Is there an absolute morality?

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,580
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,881.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There is no OBJECTIVE way to determine it.

I'm honestly confused at how you could not realise that this would be my position.
Yet we do have good reasons for making life valuable and enforce those reasons on others through Human Rights and laws. So either these Human Rights and laws are errors or delusions or they stand for something. The fact is they are implemented as objective Rights and laws and that is what makes them real in the world.

Exactly.

If there was some emergency, say a building on fire, I naturally would be driven to make sure my daughter and husband were safe before acting to rescue others. Someone else would be likely to make sure their loved ones were safe first ahead of my loved ones. Is this surprising to you? Do you not see how this is people making decisions based on their own subjective feelings?
But personal feelings about which life should be saved first does not negate that "Life" itself is valuable and should be saved in general. The fact that people risk their life to save others including strangers in the first place is the point.

You were the one talking about the financial value of humans. Is that supposed to suggest that I should be willing to give up my daughter's life if I was given a sufficient amount of money?
Of course not. I was only giving one example of how life is valued and a financial value is only because we live in capitalist societies. But as most of us recognise you cannot really put a money value on life.

Why do you think that a person's value depends on their technological creativity?

Is my life worth less than a computer programmer's?
I am speaking more as a human species than indiviudlas. The fact that we can create things that add value to life and the world shows that we should be valued more than rocks who cannot add this value like humans.

How can it be violated if it's an intrinsic part of the universe? We don't see objects falling faster than gravity allows them to. The fact that these "laws" can be violated shows that they are just subjective.
We can violate the laws even if they are objective. You can choose to write the wrong answer on a Math equation and violate Math laws. But this doesn’t mean there are no Math facts to find.

But you missed the point. You are objecting that people are breaching moral truths like murdering others, dispossessing Indigenous people of their land and rights. This shows that you understand that there is a morally right or wrong way to behave. You cannot complain about wrongs being done unless you have an objective basis to measure what wrong is being done.

Are you reduced to hiding behind wordplay again? Yes, I can say something objectively true about them. So what? I can also say that it is OBJECTIVELY true that my opinion that Star Trek is better than Star Wars is a subjective opinion. That doesn't mean my subjective opinion is objectively true.
But there is a BIG difference between claiming that your view of Star is an objective fact that "only applies to you" and declaring that a moral wrong has been done into the world that applies to others in an objective way.

You are woefully misinformed about what a business's HR department is about.

HR is not there to protect the rights of the workers.

It is there to protect the company by making sure it doesn't treat the workers in an illegal way.

If a worker is being subject to any disciplinary action, then it is HR's job to make sure that the company doesn't do anything that could lead the worker to sue for wrongful dismissal, etc.
I am not talking about HR as in Human Resources but HR as in Human Rights. A companies ethical codes of conduct cover this.

So my point was not any Human Rights law can qualify as a Human Right. HR as based on good reasons that are deemed rational and therefore exclude subjective thinking which is not based on rational reasons. By the way a companies ethical codes are based on Human Rights as well.

Oh, for crying out loud...

How many times do I have to point out that holding that morality is subjective doesn't mean you actually have to agree with ALL different moral viewpoints?
But it does mean that those moral views you disagree with and even may find horrible are just as relevant a view as yours. Just like if someone preferred Star Wars, no one is right or wrong objectively and so everyones view is counted as equal.

So if you choose not to agree with another person’s moral view then how do you work out whether it’s something you will support or not if there is no measure of what is right and wrong outside subjective/relative morality. How do you work out its something that is morally wrong in the first place for you to be in a position to reject that view.

Why do you continually resort to this ridiculous and weak argument?
Actually it’s a strong argument for the simple fact that you need some objective measure outside yourself to determine whether or not you wish to agree with another person’s moral view and to be able to tell if it’s a horrible way to act or not.

Otherwise there no point in even disagreeing and in fact there is no such thing as disagreement under subjective morality because there is nothing to disagree with. Its just preferences or feelings after all.

And once again you have missed the point.

