Is there an absolute morality?

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
But this still doesn't negate that subjective preferences don't translate to morality. This is a well known false anology of how morality works in a normative way.

You cannot be sacked for liking Star Wars. You can be sacked for acting immoral. So this shows that using subjective thinking doesn't work for morality so any comparison is a false analogy when it comes to how morals work.
Red Herring. Do you understand why that specific argument fails?

If you present your arguments one at a time and stop jumping between them constantly, we will knock each and every one of them down.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Estrid
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Red Herring. Do you understand why that specific argument fails?

If you present your arguments one at a time and stop jumping between them constantly, we will knock each and every one of them down.
How is it a Red Herring. I am not using this to negate the logical arguement of P & Q. I acknowledge its logic. I am posing this as a seperate arguement on its own merit that has not been addressed. That is using preferences or feelings to explain morality is a false analogy.

Subjective preferences or feelings for R&B, chocolate ice-cream or TV shows does not equate to morality. This has been shown in how we don't sack people for their subjetcive preferences like we do with moral issues.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I am not using this to negate the logical arguement of P & Q. I acknowledge its logic.

"Acknowledge its logic"? It is invalid. Kylie and I both demonstrated that with separate examples. Do you understand that argument is invalid and why it is invalid?
I am posing this as a seperate arguement on its own merit that has not been addressed.
That's the Red Herring. We haven't settled the argument you already presented yet. We're not moving on to a new one. Posing a separate argument from the one we're already discussing is a distraction from the argument we're discussing. That's what a Red Herring is.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
"Acknowledge its logic"? It is invalid. Kylie and I both demonstrated that with separate examples. Do you understand that argument is invalid and why it is invalid?
Yes thats why I said I understand the logic. P & Q can be assigned any example as the logic still stands.

But I also think that a Red Herring may have been made in the way Kylie applied the example to subjective preferences. The article is not comparing 2 different things like STar Trek agaionst Star Wars and making people chooose between the two as to what is true or false. It is comparing one issue as to whether it is either right or wrong (eating people).

Therefore the proper analogy should be comparing whether fans of Star Trek either like or dislike Star Trek. In that sense the logic does translate over as we can say the answer will be either yes or no or neither yes or no. But like I said I am not good at this so I may be wrong.

That's the Red Herring. We haven't settled the argument you already presented yet. We're not moving on to a new one. Posing a separate argument from the one we're already discussing is a distraction from the argument we're discussing. That's what a Red Herring is.
As I acknowledged the 1st arguement doesn't stand up I am now using another arguement. Therefore

Subjective preferences or feelings for R&B, chocolate ice-cream or TV shows does not equate to morality. This has been shown in how we don't sack people for their subjetcive preferences like we do with moral issues in a normative way.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Yes thats why I said I understand the logic. P & Q can be assigned any example as the logic still stands.

As I acknowledged the 1st arguement doesn't stand up I am now using another arguement.
You have a weird way of phrasing things. Does the logic stand, or does the logic not stand? The argument is invalid.

What we learned from this argument failing is that the way we talk about things is not evidence for how things really are. In the future, you won't post any more arguments of the sort that, "But we talk about morality like it's objective..." because you now know that is an invalid argument.
 
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,649
6,108
Massachusetts
✟583,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Are acts wrong in themselves? Or does it depend on the context?
Murder, violating a child, rape, domestic abuse . . . I would say these are wrong in themselves. But, of course, we might have a problem deciding when something really is murder or some kind of abuse. And I guess that can depend on why something is done.

So, what can make something wrong in itself? Hate, lust, using someone but not caring about the person, pride, betraying trust, false accusation > I would say such things can be what make an action wrong.

I would say hate is wrong in itself; so anything done with hate would be wrong in itself . . . even though I might be doing something legal or physically helpful. The hate would be wrong, making the action wrong. And if a person is using humanitarian actions in order to cover up how the person is betraying trust by violating children, for one example, this would be a case when it would be considered wrong for the predator to do humanitarian actions which the predator is using for camouflage.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You have a weird way of phrasing things. Does the logic stand, or does the logic not stand? The argument is invalid.
Like I said I am not the best at Grammar. Yes when Kylies example is used for P & Q the logic stands up yet it presents a false outcome. I see what you mean and that is what I was trying to say.

