example of the company controlling peoples personal views.

The company does not control your views, they control your behavior while at work. Suppose I want to drink alcohol while at work? Should I be able to do that?

But I thought you said you were not using science to refute consciousness and transcendent truths like morals such as justice and kindness. If you are asking what else can be considered real except for 'matter' then you are saying that empirical science is the only true way to measure what exists.

No; I’m saying empirical evidence is the only true way to measure what exists; I said nothing about science.

Ok I just re-read your post. I am not sure you are wanting me to give you an objective moral truth that I disagree or just any so called moral issue that I disagree with. If you want an objective moral truth that I disagree with that is where I am saying its the wrong question because a person how holds that morals are objectively true cannot in principle not have an objectively moral truth they disagree with because the moral they are suppose to disagree with is itself an objective moral truths which would automatically mean that they cannot disagree with it.

So is this another way of saying all of your moral views are perfectly aligned with objective morality, and anyone who disagrees with you on a moral issue is objectively wrong?

How can the act of murder be sometimes considered not wrong. Murder by definition means wrong. That is why its called murder and not manslaughter or self defense.

Because murder is a legal term; and when laws are crooked, that which is bad can be called good, and that which is good can be called bad.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
No, you asked for evidence that 1+1=2. I used the rocks as an analogy to demonstrate how I would provide said evidence. Obviously math does not have an actual existence, it’s just a system humans made up to get things done.

So as I pointed out moving rocks around means nothing without math as its the math that gives the rocks meaning not the movement or rocks. So if math doesn't have any real existence you are actually supporting a non material truth,

My point is; consciousness is not something that exists independent of people.

But you don't know that. Like I said there is evidence that consciousness and Mind exist independent of peoples experience. That it is something that exists beyond brain.

You said using bombs to kill people was wrong. Now you seem to be changing it to exempt soldiers. What about if they are not soldiers, but work in a factory where weapons are made? Are they exempt too?

Yes using bombs to kill people is wrong but sometimes war is justified by a greater moral which is to stop madmen from killing innocent people. Even then its hard to justify using bombs as it can be indiscriminate. If its targeted and avoids killing innocents and can stop a madman then I think it can be justified under limited circumstances. But the way in which recent wars have been fought where ariel bombing seems to be the new way war is conducted is more often than not indiscriminate and results in many innocents being killed.

If morality were objective, there cannot be a greater moral to take over whenever you see fit. What you are describing is subjective morality.

That is the misconception of objective reality in that people think its absolute. Its not. Objective morality simply means there is a moral truth in how we should behave in any given situation. So sometimes its ok to lie or kill if there is a greater moral truth involved. For example the people hiding Jews in their basement when the Nazi's ask if there are any Jews in the house.

If you stick to the absolute that you can never lie then your in a moral dilemma where is you tell the truth you are now guilty of sending innocent Jews to their death like you killed them yourself. So the greater moral is to save life and therefore lying to save life is the morally right way to behave.

No I didn’t! There was no such contract.

Of course there's a contract. When anyone is employed they sign a workplace contract this is part of workplace law. This will lay our your duties, workplace conditions and rates of pay, compensation, ethical codes of conduct and clauses that state you cannot bring the company into disrepute.

Otherwise their own employees could destroy their reputation by degrading them or stealing their secrets or just act anyway they like. If they didn't sign an agreement/contract then the company has no say in what their employee's do. Especially a company like MacDonald's who are very switched on in that regard as I use to be an assistant manager at one of their stores.

An employment contract is an agreement between an employer and employee that sets out terms and conditions of employment.

https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employment-conditions/contracts

The company does not control your views, they control your behavior while at work. Suppose I want to drink alcohol while at work? Should I be able to do that?

I think all organizations ban drinking at work for good reasons as it can effect work and put others in danger. But lets go back to your example of a transgender organization. What if someone expresses their view that transgender ideology is immoral what happens then. Or when say a company supports SSM and as an employee you express that SSM is immoral what happens then.

No; I’m saying empirical evidence is the only true way to measure what exists; I said nothing about science.

Empirical measure is the science measure. Its called empirical science.

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method

Empirical Evidence: A Definition

Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation.

www.livescience.com

So is this another way of saying all of your moral views are perfectly aligned with objective morality, and anyone who disagrees with you on a moral issue is objectively wrong?

More or less except its not my moral truth but is the truth independent of me. I just happen to align my morality with this truth not because of my personal opinion but because it stands independently as a truth. So as an independent truth anyone who disagrees can be shown to be objectively wrong.

In fact we don't even have to use religious belief to support this. If we use the example of domestic violence. We can show that committing DV is objectively wrong a number of ways. Based on psychology DV causes psychological damage to adults and especially children and society. Based on biology it endangers our survival as a species. Based on medical terms it damages the physical body and renders a person unable to live to their potential to thrive.

If someone was to say that they think DV is morally OK I can refer to these independent truths or facts which show its not good or the right way to behave morally. I could then say they are just objectively wrong in their personal opinion.

Because murder is a legal term; and when laws are crooked, that which is bad can be called good, and that which is good can be called bad.

What do you mean by crooked laws. Surely your not saying that laws against murder are crooked. We don't just make laws up. We have good reason to make laws against murder. We don't want people going around murdering people in the streets and then allowing them to escape justice by them claiming the law against murder is crooked.

The law against murder is not crooked. Its a good law for a purpose which is to stop chaos and mayhem in the streets by people taking out innocents at will.