If it was about actually caring for people, wouldn't they see the evidence (the increased number of car crashes) and put in the traffic lights BEFORE it becomes fatal in an effort to make sure fatalities never happen?
Ideally yes governments should take pre-emptive action to minimize human deaths on the roads. But governments work to budgets and so they may not take action until forced. Thats why we see people protesting to governments to deal with black spots. But the fact that it’s an issue that we care to try and save lives on roads shows we value human life.

But this is not what happens. If they did put in the traffic lights and prevent the fatalities, we all know the government would say, "Those traffic lights were a waste of money. They were meant to prevent people from being killed, yet there have hardly even been injuries happening there since we put the traffic lights in!"
No they would brag to their constituients about how they are saving lives. They look at the stats and see how the measures saved lives. Its the same with almost everything they do is around saving lives. Look at the road traffick campaigns and stats before random breath testing and now drug driving or speeding and how the measures saves lives.

But nevertheless how does the governments reaction to the measures they take negate that they take measures to save lives. The fact that they complain that the measures they took saved lives and is now a waste of money shows they are concerned about saving lives in the first place. They know reversing those measures will only cause more deaths again.

because it shows that governments are more concerned with saving money than actually looking after people. They are willing to put people at risk if it will save money.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.
So therefore we can say this is wrong, the system is wrong and needs to change to put human lives first above money. Any system that puts profits before people is bound to fails as we have been seeing in recent times. The fact that you and most people object and complain that governments put money before people shows that there is an objective basis that human life is valuable. Otherwise why make it an issue.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,580
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,881.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yeah, it does. If someone steals a penny from me, I'm not going to care in the slightest.
But thats not how morality works. You can create your own little world where you don't care about people stealing a penny from you. But thats only your little self made world and only applies to you. Because preferences are only about you and there's no rationale for the determinations you prefer. Just like theres no rationale that you prefer chocolate icecream rather than strawberry.

But when it comes to morality we apply norms beyond the subjects preferences and we do have a good rationale. We reason that petty stealing is still a wrong as it takes without permission regardless of amount. We rationalize that allowing the mentality that stealing small things is ok can lead to greater wrongs and disorder in society. So we make moral norms and laws accordingly that apply beyond any self created world a subject makes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,580
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,881.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Sure we can. I'd prefer that you don't go around raping people, so I write a law and create a penalty for breaking it.
So therefore if someone prefers raping people we can just write a law and create a penalty for those who break that law. If its only based on preferences and no rationale at all then we could write laws about anything.

But in reality thats not how morality works. There is a justification and rationale for moral norms. Not any preferred laws make it to being a norm. They have to pass the rationale test which will count out any preferences that are purely based on the whim of a someones personal "Likes".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So therefore if someone prefers raping people we can just write a law and create a penalty for those who break that law. If its only based on preferences and no rationale at all then we could write laws about anything.

But in reality thats not how morality works. There is a justification and rationale for moral norms. Not any preferred laws make it to being a norm. They have to pass the rationale test which will count out any preferences that are purely based on the whim of a someones personal "Likes".

So then the question is: is rationale objective, like facts?
 
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I think part of the problem is that people use the word objective in different ways. I think that may be part of the confusion.

I can say that one should be objective about something. When I say that, I mean that my interlocutor should attempt to analyze the subject without allowing emotions to interfere. (Think of the word "dispassionate" in the place of "objective".)

But when we talk about objective facts we're talking about things that are true statements about reality that anyone can discover. So, if I tell you there is a rock in my front yard I'm telling you something that anyone, in principle, could discover is true.

It is objectively true that @Kylie has said that she thinks Star Trek is the best SF franchise. But, is it objectively the case that Star Trek IS the best SF franchise? No. It's an opinion. It isn't a thing that can be discovered by anyone.

If I were to judge a murder trial, I would try to be objective (dispassionate). I would be as objective (dispassionate) as possible when considering the facts of the case. Nevertheless, whatever judgement I make, it will be my opinion. It will be subjective no matter how objective I was.

This is the issue with morals. I can be dispassionate in considering and analyzing them. But, there is no "fact of the matter". Whatever I conclude will be my opinion. It will be subjective. Very much NOT like the rock in my yard.

