Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What is your concept of morality?
You are your own evidence that objective moral values and duties exist.
I will tell you a true story and then ask you a question.
"KCfromNC, a man in Alabama recently jumped on a school bus and pointed a gun at the bus driver and said something to the effect that he wanted some kids off of the school bus. The bus driver said no, and he was shot dead for refusing to give up any children from the bus. The shooter then kidnapped a young 5 year old boy and held him hostage for a week. After negotiations broke down, the man refused to give up the child and he was killed:
My question is simple:
Were this man's actions wrong even though he was of the opinion that what he was doing was justified by his desire to have some kids off of the school bus?
Your answer in the affirmative will be your evidence. The evidence will come from your own mouth that at least one objective moral value or duty exists.
If you say he was wrong even though it was his opinion he was right, then you are saying he was objectively wrong. That is all that objective in this sense means. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you do not say: "Yes Elioenai26, this man was objectively wrong", then I have a followup question for you:
If he was not objectively wrong, meaning, wrong even though he thought he was right, then what was he? How would you categorize his actions? If he was not wrong, what was he? Were his actions:
A. Morally neutral, that is, the man's actions have no moral component at all for no act is inherently either moral or immoral. These concepts do not refer to -Nihilism
B. Morally commendable and good?
Or...
C. Your opinion that he was wrong. If this is your view, then I have a followup question:
Followup question 1: If it is your opinion that he was wrong, and it was his opinion that he was right, then how is arbitration between the two opinions possible? There are only two possible responses:
Response R. - The societal judiciary system decides who is right and who is wrong. But this simply pushes the issue one step further back, for what is a society, but a colletive group of individuals? If no one view is objectively right or wrong, then who is to say that the majority view or general consensus within a society is the view which should be legislated? It seems that there would just once again, be opinions. In a hypothetical society, you have one-hundred people. Sixty of the one-hundred believe that school bus shootings are ok, and forty believe school bus shootings are bad. Who is to say that the view of the sixty should be preferred over the minority forty? The relativist would say, well the majority rules! But that just leads to the next obvious question: "Who says?" Who says the majority should rule over the minority? If the view that the majority should rule over the minority is itself an opinion with no objective referrent, then the minority could say that they should be able to rule over the majority. Who determines whose rules are legislated? Some would say well, hmm...Aha! Whichver view is based on empathy and sympathy and reason and which is more conducive to human flourishing should be the one accpeted. But this obviously leaves the question looming large: "Who says?" Why should those who disagree with that opinion agree with it? If sixty of the one-hundred say that the view which fosters happiness and reduces suffering should be accpeted, and forty say that their view which fosters greed, self-satisfaction, and fulfilling one's wildest fantasies and pleasures should be accepted, then: "Who says?" They are all opinions, and since there is no objective standard to which one can appeal to to judge the two opinions, then what are we left with? But surely one would say: "We should encourage the view which causes our species to survive and reproduce!" But once again: "Who says?" Why should that opinion be seen as being preferable to the opinion of: "eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die!" Who says we should act in a way that is conducive to our survival as a species? That in itself is just an opinion, like the opinion that one should live for the moment and not care about tomorrow, for tomorrow is not even promised. Everytime someone in a relativistic society comes up with a reason as to why one opinion should be preferred over another, the question will always come up: "Who says?" Some may even condede the point and say: "Well, it should be self-evident to people that regardless of their opinons, that we should live in a way in which it helps us, as a society, do away with human suffering and a way which helps us be happy!" But look at what this person just said. The moral relativist confesses here that it should be self-evident to people regardless of their opinions that we should live in such and such a way. But guess what this moral relativist no longer is when he speaks this way? HE IS NO LONGER A MORAL RELATIVIST! HE IS AT THE MINIMUM A BORN AGAIN MORAL REALIST. HE HAS FINALLY SEEN THE LIGHT!
Response S. - There is no way to adjudicate between the two, because all opinions are equally valid. In light of the above, this is the only response that one can give if they are consistent moral relativists. And look at what it leads to. It leads to the conclusion that there actually is no objective moral values and duties. And since the concepts of moral and immoral exist only if there is some objective standard by which they can be measured, as is demonstrated in response R., then the words moral and immoral actually have no meaning. They are just words void of content. This leads us back to A, moral nihilism.
