And values are subjective, so morals are subjective.Moral rules are correct to the extent they satisfy values.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
And values are subjective, so morals are subjective.Moral rules are correct to the extent they satisfy values.
We experience having values subjectively. But many values are built into us biologically as a matter of objective fact.And values are subjective, so morals are subjective.
Everything we subjectively experience is because of biological facts. Your statement holds no significance.We experience having values subjectively. But many values are built into us biologically as a matter of objective fact.
What does the title of the thread have to do with your first post in this thread. I don't get the connection?Was in a friend's wedding not too long ago and got into an argument with one of our other friends concerning slavery in the Bible. Not sure what he was ultimately trying to point out (maybe trying to get the moral high ground as an Atheist), but the debate transitioned to how he could objectively prove that slavery is wrong. He kept referring to "human wellness" as a moral principle that could be proven objectively. I asked him if the move to improve human evolution by removing the "inferior" peoples would be justified as morally right (even though there existed those that believed that). His response was "that's ridiculous because no one would believe that and neither would you." Okay, so I brought up the cultures/nations that believe that slavery is a justifiable and morally acceptable part of life (Not too many left). Again, his response: "Freedom is an aspect of human wellness. If they are not free then they are not well." This finally led to how he could objectively define a value term such as "wellness", which he replied "anything good for humans to live well. Anyone who believes that wellness involves extreme harm for some future goal is just insane." Any thoughts?
It is not possible to support the wellness of all people.1. We must agree that human wellness of all people is the ultimate goal of society. This is the starting point.
You're straying awfully close to appealing to something objective here. Why qualify the statement by saying that any "reasonable" person would agree that murdering their neighbor is wrong? If I've understood things correctly so far, a statement like "murdering your neighbor is wrong" is very much like, say, telling someone you think tofu is nasty. Why would it then be unreasonable for someone to think killing their neighbor is morally acceptable? This would be functionally equivalent to giving an opinion on the best flavor of ice cream, and you wouldn't say someone who has a different preference isn't being "reasonable," would you? Why would an appeal to reason demonstrate that that person is incorrect in their thinking?Just because you can point to a moral issue that any reasonable person will agree on, does not make morality objective. Can you objectively demonstrate why murder is wrong?
When I said any "reasonable" person would agree, I was voicing my opinion on what is reasonable or not; I was not stating it as an objective fact.You're straying awfully close to appealing to something objective here. Why qualify the statement by saying that any "reasonable" person would agree that murdering their neighbor is wrong?
The only thing the 2 statements "tofu is nasty" and "murder is wrong" have in common is that they are both subjective statements. Everything else is different which is why nobody cares concerning my view of the taste of tofu, but everybody cares concerning my view of the morality of murderIf I've understood things correctly so far, a statement like "murdering your neighbor is wrong" is very much like, say, telling someone you think tofu is nasty. Why would it then be unreasonable for someone to think killing their neighbor is morally acceptable? This would be functionally equivalent to giving an opinion on the best flavor of ice cream, and you wouldn't say someone who has a different preference isn't being "reasonable," would you? Why would an appeal to reason demonstrate that that person is incorrect in their thinking?
And if you're going to say something along the lines of it being unreasonable because it would bring negative consequences to the murderer, that's not an argument for it actually being wrong to kill their neighbor, that's just an argument for it not being the most convenient thing for that person to do right now.
I dont think so. There's various values that are dependent not on biology but on culture, and so some of them differ among the various groups even as our biology remains identical.Everything we subjectively experience is because of biological facts. Your statement holds no significance.
There are way more Billys than Bobs in the world. Probably because a society of Bobs would have died out as an objectively assessable outcome of the Bobs untenable morality.....Let's look at your previous example of murder. Let's say we have Billy and Bob. Billy and Bob are both thinking about murdering each other. If either one of them goes through with it then the victim will experience physical harm, that's an objective fact. But so what? Why would it be incorrect to cause physical harm? Well Billy has empathy as a result of the biological processes in his brain (more objective facts), so he values human life and doesn't want to see anyone murdered and chooses not to. He made the correct decision based on his values. Bob on the other hand lacks empathy, he's a psychopath. He murders Billy and has fun doing it. He doesn't have the empathy that comes from specific biological processes in his brain that Billy did (more objective facts), so he doesn't value human life. He too made the correct choice based on his values.
Who made the correct decision? If morality is objective, then only one of them can be correct. Choosing murder is correct or incorrect. If they're both right, then morality is entirely subjective because it differs from person to person. I would hazard a guess that you think Bob made the incorrect choice. Tell me why. His choice was correct to the extent that it satisfied his values, so what could possibly be wrong with his choice?
Who made the correct decision? If morality is objective, then only one of them can be correct. Choosing murder is correct or incorrect. If they're both right, then morality is entirely subjective because it differs from person to person. I would hazard a guess that you think Bob made the incorrect choice. Tell me why. His choice was correct to the extent that it satisfied his values, so what could possibly be wrong with his choice?
durangodawood said:There are way more Billys than Bobs in the world. Probably because a society of Bobs would have died out as an objectively assessable outcome of the Bobs untenable morality.