Id argue that the fact that someone committed murder is just as objective as the fact of the rock in your yard and that we use the similar mental processes to comprehend both, it’s just that the fact of the murder is in the past and the fact of the rock is in the present.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,580
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,881.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So then the question is: is rationale objective, like facts?
If you take the meaning of rationale it says
1 : an explanation of controlling principles of opinion, belief, practice, or phenomena. 2 : an underlying reason : basis.

Then this means that a determination is made based on some reason or basis. So it is reasoned against some basis which will eliminate personal opinion (control opinions) based on the reason (basis) used.

So yes I think it can as it limits personal opinion and relies of the facts of the matter. So if someone makes a claim based on their personal opinion, preference or feeling we can refer to the rationale as an independent determination that excludes subjective views.

Its the same as when 2 people argue about a moral. Under subjective thinking people will give their personal views based on their personal perceptions and experiences which could be tainted and skewed.

Sooner or later people will appeal to some rationale (basis) as to their moral position be it Human "Life" having intrinsic value, human wellbeing and flourishing, societal functioning and order, human co-operation, the Golden Rule.

If you want to convince others or prove your moral position is right then you need an independnet measure otherwise it would just be a never ending cycle of exchanging differences of personal views with no real agreement or disagreement. Agreement is usually reached when people agree on the rationale for their position and not just their opinion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Chriliman
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
Sooner or later people will appeal to some rationale (basis) as to their moral position be it Human "Life" having intrinsic value, human wellbeing and flourishing, societal functioning and order, human co-operation, the Golden Rule.
Yep, whatever you prefer.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,580
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,881.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yep, whatever you prefer.
Then its no longer a preference. A preference for say chocolate has no rational basis beyond the subject. Its just a subjective state of mind ie "I like chocolate because it tastes good or makes me feel good". There is no objective reason beyond the subject as its about the psychological state of the subject.

But when someone appeals to a reasoned basis they have moved from subjective thinking to analytic thinking about something in the world beyond the subject. That makes it objective as there is a reasoned independent basis outside the subject for why a moral position is taken.
 
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

LightLoveHope

Jesus leads us to life
Oct 6, 2018
1,473
458
London
✟79,581.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Are acts wrong in themselves? Or does it depend on the context?
The mistake people make is morality is founded on value.
What you value and devalue defines your morality.

Cannibals devalue the human enemy who they conquer by eating.
Genocides happen because a social group are deemed de-human.

A group is called guilty of the worst crimes possible because one member of that group did something wrong against another group, for which guilt is then put on the group, often in terms of total elimination.

In our culture morality it is often talked about within a humanistic value framework.
Few people understand how other societies have lived and valued individuals in a very different way.

Often when people fall into the trap that their morality is absolute, those who disagree are worthy of the worst punishment for the worst crime.

I experienced this with believers who felt God accepted them without judgement or need for them to change their behaviour. When I disagreed and put forward the idea of love transforming the heart, they claimed I was evil, worse than a murderer and worthy of a murderer punishment.

This demonstrates how our emotional view on life dictates our morality and what actions we deem as acceptable against others. How many films show the security guards or ordinary soldiers killed like they have no value, but hurting a central character is a terrible event? Or take our society were starving destitute people are ignored while the latest iPhone is a really important issue.

Or take the issue of inappropriate contentography, sexual preferences and the rights of individuals to exploit others or the punishment if caught in one context, but fine if caught in another. What right does a parent have over a child and their gender identity?

We easily paint out these issues because they are hard, but there are no easy answers because perspective often changes how the issue is handled.

God bless you
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pommer
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
Then its no longer a preference. A preference for say chocolate has no rational basis beyond the subject. Its just a subjective state of mind ie "I like chocolate because it tastes good or makes me feel good". There is no objective reason beyond the subject as its about the psychological state of the subject.

But when someone appeals to a reasoned basis they have moved from subjective thinking to analytic thinking about something in the world beyond the subject. That makes it objective as there is a reasoned independent basis outside the subject for why a moral position is taken.
But those things you mentioned aren't a "reasoned" basis. They're just the basis some folks prefer. You can't just make objective morals by choosing an arbitrary goal and pointing to things that promote that goal. You have to have a reason that your goal is the correct goal. People make "life" the goal because most folks would prefer to be alive than dead. People make "well being" the goal because most folks would prefer to be well than suffer. Etc.
 
