How do Naturalists/Materialists account for the immateriality of morals, laws of logic or information?

[Ken-1122]

I've lost count of the number of times I have asked this question in this and other forums. Guess how many times I've received an answer...

Got it! I'm hoping for an answer, but I ain't holdin' my breath!

 

[Bradskii]

Got it! I'm hoping for an answer, but I ain't holdin' my breath!

Me neither. Because to claim that there are absolute truths but there are some with which you don't agree is a classic contradiction: 'I know this to be true, but I personally think it's false'. Just...what?

Else the person has to concede that every absolute truth is something with which he or she agrees. And he or she then posesses ultimate knowledge of right and wrong. They are then the Oracle to whom we should all defer regarding questions of morality.

 

[expos4ever]

It's a negative process actually. It filters out those that aren't as efficient at reproduction. Leaving those who are a little better....

You are either evading the thrust of my argument or I am not being clear in explaining my position. First, I entirely agree with your view that there is no need to appeal to some mysterious "moral law" to explain the moral sense we humans have. At least most of us.

My point was that I am doubtful that evolutionary arguments are sufficient precisely because it is my understanding - correct me if I am wrong - is that evolution "selects" for reproductive success, not for survival. Of course, these two things usually align with one another. But not always, I am thinking. For example, it is not at all clear to me that our moral sense to care for the elderly has a connection to promoting reproductive success. And yet we tend to consider care of the elderly to be a moral imperative. Maybe you can spell out such a connection.

Just in case there is any misunderstanding, I believe is self-evident that mechanisms other than evolutionary ones could indeed play a role in shaping our moral sensibilities without, of course, having to appeal to some mysterious abstract moral code.

I agree with you about the major issue that appears to be on the table - what works is what is deemed "good". I am just questioning if evolution, which I entirely embrace by the way, is sufficient to explain all the complexities of our moral sense.

 

[Bradskii]

You are either evading the thrust of my argument or I am not being clear in explaining my position. First, I entirely agree with your view that there is no need to appeal to some mysterious "moral law" to explain the moral sense we humans have. At least most of us.

My point was that I am doubtful that evolutionary arguments are sufficient precisely because it is my understanding - correct me if I am wrong - is that evolution "selects" for reproductive success, not for survival. Of course, these two things usually align with one another. But not always, I am thinking. For example, it is not at all clear to me that our moral sense to care for the elderly has a connection to promoting reproductive success. And yet we tend to consider care of the elderly to be a moral imperative. Maybe you can spell out such a connection.

Just in case there is any misunderstanding, I believe is self-evident that mechanisms other than evolutionary ones could indeed play a role in shaping our moral sensibilities without, of course, having to appeal to some mysterious abstract moral code.

I agree with you about the major issue that appears to be on the table - what works is what is deemed "good". I am just questioning if evolution, which I entirely embrace by the way, is sufficient to explain all the complexities of our moral sense.

It selects for survival primarily, which then obviously leads to reproduction. Although there are aspects that appear to be directly associated with reproduction, such as larger horns on a stag which might lead to success in fighting off potential suitors for your females. Or perhaps the peacocks tail which is a signal 'reproduce with me - I'm so fit that I can waste a lot of energy just producing this exhibition'.

As regards caring for the elderly, there are a few views. Firstly that caring for the elderly wasn't evolutionary beneficial and that it didn't occur in pre civilisation groups (also suggesting that infanticide was quite common as well), but that modern sensibilities have overriden the tendency. And that in the current society it is not now an evolutionary negative in that caring for elderly parents reduces your evolutionary fitness.

Secondly, and in opposition to the position above, that a strong bond between child and parent is essential for a species that gives birth to young that need constant attention for the first few years. And that continues into adulthood.

And thirdly that there is a benefit for a child to maintain a relationship with the parent as when they become grandparents they are handy in helping to raise their grandchildren (we're actually looking after our grandaughter today).