What we learned from this argument failing is that the way we talk about things is not evidence for how things really are. In the future, you won't post any more arguments of the sort that, "But we talk about morality like it's objective..." because you now know that is an invalid argument.
Look I appreciate you spending time and helping me understand logical statements. It cuts through things and helps establish pretty quickly whether a claim stands up or not. This is part of my frustration in not being able to express things better.

But as far as I understand morality is a normative system that is how one ought to act in a situation. Therefore if we are using logic then it should follow that morality is a matter of right and wrong behaviour. Therefore one can either be right or wrong. Therefore our language is going to reflect this.

That is why I gave those examples like people don't get sacked for preferring Star Wars as doesnt make sense as far as preferences being like norms. We use language to express morality and as morality is a normative system its truth comes from how people really speak.

We say that a immoral act is truthfully wrong because thats how we live morality to the point where we will sack people, march on parliament and begin causes to help those affected by immoral behaviour. Thats because morality matters more than preferences or feelings.

Anyway thats what moral realism is,
Moral realism is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world, some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
We use language to express morality and as morality is a normative system its truth comes from how people really speak.
See, you don't get that your argument failed, or why, and what that means. You're still claiming there's something significant about the way we speak about things. If you understood why your argument failed you wouldn't be repeating the claim of that argument. What we say is not indicative of what is really the case.

We speak about objective things using objective language. The Earth is round.
We speak about subjective things using objective language. Chocolate ice cream is good.

People speaking about things with objective language tells us absolutely nothing about how things really are.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But, of course, we might have a problem deciding when something really is murder or some kind of abuse.
This is why I think language is important when it comes to morality. The words murder, violation and abuse already have a moral meaning in the words themselves attached by society as to being wrong. When someone says a person abused a women or child they mean they did something wrong objectively. The qualification is in the word when applied morally.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
See, you don't get that your argument failed, or why, and what that means. You're still claiming there's something significant about the way we speak about things. If you understood why your argument failed you wouldn't be repeating the claim of that argument. What we say is not indicative of what is really the case.

We speak about objective things using objective language. The Earth is round.
Yes this is appealing to a fact or truth beyond our subjective thinking. So we say the earth is round as a fact. We don't say I prefer that the earth is round or that I feel that the earth is round. That doesn't make sense. So our objective language reflects what really is and doesnt sound like how we speak subjectively.
We speak about subjective things using objective language. Chocolate ice cream is good.
Yes but that can only happen when we are referring to ourself. It is a fact that you think its good. But that is not a fact beyond yourself. You don't use language that says Chocolate ice cream is good as a fact beyond yourself that applies to everyone like the fact the earth is round.

Therefore subjective language is restricted in ways that morality is not and shows that the way we can speak about morality is different to subjective language. As morality is normative we do use a certain language different from our subjective thinking that does reflect how things really are. Basically thats moral realism.

People speaking about things with objective language tells us absolutely nothing about how things really are.
Well how do you explain the differences in how people speak about subjective preferences and feelings and something being objective as explained above. Aren't they real differences that we live out.

I think this is the crux of our debate as we have got stuck a number of times on actually applying subjective feelings and preferences in a normative way. But it seems we have not yet resolved this. You are trying to come up with ways to apply feelings and preferences noramtively but I don't think you have suceeded yet. As this is about how things really are I thinks its relevant.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
So our objective language reflects what really is and doesnt sound like how we speak subjectively.
Yes, it is how we speak about subjective things. This is a false premise.

"Chocolate ice cream is good". People say that all the time, and taste in flavors is subjective.

Simply using the word "is" makes it objective language. That makes it possible to evaluate the sentence as true or false, ergo, it's objective language. Either it "is", or it "is not".

Well how do you explain the differences in how people speak about subjective preferences and feelings and something being objective as explained above. Aren't they real differences that we live out.
There aren't differences, and that's the point.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, it is how we speak about subjective things. This is a false premise.

"Chocolate ice cream is good". People say that all the time, and taste in flavors is subjective.

Simply using the word "is" makes it objective language. That makes it possible to evaluate the sentence as true or false, ergo, it's objective language. Either it "is", or it "is not".
But this only applies to the subject and therefore is not noramtive. Try saying "Chocolate ice cream is wrong" as this normative and is how we speak morally. Good is a subjective term.