So your argument is that Billy is correct because there are more people like him than Bob?There are way more Billys than Bobs in the world. Probably because a society of Bobs would have died out as an objectively assessable outcome of the Bobs untenable morality.
It is not possible to support the wellness of all people.
Resources are limited and hence we must compete against each other for those resources.
Billy's morality aligns better with the objective facts of how people want to live, in this case: free from constant fear of being murdered by your neighbor. Billy's morality probably also has its origins in that fact about how people typically, naturally, objectively prefer to live. Thats my argument.So your argument is that Billy is correct because there are more people like him than Bob?
Does that make Billy correct and Bob incorrect? If so, how so? If not, do you see that what you keep saying has no bearing on the objectivity of morality?Billy's morality aligns better with the objective facts of how people want to live, in this case: free from constant fear of being murdered by your neighbor. Billy's morality probably also has its origins in that fact about how people typically, naturally prefer to live. Thats my argument.
Yes. Billy believes in a correct rule for a society that typical people naturally and objectively want to live in.Does that make Billy correct and Bob incorrect? If so, how so? If not, do you see that what you keep saying has no bearing on the objectivity of morality?
Well, Billy and Bob both possess their values naturally, they were born with and without empathy as a result of biological processes in their brains, respectively, as I stated in my hypothetical. And stating that it's an objective fact that people have a certain value doesn't have an impact on the objectivity of that value. I mean, I feel bored right now. It's an objective fact that I feel bored, but that doesn't make my feeling objective. So all you have left is "typical". So it does seem to be the case that you think Billy is correct because there are more people that feel like him than Bob.Yes. Billy believes in a correct rule for a society that typical people naturally and objectively want to live in.
It's a fact that some humans lack empathy completely and have no value for human life. Why are they incorrect? Simply because most other people do? Other than your appeal to popularity, everything you keep saying applies to Bob just as much as it applies to Billy.The way I phrase that indicates how "correctness" in this case derives from and depends on facts about the human species.
As I said "correct" is conditional on what typical humans need to live well. Some of those needs are not just opinion. They are fact, and can be observed the same we'd scientifically study any aspect of animal behavior.Well, Billy and Bob both possess their values naturally, they were born with and without empathy as a result of biological processes in their brains, respectively, as I stated in my hypothetical. And stating that it's an objective fact that people have a certain value doesn't have an impact on the objectivity of that value. I mean, I feel bored right now. It's an objective fact that I feel bored, but that doesn't make my feeling objective. So all you have left is "typical". So it does seem to be the case that you think Billy is correct because there are more people that feel like him than Bob.
It's a fact that some humans lack empathy completely and have no value for human life. Why are they incorrect? Simply because most other people do? Other than your appeal to popularity, everything you keep saying applies to Bob just as much as it applies to Billy.
ETA Why are you putting "correct" in scare quotes? And "correctness"? As if you might ask: 2+2=4, is that "correct"? There are varying degrees of accuracy, there are not varying degrees of "correctness" that are open to opinion. If it's open to opinion, then it has nothing to do with being correct.
See, you're still talking about some values as though they are the objectively correct values to have. None of them are. There are objective facts about how to "live well", but "living well" is not objectively valuable.As I said "correct" is conditional on what typical humans need to live well. Some of those needs are not just opinion. They are fact, and can be observed the same we'd scientifically study any aspect of animal behavior.
Yes, of course "typical" matters. We came up as a social species, and extreme minority notions of morality that are destructive to the group will naturally be rejected, for entirely practical survival reasons that arent just opinion.
No, you simply need to acknowledge that "correct" and "incorrect" aren't the right words to use when talking about morality because it isn't objective at all.The scare quotes are there because "correct" has a ton of baggage we need to be aware of, mainly around the religious notion of correctness backstopped by some presumed absolute.
Really?See, you're still talking about some values as though they are the objectively correct values to have. None of them are. There are objective facts about how to "live well", but "living well" is not objectively valuable.....
Yes, really.Really?
Again, it's a fact that most humans value life, that doesn't mean it is a fact that life is valuable. Are you starting to see the distinction yet? You're still trying to say that: most humans value life, therefore life is in fact valuable. Argument from popularity. Life is only valuable to the humans that it is valuable to. It isn't valuable to those humans who it isn't. Neither of those groups are correct or incorrect because those aren't proper words to use when discussing peoples' likes and dislikes.Any scientific observation of human behavior indicates otherwise. We can see what humans value by observing how they behave. Yes there's a subjective experience of valuing. But there are also the objective facts about what human animals (and other animals) value.
OK, help me out. When you deny that "life is in fact valuable"... what precisely are you denying?....Again, it's a fact that most humans value life, that doesn't mean it is a fact that life is valuable. Are you starting to see the distinction yet?...