Sometimes we claim that evolution is responsible for a certain aspect life and the proposal seems evidently true. But we have to remind ourselves that there are many other influences that affect us today which are totally different to the conditions we were under way back when. And that first option may be the correct one. Which is the one I tend towards.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
There are some things we have agreed upon, but there are a lot of things we have not, because these ideas are completely subjective and often vary from person to person. Yeah; everybody agrees there should be justice, but what constitutes justice is what is often not agreed upon

But that doesn't affect the principle of Justice itself. It remains an objective regardless. But I do think we have pretty well defined justice so that we can determine justice or injustice in each situation. Most of the time justice is served. Sometimes its not due to lack of evidence or evidence being corrupted like in OJ's case or when a person of color is wrongly treated. But if you can come up with an example of where justice is subjectively determined we can look at that.

I said HUMANS are the cause, and humans are evolved beings. Do you see the difference?

But now it seems your appealing to another unsupported assertion that humans are the cause of empathy. Its circular because your saying humans are the cause and evolution caused humans. You haven't explained or provided evidence that this is actually the case.

Do you think those with the transcendent view express empathy differently than the way materialists express it? If not, how is it different?

I think we mostly express it the same as its a truth we have within us. But that doesn't mean this idea can be corrupted. That's where I think a persons worldview comes into play. Because under a materialist view that everything is naturalistic and there is no God to answer to I believe some people can take a negative view of evolution in certain situations where empathy becomes corrupted by survival of the fittest.

Because empathy is not grounded in something beyond human ideas it is easy to see how some could justify what we would normally consider immoral acts. But I think this doesn't change the truth of these transcendent principles. It only means they have been corrupted.

I have this naturalist view, and it poses no problems for me.

That's fair enough. The problem though as I have been pointing out is explaining how these transcendent truths come about through a naturalistic cause. If they are transcendent then they transcend material causes because they are no material themselves, they don't occupy space or have mass so there is nothing about them you can pick up, measure, observe, equate directly to work out the naturalistic cause.

Therefore you have to assume without evidence and make explanation jumps to bridge the gap which is no different to believing these transcendent truths are just as valid an explanation. In fact like I have mentioned our conscious experience is how we know transcendent morals like empathy and our conscious experience is the best evidence as its a direct link between transcendent truths and ourselves.

In some ways even material matter itself is a transcendent idea as its posing something beyond our own minds and conscious experience. We cannot get outside our minds to check if this is really the case. So its like something out there in the great unknown that we can know.

 

[stevevw]

Okay, then let me characterize consciousness another way... as qualia. I would argue that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon much like color or taste, which do indeed have an underlying cause, but none-the-less cannot be fully explained or appreciated by means of that cause alone. For example a scientist may explain that the color "red" is nothing more than the brain's representation of a specific wavelength of light. There's a direct correlation between the two. Yet the qualia of "redness" is a purely conscious phenomenon. That photon of light isn't red. The mind/brain imparts that underlying photon with the quality of redness.

The same may be true of consciousness, that there is indeed an underlying cause... be it simply the underlying coherency of reality. But like the photon that isn't actually red, that coherency isn't actually conscious until it's given that quality by the human mind. I think that your mistake lies in projecting the effect of an emergent phenomenon onto the cause of that emergent phenomenon, rather than accepting, that as with redness it's the human mind that's responsible for the quality of consciousness, even if there is indeed an underlying cause.

The problem is I think you can't use the experience of color or taste as an example of how consciousness emerged from the brain because color and taste are conscious experiences themselves. In fact Chalmers gives a good argument for how using Jackson's thought experiment on color experience as a source of true knowledge.
The Content and Epistemology of Phenomenal Belief

https://consc.net/papers/belief.pdf

 

[Neutral Observer]

But that doesn't affect the principle of Justice itself.

Personally I don't think that justice, as you or I understand it, is anything more than a purely human construct. The only truly objective measure of justice is the one afforded by evolution... that the strong survive. That's the only unbiased, objective measure of justice that I can think of. That which should survive, given any and all circumstances, does survive. In which case justice always prevails, and yours or my opinions to the contrary simply don't matter.