If you say A. Then I can speak for every parent and say that I would not want you as a school bus driver or anywhere near any of my children or any other children. I would not want you to be my doctor, a law enforcement officer, a judge, or a teacher. I would not want you to be my neighbor, an airline pilot, a lawyer, a child care worker, and any other profession where people's lives could directly or indirectly be affected by your sociopathic view. You would also, by saying A. lose any right to make any moral judgments ever again here in this forum. You would never be able to say anything was wrong or evil or bad. You would never be able to make any moral pronouncements at all. For as a moral nihilist you assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is the meta-ethical view that morality does not exist as something inherent to objective reality; therefore no action is necessarily preferable to any other. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is not inherently right or wrong. Other nihilists may argue not that there is no morality at all, but that if it does exist, it is a human construction and thus artificial, wherein any and all meaning is relative for different possible outcomes. As an example, if someone kills someone else, such a nihilist might argue that killing is not inherently a bad thing, or bad independently from our moral beliefs, because of the way morality is constructed as some rudimentary dichotomy. What is said to be a bad thing is given a higher negative weighting than what is called good: as a result, killing the individual was bad because it did not let the individual live, which was arbitrarily given a positive weighting. In this way a moral nihilist believes that all moral claims are false. *Wikipedia*
If you say B., well then, all I can say is, may God help you...
Firstly, let me point out that this is fallacy from final consequences. You have set it up so that if I decide not to agree with you the only problem with such the consquences of such a choice, rather than the logical validity of my decision.
That being said, I don't know whether there are objective morals are not. There might be, there might not be. I'm just playing devil's advocate. There is no evidence of it, and you have to admit, you're have a right hard time producing some. Your major argument says that objective morals are evidenced by agreement, and yet also say that they exist regardless of whether we agree with them or not. Without a null hypothesis, we will never see evidence.
You have presented no credible evidence for your claim, so I am not convinced that objective morals exist. Therefore I cannot agree that they do. However, I also cannot say that this man's actions are morally neutral, or morally right. So, I choose none of the above.
I know, and I have time and again shown you the errors of this reasoning.I have always appealed to people's cognitive reasoning abilities and to moral intuition (conscience) in addition to peoples five senses as proof that they themselves when presented with case examples, affirm the existence of objective moral values and duties on the pain of irrationality.
That´s why your appeal to broad acceptance is not an argument for objective morality.They are true and binding independent of human opinion. Binding in the sense that if we fail to fulfill a moral duty, we incur a sense of moral guilt.
You then go on to say there is no reason to assume they are designed to further our well being because they are independnet of human perception. But this is patently incorrect for at least two reasons:
1. Your usage of the phrase "they are independent of human perception" is taken to mean "existing without regard to humans". But this is not the sense in which philosophers understand this concept of objectivity. The concept of independence from human opinion simply means that a moral proposition's truth pertains not upon the acceptance of the referent subject, but rather upon the objective fact itself appealed to.
Yet, instead of demonstrating the existence of such objective duties all you do is point to the broad agreement on a few handselected issues.In other words, to say that for example: "rape is wrong", is to say that the act of rape being wrong is based not on what the subject's personal opinion about rape is, but rather, the objective moral duty being appealed to as support for the normative prescriptive evaluative judgment.
2. Whether one is a subjectivist or objectivist, it is undeniably clear that normative statements such as: "One should not rape a woman", or "Parents should love and protect their children", or "People should love their neighbor as themselves" are conducive to human well-being. In fact, in the absence of some defeater, we are to hold that every moral normative statement is conducive to human well-being. I mean after all, that is what morality is all about, right behavior or behavior conducive to human well being!
If I remember correctly, this was the point of my very first post in this thread: The existence of subjective morality is demonstrable. There is no question that humans hold subjective values and opinions.It is framed in all-or-nothing terms: either morality is 'objective' or there is no morality at all. This is a sort of false dichotomy. Who would say that morality would no longer concern them if it were not something 'objective', in the strictest sense of the word?
You are your own evidence that objective moral values and duties exist.
Depends - was he commanded by an objectively moral God to do this or not?Were this man's actions wrong even though he was of the opinion that what he was doing was justified by his desire to have some kids off of the school bus?