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Then its no longer a preference. A preference for say chocolate has no rational basis beyond the subject. Its just a subjective state of mind ie "I like chocolate because it tastes good or makes me feel good". There is no objective reason beyond the subject as its about the psychological state of the subject.

But when someone appeals to a reasoned basis they have moved from subjective thinking to analytic thinking about something in the world beyond the subject. That makes it objective as there is a reasoned independent basis outside the subject for why a moral position is taken.

I would go even further and say you can base your preference for chocolate on the fact that your biological faculties are constructed in a such a way that causes you to like it. This goes beyond your subjective state of mind and considers the objective world as it is, in this case how your body is objectively constructed to prefer chocolate.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,580
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,881.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But those things you mentioned aren't a "reasoned" basis. They're just the basis some folks prefer.
Though its funny how they always prefer similar reasons around the same thing "valuing life". People know intuitively why they prefer these specific reasons because they already know there is a rational for them.
You can't just make objective morals by choosing an arbitrary goal and pointing to things that promote that goal
Thats because when it comes to morality it is not arbitrary. Its no coincidence that most nations choose similar core morals. Thats because its a more rational choice than other choices.
You have to have a reason that your goal is the correct goal. People make "life" the goal because most folks would prefer to be alive than dead. People make "well being" the goal because most folks would prefer to be well than suffer. Etc.
I think this is dumbing down peoples ability to understand and know the rational for why they choose what they do. They already know that preferring to be alive and being well has good reasons behind compared to the alternatives.

Moral issues matter more to people than preferences and feelings. Proper arguements (not just exchanges of different arbitrary ideas) will inevitably require people to give a good account of themselves and justify their claim and reason their position. Saying I prefer to be alive or prefer to feel well doesn't cut it.

An arguement is a reasoning process like we are doing here. So when they say that "Human wellbeing"is the reason why we should behave morally they will elaborate beyond preferences or feelings. Rationalisations will be given like the wellbeing of society helps individuals and society to be better off based on a common objective knowledge about how wellbeing helps society.

A common theme through most appeals to an objective basis is the respect and protection of human "LIfe" whether it comes under the name of wellbeing, flourishing, survival, kindness, Golden rule it is all about respect for humans " Life". Thats because we all intuitively know that "Life" is valuable and demands respect and protection. All human societies converge on this truth as it is a necessity to be human and have societies.
 
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
Though its funny how they always prefer similar reasons around valuing life. People know why they prefer these specific reasons because they already know there is a rational for them.
If there was a rationale for them you would have presented it by now. My proof (that you've gone back to avoiding) shows that there can be no rationale for moral statements. It's impossible.
An arguement is a reasoning process like we are doing here. So when they say that "Human wellbeing"is the reason why we should behave morally they will elaborate beyond preferences or feelings. Rationalisations will be given like the wellbeing of society helps individuals and society to be better off based on a common objective knowledge about how wellbeing helps society.
So we prefer to be well because we prefer society to function.
A common theme through most appeals to an objective basis is the respect and protection of human "LIfe" whether it comes under the name of wellbeing, flourishing, survival, kindness, Golden rule it is all about respect for humans " Life". Thats because we all intuitively know that "Life" is valuable and demands respect and protection. All human societies converge on this truth as it is a necessity to be human and have societies.
See, you just assert that it's true and that we all know it. You ain't got no argument. You haven't reasoned it. Your position is, by definition, irrational.
 
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
12,580
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,881.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If there was a rationale for them you would have presented it by now. My proof (that you've gone back to avoiding) shows that there can be no rationale for moral statements. It's impossible.
Thats why I said logical arguements cannot be the only way we can determine moral truths by the fact that we do use these rationals to underpin society moral norms. Otherwise are we to say that there is no basis for valuing human life and respecting and protecting it accordingly.

So we prefer to be well because we prefer society to function.
If it was just a preference without any rationale then we could say that preferring to kill certain people to make a better life for others is a valid preference because afterall it doesn't need any rationale, all it requires is to prefer it to make it the case.