 

[stevevw]

I want to focus on this part of what posted: rather than they grew out of some non moral or mindless substance which could not be capable of having this in the first place

Underneath this statement there appears to be a substantial assumption: that moral laws either are, or are caused by, a "substance". Having made this assumption, and I believe an assumption it is, you then conclude that it appears inconceivable that moral laws could arise by the mechanism that posters like Bradski and I are proposing. But all sorts of things are real but are not "substance", nor derivative of substance. Take the concept of "information" - there is a whole body of theory that has developed around information. Surely information can be thought of as "existing" even if it is not, in and of itself, a substance or in any way caused by substance.

Yes I agree. But this is another example of something abstract and transcendent because information is of a mind concept. If this has any real effect on reality then it points to Mind and consciousness being fundamental to reality not anything that can be reduced to a material thing that occupies space and time and has mass.

 

[Bradskii]

That's fair enough. The problem though as I have been pointing out is explaining how these transcendent truths come about through a naturalistic cause. If they are transcendent then they transcend material causes because they are no material themselves, they don't occupy space or have mass so there is nothing about them you can pick up, measure, observe, equate directly to work out the naturalistic cause.

So something that has no material substance like finance or bartering transcend material causes and cannot have occurred naturally through the means whereby people have exchanged goods. That's nonsense. It has been explained to you at length how some moral codes have arisen through the interaction of humans in the evolutionary past. Your only response to that seems to be - they aren't material, so they must be transcendent and gee, they just are.

Is that mean to be taken as a serious argument about the genesis of morality? It just is?

In fact like I have mentioned our conscious experience is how we know transcendent morals like empathy...

Empathy is not a moral characteristic! Good grief, do I have to post this again?

empathy
/ˈɛmpəθi/
noun

1. the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
   
   
   It's no more a 'transcendent moral' than is having an opposable thumb.
   
   

 

[stevevw]

So something that has no material substance like finance or bartering transcend material causes and cannot have occurred naturally through the means whereby people have exchanged goods. That's nonsense. It has been explained to you at length how some moral codes have arisen through the interaction of humans in the evolutionary past. Your only response to that seems to be - they aren't material, so they must be transcendent and gee, they just are.

Is that mean to be taken as a serious argument about the genesis of morality? It just is?

Money is probably a good example to use. I think to understand reality we need a theory that covers both the external world and the internal one of the subject. Scientific materialism will always assume that everything reduces back to a naturalistic cause. That is one that can be measured in those terms (methodological naturalism). That excludes transcendent phenomena before it starts to measure so if you take this view no amount of explaining about the difference between these aspects of reality will work.

The materialist view is about quantities (mass occupying space and time) so as far as money goes its the paper and the reducible components that take it back to the quantum world. That is informative and it helps us navigate the world. But its just the scaffolding so to speak. The framework or interface that only represents part of what makes up reality.

Humans take that paper and turn it into something else that transcends the material, a concept of mind which has value money wise bit also is entangled with non-monetary values. The power of that concept can change the physical world, the shape of the earth, its health, our health. Objective reality has effects, gravity, but these transcendent ideas hve just as much gravity but in a different way as far as reality overall is concerned.

Empathy is not a moral characteristic! Good grief, do I have to post this agai

empathy
/ˈɛmpəθi/
noun

1. the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
   
   
   It's no more a 'transcendent moral' than is having an opposable thumb.

I though you earlier used empathy as the basis for morality with the principle of 'Love others as yourself". Anything that minimizes harm to others is good and anything that doesn't is bad.

I think its because we are conscious moral beings that empathy is a key part. Morality only happens between people, how we treat people and therefore empathizing about how we treat others is a big part.

 

[stevevw]

Personally I don't think that justice, as you or I understand it, is anything more than a purely human construct. The only truly objective measure of justice is the one afforded by evolution... that the strong survive. That's the only unbiased, objective measure of justice that I can think of. That which should survive, given any and all circumstances, does survive. In which case justice always prevails, and yours or my opinions to the contrary simply don't matter.