You still seem to want to avoid answering the examples for how we cannot speak in terms of wrongness that people can lose their jobs over unlike preferences for icecream.

We cannot use language such as "John should get the sack for liking icecream. Why is that. If subjective language can really translate to moralkity we should be able to make this work. But it doesnt. If there is no difference in the language why is certain types of language that applies to moral issues cannot apply to subjective preferences.

There aren't differences, and that's the point.
Then why can't we say a preference for chocolate icecream is normatively wrong or sack someone for liking chocolate icecream like we can say with moral issues.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,545
3,181
39
Hong Kong
✟147,424.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
This is why I think language is important when it comes to morality. The words murder, violation and abuse already have a moral meaning in the words themselves attached by society as to being wrong. When someone says a person abused a women or child they mean they did something wrong objectively. The qualification is in the word when applied morally.


Language is important. We wont list the ways.
Correct usage is one-
What Is the Logical Fallacy Known as a 'Red Herring'?

As an esl student i was taught to find the fewest words with which to express an idea. Too many words shows a lack of discipline and, obscures meaning.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Wrong. The sentence "Chocolate ice cream is good" mentions no subject.
It is the expression of the subject and "good" is a subjective term. How does you saying ice-cream is "good" equate to some normative statement beyond you that applies to everyone. It only applies to you. But if you say "icecream is wrong" which is a normative statement it doesn't work.

Its the same for the other examples I gave like you cannot say "Jack should be sacked for liking chocolate icecream" ect. This is a fundemental difference in moral issues and subjective thinking.

5.1.1 The Language of Ethics

Ethics is about values, what is right and wrong, or better or worse. Ethics makes claims, or judgments, that establish values. Evaluative claims are referred to as normative, or prescriptive, claims. Normative claims tell us, or affirm, what ought to be the case. Prescriptive claims need to be seen in contrast with descriptive claims, which simply tell us, or affirm, what is the case, or at least what is believed to be the case.
5.1 Moral Philosophy – Concepts and Distinctions | Introduction to Philosophy
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Language is important. We wont list the ways.
Correct usage is one-
What Is the Logical Fallacy Known as a 'Red Herring'?

As an esl student i was taught to find the fewest words with which to express an idea. Too many words shows a lack of discipline and, obscures meaning.
Not sure what a Red Herring logical fallacy has to do with how certain words express a moral statement like person X was abused. This is not a subjective expression. It states "abuse" has taken place. People can argue what sort of abuse or what severity of abuse but still the person expressing the statement has already made a value judgement by using the word abuse.

If we did reason about whether or not its abuse or how severe the abuse was we are implying an objective basis to measure these things. Thats how morality works. There is no room for subjective preferences or feelings. Its either abuse or its not, its either morally right or its not.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Bringing things back to the OP what I would like to know is how can western cultures impose their morality onto other cultures when there is no absolute right and wrong. This seems to show that despite the claim of relative morality that each culture lives by their own moral truths it seems in reality this is impossible as morals truths cross borders.

Look at the way nations like the US, Australia, Britain condemn the immoral behaviour of say African tribes or MIddle Eastern cultures. They act like their moral view is a truth that applies to every nation.

How can this be. How can they make cultures they have little to do with and have never lived in thier relative situation then say I know whats best for you 5,000 miles away.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, I am just clarifying that you don't think there is an objective determination for this matter.

I have been extremely clear and open about my position. I can't for the life of me see why you would need any more clarification.

If you say there is no objective way to determine what is the right or wrong thing to do, what is a better way to behave than other ways to behave then it follows that you cannot know which way to behave in this matter.

You know, people can make a decision about things, even if those things are subjective...

I realize I have repeatedly asked you this but each time I am clarifying your position to be sure thats what you mean because its very important as to the implications of that position as pointed out above.

Well, it comes across as either you not being able to remember my position, or that you haven't read my posts, or that you just don't believe me. All of those are very rude.

I have made my position clear. You do not need to keep checking with me.

I guess its the same reasons I have to keep telling you that social conditioning doesnt mean morals are subjective.

You've yet to provide any convincing evidence to support that claim.

What do you mean you will have to wait until you are in that situation.

It means exactly what it sounds like.

Why, what does it sound like to you?

But as I said its not just about the majority blindly agreeing to something they are actually saying there is no other option but the one we agree on. There is no room for subjective opinions as all opinions are wrong except the one we agree on.