See, you just assert that it's true and that we all know it. You ain't got no argument. You haven't reasoned it. Your position is, by definition, irrational.
Thats because you have the wrong idea about intuition. Intuition about the value of life and moral truths are not just based on some arbitrary feeling. It is actually based on previously experiences of how we and others live out morality and then processed and stored away as a reference point. So they are already based on some reasoning.

As I have mentioned before we see a person getting mugged and we immediately know something is wrong. We don't need to pull out some ethical handbook to know this. We don't think the mugger is only acting out his subjective morals. Rather we want justice. Otherwise its counterintuitive to allow muggings as some persons relative moral position.

We see this happen again and again and its always the same. Our reasoning is being done in the moral experiences we have. We see the same outcomes and know that its wrong and know the consequences and how not mugging makes sense. This is all locked away in our subsconscience which pops up when someone does wrong.

Evenso we still test our intuitions in real life through rationality and we find that most of the time our intuition is correct. So our intuition is not blind and dumb and does have some reasoning to it. We then explicitly reason things through which then gives us justification to believe that our intuition is a good starting point for moral truths.

In fact most philosophers tend to believe moral theories more when they are based on intuitions. All moral theories in fact are based on some intuition. Basically intuition is based in epistemology which is about proper and justified beliefs and knowledge. So intuition is not some arbitrary and mystical thing.

philosophers use intuitions as evidence for their philosophical theories: they are more confident in their theories when they take themselves to have intuitions that propositions supporting those theories are true.
Intuitions are Used as Evidence in Philosophy
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LightLoveHope

Jesus leads us to life
Oct 6, 2018
1,473
458
London
✟79,581.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
If there was a rationale for them you would have presented it by now. My proof (that you've gone back to avoiding) shows that there can be no rationale for moral statements. It's impossible.

So we prefer to be well because we prefer society to function.

See, you just assert that it's true and that we all know it. You ain't got no argument. You haven't reasoned it. Your position is, by definition, irrational.

"Your position is, by definition, irrational"

I 100% agree, morality is completely emotional. Its foundation comes from love of ones parents and a secure childhood without abuse or major shocks. Babies are born totally dependent on their mother, to the extent it is described the baby regards itself as an extension of their mothers identity.

It has been shown in 4 year olds they have a distinct awareness of fairness and the need to be fair to everyone. Upon this you can build all the basic precepts of social morality and justice. The more socially disturbed and distorted the events a group go through, the more disturbed the moral expressions are.

We live our lives denying our dependency on a social context and its lessons, to avoid vulnerability or being hurt more than we already are. One aspect of this is to found our emotional stability on facts, things that will not suddenly move or be a problem. I know myself I can suffer panic and anxious moments without knowing why, but something in my makeup is not happy with the situation I am in.
I use analysis and rationalism to help subdue this, but in the final analysis, I find Jesus is my rescuer and safe place.

One major flaw to our morality and social cohesion is psychopaths who have no concern or focus on impact other than their self interest. So they can do things that emotionally we would be stopped from touching, without a flicker. It is why we need rules and clear definitions to identify these individuals and take precautions to limit their affect.

I was shocked at how Islam allows such folk to dominate and get away with horrendous behaviour with no comeback, because they take a rational view of law and its implementation without regard to emotion or relationships. The idea that God operates like this is truly heart breaking. King David knew the principles and road to walk, yet still failed with Bathsheba, the one night stand. The principle is seeing the path and the love that sustains it, not getting too overwhelmed by the struggles or battles along the way. Morality in love has its source in the Father and His loving expression in creation.

God bless you
 
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
Thats why I said logical arguements cannot be the only way we can determine moral truths by the fact that we do use these rationals to underpin society moral norms.
If moral "facts" were rational, then they could be proven through logic. You may not be good at writing formal logical proofs, but someone somewhere must have done it by now. All your research and links you post... Don't you find it funny that you don't have arguments that actually prove any of these moral facts? What use is trying to prove that morality is objective, if you can't prove what those objective morals are?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,580
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,881.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If moral "facts" were rational, then they could be proven through logic. You may not be good at writing formal logical proofs, but someone somewhere must have done it by now. All your research and links you post... Don't you find it funny that you don't have arguments that actually prove any of these moral facts? What use is trying to prove that morality is objective, if you can't prove what those objective morals are?
The links I used do provide arguements for objective morals. Perhaps not in formal logic but they do argue ways to overcome the " Is/ought" gap. One arguement you claim we cannot use " If" yet the article claims we can when the arguement is based on prudential " oughts" or hyperthetical imperatives.