Funny that the way we actually do things here in our society is neither of the only "possible" responses you list. Hope you enjoyed the workout you got from beating up on a strawman of your own making. We'll be waiting back here in reality if actually want to get serious and discuss how the US lawmaking and justice system works, and how it relates to morality. But if you'd rather just talk to yourself, that's fine too.Followup question 1: If it is your opinion that he was wrong, and it was his opinion that he was right, then how is arbitration between the two opinions possible? There are only two possible responses:
Objective standards + subjective values = my morality
To the point though, it doesn't actually matter. Vicarious redemption destroys responsibility, and by extension, any concept of morality.
What do you mean by objective standards?
Do you have an example of one of these objective standards?
If anyone thinks they are a consistent moral relativist/subjectivist then I would like to show you why you are not.
Firstly, let me point out that this is fallacy from final consequences. You have set it up so that if I decide not to agree with you the only problem with such the consquences of such a choice, rather than the logical validity of my decision.
That being said, I don't know whether there are objective morals are not. There might be, there might not be. I'm just playing devil's advocate. There is no evidence of it, and you have to admit, you're have a right hard time producing some.
Your major argument says that objective morals are evidenced by agreement, and yet also say that they exist regardless of whether we agree with them or not. Without a null hypothesis, we will never see evidence.
The answer you give to this question is your evidence:
"Is child molesting wrong even if the molestor thinks it is right?" If you say yes, then you admit that it is objectively wrong, which is all that is required for you to accept a premise in an argument.
I do, and you've failed so far to demonstrate otherwise. Most of the arguments you have presented so far against subjectivism/relativism have fallen into two main groups. Either they go after the other person (e.g., "You don't say that murder is objectively wrong? You're an evil person!"), which is not an argument for objective morality.
Therefore, when I present this moral argument to someone, like you for instance, I make you see the price you have to pay in order to deny that God exists. In order to avoid the conclusion that God exists, you have to resort to denying premise (1) or (2) of the argument. And if you want to deny premise (2), you have to resort to adopting a sociopathic, nihilistic view of morality.
So its bad for you and for the atheist who insists on denying God. You have to adopt a nihilistic view of morality, which, by the way, is something that Nietzsche understood way before you were even born!
Wrong wrong wrong. If I say yes, it means that the subjective morality I adhere to is the one I adhere to.
The molester's own subjective morality does not influence my own.
Are you being dishonest here? The atheist doesn't have to be a nihilist, and you know that.
He has to be if he is a moral relativist.
Eudaimonist is an atheist, and he is not a nihilist. He believes in objective moral values and duties, and so do most theistic and atheistic philosophers.
You sir, are in a quickly vanishing minority.
Of course none of the above means that objective moral values and duties exist, this would be an appeal to authority. But it should give you reason to start thinking about how absurd your position is.
The answer you give to this question is your evidence:
"Is child molesting wrong even if the molestor thinks it is right?" If you say yes, then you admit that it is objectively wrong, which is all that is required for you to accept a premise in an argument.
I am hoping for the sake of your credibility here, that you will not answer no.
Strawman. Nowhere have I argued that because people agree that objective moral values and duties exist, therefore they exist.
For instance, you say that terminating your mother's life is objectively the right choice, rather than allowing your mother to suffer. Can you say with 100% certainty that this is indeed the objective moral action?
You are exactly right. That is not an argument for the existence of objective moral values and duties. When did I ever use that as an argument?
If you say A. Then I can speak for every parent and say that I would not want you as a school bus driver or anywhere near any of my children or any other children. I would not want you to be my doctor, a law enforcement officer, a judge, or a teacher. I would not want you to be my neighbor, an airline pilot, a lawyer, a child care worker, and any other profession where people's lives could directly or indirectly be affected by your sociopathic view.
What it does prove, and this has been my point, is that if one cannot say that child molestation is wrong even if the molestor thinks it is right, then it follows logically that the act of child molestation is:
Either good or...
but since he thinks it is right and since you think it is wrong, and since all there is is opinions, all of which must be equally valid to the consistent relativist
then this logically leads to the conclusion that no act is inherently or intrinsically moral or immoral in and of itself which is Nihilism.
I make you see the price you have to pay in order to deny that God exists.
So its bad for you and for the atheist who insists on denying God. You have to adopt a nihilistic view of morality, which, by the way, is something that Nietzsche understood way before you were even born!
Saying: "It is my opinion that rape is wrong even though the rapist thinks it is right." is the same as saying: "It is my opinion that the earth is round even though members of the flat earth society think its flat."
LIKEWISE, CHILD MOLESTATION IS WRONG. THAT IS A FACT.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?