Except there are lots of moral opinions that don't have such agreement. Premarital sex, for example.

Thats more than just subjective morality as under subjective morality no sibngle view holds any weight because as you have claimed there are no objective morals so no view is better than another. Yet this majority claim that there is no room for subjectivity. They are saying if anyone diagrees with us they are mistaken.

Once again it seems I must point out that people acting as though their opinions are objectively true does not mean they are objectively true...

Thats a logiocal fallacy. As I have and also others on this thread have said it doesnt make any difference. OK so let me ask you how would a less extreme example make a difference.

Okay, and I'll even make it easy for you by keeping it as extreme as possible.

Is execution for crimes like murder ever morally justifiable? There are plenty of people who say it is, and plenty of people who say it isn't. And if you take the pro-execution side and list all their arguments, I suspect that most if not all of them would be labelled as subjective by the anti-execution side. And vice versa.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Estrid
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yes it does as moral matters are a matter of "right and wrong" unlike subjective matters which is a matter of personal opinion or feelings which can never be wrong in a normative way like morality is.

Do you seriously not see how you can't have the subjective opinion that something is right or wrong?

When we speak about moral matters we make statemenst about something being wrong beyond our subjective thinking.

You have not shown that it is beyond our subjective thinking.

We don't say "In my opinion" or "I feel that something is wrong" but I could be mistaken. We say that the behaviour is wrong as a matter of fact or truth beyond our personal opinions.

So? Once again I have to point out that people acting like their subjective views are objective doesn't make them objective.

We say "sunrise" and "sunset", even though we know full well it's the rotation of the Earth making the sun appear to move across the sky.

And morality needs to be that way as when we want to stop others behavig badly we need to have a solid base to refute their immoral behaviour. Like I said its more than people just agreeing. They are actually taking an objective position which only allows 1 option and rejects any subjective thinking. Thats more than just agreeing. Thats actually enacting objective morality. Thats endorsing objective morality and declaring there is no other option but to take an objective position.

Again, people acting like...

You know what I'm going to say.

Yes in your analogy. Your analogy works well for subjective thinking like preferences for TV shows because there is no true or false determination for preferences or feelings. But it cannot translate to morality. As you said moral issues require a true or false determination. Already we see that subjective thinking fails as we cannot determine a true or false answer. You are making the assumption that subjective morality translates to moral issues when it doesn't and I have shown independent support for this.

And what is morality if it isn't feeling that something is right or wrong?

So lets see how applying how morality works to to your scenario. Morality is a normative system we can say some behaviour is truely wrong beyond the subjective preference. People acting immoral are ostrasized from the community or their social group, they can lose their jobs, companies lose their sponsorships, people will protest in the streets and to governments against immoral behaviour as we have seen with abuse of women or BLM. We have to have some shared moral grounds to be able to declare something is truely wrong.

Shared moral grounds doesn't mean those shared moral grounds are objective.

But none of this can be translated to subjective preferences for TV shows. If we put your wrong analogy to moral system we would have to say that anyone who likes Star Wars should get the sack, companies supporting Star Wars should lose all credibility and sponsors, we should ostrasize those who like Star Wars and we should march in the streets and petition the government against this evil scurge. lol. Even if people think Darth Vadar is a menice.

Again, you've never seen the levels of hatred that can arise in online debates about whether one sci-fi franchise or another is better, have you? I mean, I remember the outcry about how people were claiming Deep Space Nine was a rip off of Babylon 5. It got really bad. They even had the get Majel Barrett on B5 as a way to say to the fans, "Hey, look, we can all get along without the fighting."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Bringing things back to the OP what I would like to know is how can western cultures impose their morality onto other cultures when there is no absolute right and wrong. This seems to show that despite the claim of relative morality that each culture lives by their own moral truths it seems in reality this is impossible as morals truths cross borders.

Look at the way nations like the US, Australia, Britain condemn the immoral behaviour of say African tribes or MIddle Eastern cultures. They act like their moral view is a truth that applies to every nation.

How can this be. How can they make cultures they have little to do with and have never lived in thier relative situation then say I know whats best for you 5,000 miles away.

Right and wrong dont need to be absolute truths.

Morals and values matter and the more people interact the more will values travel and spread, just as any idea.
 
Upvote 0