The question is if there are objective morals how do we define them.
Good question. Funny, isn't it, that when it comes to mathematics we can easily determine and prove objective statements, but when it comes to morality we can't.
I think that lived experience is telling of objective morality.
Except that's subjective, and you can't use that to prove something is objective.
All people intuitively know that there are certain rights and wrongs. People often act contradictory to professed subjectivity which is more or less acting against themselves, against the human ability to determine.
That's because what they say is subjective. It's not a guarantee that they'll act like that, is it?
They are more or less admitting to themselves and others that there are certain rights and wrongs we must adhere to and accept. This is the only way we can determine objective morality.
Except it doesn't work.
Is it objectively right to execute a murderer? Good luck getting an objective moral conclusion on that!
I'm not saying people cannot make convincing arguments about morality but that doesn't mean that is objectively true. There can be a number of factors as to why you convince someone. They may not know better, you may be good at selling something (salesmen often sell stuff they don't even believe is good). You may have motivation to convince (commission, self-satisfaction, convincing others affirms your position, etc).
That's like saying that I can make a convincing subjective argument that one plus one equals a purple Tuesday. Objectivity just doesn't work when it comes to morality because there is no such thing as objective morality.
That is one of the issues I see with subjective morality and not being able to have a united and clear set of morals. people in influential and powerful positions can convince others about something being good when it is really bad. Look at what the government and big business often do, smoking is good back in the '60s, takeaway food is good, nothing wrong with Pot, abortion is OK, etc, etc.
That was more a case of business wanting to make money and people placing the good of others less than their greed.
Because it's subjective.
So will you stop presenting any experience as being evidence for any kind of objective morality?
As morality is immaterial you have to use other ways to verify it. We all believe in love and love cannot be materially verified. But we know from lived experience it is real and powerful.
Our belief that we are loved is. I know for a fact that I believe that my husband loves me. But I can not objectively prove it. He could be simply pretending as part of some elaborate scheme. But I very much doubt it. However, I can not say that he loves me as an objective fact.
That is more about conventions. People have different ideas about what is best. But the common morality is not to abuse kids no matter what. Some people say that smacking is bad but maybe a loving tap on the bottom is can be OK if it helps a child realize something is wrong in a dangerous situation like running out in front of the road as time out is not practical in those situations.
The thing with smacking is that there is a fine line because people can go overboard and I think that's why the general rule is don't go there in the first place. But that assumes that everyone loses their cool. Sometimes time out can be abusive like a denial of freedom. Sometimes reasoning goes over a young child's head. The point is no matter what the convention is the moral is don't abuse kids and everyone agrees with that.
Stop mincing words. You claimed there is some objective morality. Use it to tell me what the appropriate punishment is in this case.
Or doesn't your objective morality work? You seem to like claiming it exists, but when it comes time for you to get it out and actually USE this objective morality, all of a sudden you can't?
That's true but what I am talking about in an agreement that happens despite what people say. It is something intuitively in us. Sometimes unsaid and just done. Not reasoned or justified or rationalized because this brings in too many arbitrary influences. Just done because it is the right thing to do.
Care to provide a specific example?
Yes but I am not sure that applies to morals. You could say that people disagree with the design but they all agree that Sonic is a good game character. But I think morals are deeper than that and are associated with belief as well.
Obvious strawman is obvious.
I'm not talking about how much people like the character, I'm talking about the design. I'm trying to show you what the difference between subjective and objective is, because you don't seem to be getting it.
Yes true but even that can be subjective. The point is where did they get the idea of what is harmful or not in the first place. Why is it harmful and why does it matter if humans are just biological and chemical processes that will end just like our planet may one day into nothing.
Agreed. That's why some actions can still be morally dubious even when harm is caused. Like the homeowner who kills an intruder who had a knife, even though the intruder was a father and now there are kids growing up without their dad. Harm was caused to those kids, but does that mean the murder was wrong? The homeowner might have had his own kids to protect. The intruder could have been attacking one of them.
Like I said, there is no objective morality.
