Yeah, it does. If someone steals a penny from me, I'm not going to care in the slightest.No it doesn't depend on the person.
Upvote
0
Yeah, it does. If someone steals a penny from me, I'm not going to care in the slightest.No it doesn't depend on the person.
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 we cannot write norms for our preferences
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.There is no OBJECTIVE way to determine it.
I'm honestly confused at how you could not realise that this would be my position.
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.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?
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.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?
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.Why do you think that a person's value depends on their technological creativity?
Is my life worth less than a computer programmer's?
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.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.
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.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.
I am not talking about HR as in Human Resources but HR as in Human Rights. A companies ethical codes of conduct cover this.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.
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.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?
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.Why do you continually resort to this ridiculous and weak argument?
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.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?
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 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!"
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.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.
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.Yeah, it does. If someone steals a penny from me, I'm not going to care in the slightest.
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.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".
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.
If you take the meaning of rationale it saysSo then the question is: is rationale objective, like facts?
Yep, whatever you prefer.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.
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.Yep, whatever you prefer.
The mistake people make is morality is founded on value.Are acts wrong in themselves? Or does it depend on the context?
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.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.
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.
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.But those things you mentioned aren't a "reasoned" basis. They're just the basis some folks prefer.
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 can't just make objective morals by choosing an arbitrary goal and pointing to things that promote that goal
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.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.
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.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.
So we prefer to be well because we prefer society to function.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.So we prefer to be well because we prefer society to function.
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.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.
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.
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?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.
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.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?
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.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.