Another arguement I linked was to do with defeasible inferences which are not based on deduction so do not have to be logically deductable to be sound so long as they stand up rationally. You have not addressed this. So I ask what does the article mean when it states that defeasible inferences do not have to be deductively valid and yet can still stand up as a way to determine the truth statements.

Argumentation schemes are argument forms that represent inferential structures of arguments used in everyday discourse, and in special contexts like legal argumentation, scientific argumentation, and especially in AI. Deductive forms of inference like modus ponens and disjunctive syllogism are very familiar. But some of the most common and interesting argumentation schemes are neither deductive nor inductive, but defeasible and presumptive
https://cgi.csc.liv.ac.uk/~floriana/CMNA/WaltonReed.pdf

Another arguement " The Epistemic arguement for moral Realism" you claim there were no epistemic facts and dismissed this without knowing the arguement. Yet there are several articles that argue there are epistemic facts. The author Terrance Cuneo goes into detail about how this can be done by first arguing there are epistemic values and facts which we all acknowledge and use to be able to gain knowledge and justified beliefs. Some of these epistemic values are tied to moral values.

Yet you have dismissed these arguements without even understanding them based on an assumption that there can be no way to overcome the " is/ought" problem. That in itself breaches an epistemic fact that we should not form determinations based on poor investigations about alternative ways of knowing. In other words you formed your determination without knowing all the facts.

The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism
Antirealist views about morality claim that moral facts do not exist. An interesting question to raise about these views is whether they imply that other types of normative facts, such as epistemic facts, do not exist. This book develops the argument that they do. That is, it contends that moral and epistemic facts are sufficiently similar that, if moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts also do not exist. But epistemic facts (facts that concern reasons for belief), it is argued, do exist. So, moral facts also exist. And if moral facts exist, then moral realism is true.

This argument provides not simply a defence of a robustly realist view of ethics, but a positive argument for this position. In so doing, it engages with sophisticated sceptical positions in epistemology, such as error theories, expressivist views, and reductionist views of epistemic reasons. These positions, it is claimed, come at a high theoretical cost. It follows that realism about both epistemic and moral facts is a position that we should find highly attractive.

The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism

Epistemic Argument 1

Premise 1: If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
Premise 2: Epistemic facts do exist
Conclusion 1: Moral facts do exist.
Premise 3: If moral facts do exist, then realism is true.
Conclusion 2: Moral realism is true.


Epistemic Argument 2
1. If epistemic realism is true, then moral realism is true.
2. Epistemic realism is true.
C: Therefore, moral realism is true.


Then we have the fact that most philosophers (2 to 1 support objective morality) who think that moral realism is the most reasonable position to take and even those who oppose moral realism don't think its unreasonable or some sort of error or delusion. So why would that be, why would most philosophers who are experts in the field take this position despite your claim that there is no way to prove objective morality.

The same survey also showed that only 2.7% of philosophers supported relative morality. This is consistent with other findings where moral relativism is seen as an untenable position. Why would that be if there were no objective morals then the obvious alternative is relativism and yet its rejected and for good reasons as its impossible to apply in reality.

Preliminary Survey results | PhilPapers Surveys
 
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
Epistemic Argument 1
Premise 1: If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
Premise 2: Epistemic facts do exist
Conclusion 1: Moral facts do exist.
Premise 3: If moral facts do exist, then realism is true.
Conclusion 2: Moral realism is true.


Epistemic Argument 2
1. If epistemic realism is true, then moral realism is true.
2. Epistemic realism is true.
C: Therefore, moral realism is true.
You don't get it. You're trying to argue that morality is objective, but you can't show me the arguments for any specific moral fact. These aren't arguments for moral facts. If moral facts were rational, then they would have arguments for them.
 
Upvote 0