That is why I say that something like justice transcends naturalistic explanations like evolution because human behavior doesn't come out as though its only about survival of the fittest. People transcend that when they put their own survival second. Justice will stand up regardless of naturalistic influences.

I don't think justice and other transcendent moral truths are a human construct, I think they have always been there. We just had to live them out and embody them before we got wise enough to realize them. Or we had to expose the corrupt thinking which prevented it coming out and being acknowledged.

 

[Neutral Observer]

That is why I say that something like justice transcends naturalistic explanations like evolution because human behavior doesn't come out as though its only about survival of the fittest. People transcend that when they put their own survival second.

People may have a voice in which attributes are being selected for, but the final arbiter of which attributes survive is always evolution. In the short term people may appear to have some say in the matter, but in the long term the final arbiter is always evolution. In that sense evolution is a lot like God. As Kyle Reese says in "The Terminator".

“It can't be bargained with, it can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity! Or remorse or fear and it absolutely will not stop!"​

And I might add that it's always correct, it never makes mistakes, it's completely impartial, and therefore its decisions are always just. Evolution is the epitome of objectivity.

You're correct that human behavior in the short term isn't simply about survival of the fittest, but evolution will always guarantee that in the long term it IS about survival of the fittest. So if you have some overarching sense of morality... thank evolution.

 

[eleos1954]

Then we agree to disagree. That's the case whether there are what you might claim are divinely ordained moral laws or not. And I might ask if you accept those laws without question or whether you go through the same process as I do in determining if they are valid or not.

well no .... it's a matter of whether once believes in happen chance or design .... if design then there is a designer .... if not then there is the theory of evolution ....and I do not believe the theory. I find the theory way too far of a reach knowing the tremendous complexity and intricacy of the universe and nature to claim it "just happened" on it's own.

 

[Neutral Observer]

well no .... it's a matter of whether once believes in happen chance or design .... if design then there is a designer .... if not then there is the theory of evolution ....and I do not believe the theory. I find the theory way too far of a reach knowing the tremendous complexity and intricacy of the universe and nature to claim it "just happened" on it's own.

But you've overlooked the possibility that evolution IS the designer. Or at least the handiwork and fingerprints of the Designer. Evolution just suffers from really bad PR. Starting with that awful hashtag... "survival of the fittest", how un-enamoring is that? Let's repackage that a bit, because what evolution really selects for is harmony. Which attributes are best at living in harmony with everything else.

You look at nature, at things such as lions eating gazelles and at first it seems brutal and cruel, but underneath that cruelty is harmony and balance. All things working together for the ongoing existence of life, and this has been true since the very instant of the big bang. If there's a "Designer" then there's no reason to think that evolution isn't simply evidence of that designer. You see the small picture in the cruelty and suffering, while missing out on the larger one... THERE IS LIFE... and it perseveres! You may believe that it perseveres in spite of evolution, but perhaps it perseveres because of evolution.

 

[Ken-1122]

But that doesn't affect the principle of Justice itself. It remains an objective regardless. But I do think we have pretty well defined justice so that we can determine justice or injustice in each situation. Most of the time justice is served. Sometimes its not due to lack of evidence or evidence being corrupted like in OJ's case or when a person of color is wrongly treated. But if you can come up with an example of where justice is subjectively determined we can look at that.

(Ken)
The examples you provided prove justice is subjective. If justice were objective, they would have been able to provide absolute proof that oJ did it, and juries and judges would not have been necessary he would have been convicted.

But now it seems your appealing to another unsupported assertion that humans are the cause of empathy. Its circular because your saying humans are the cause and evolution caused humans. You haven't explained or provided evidence that this is actually the case.

No. Human empathy is caused buy humans. Evolution did not cause humans, the way humans are, are the result of evolution.

I think we mostly express it the same as its a truth we have within us. But that doesn't mean this idea can be corrupted. That's where I think a persons worldview comes into play. Because under a materialist view that everything is naturalistic and there is no God to answer to I believe some people can take a negative view of evolution in certain situations where empathy becomes corrupted by survival of the fittest.

The naturalist has to answer to the laws of the land, just like the God believer. If you ask the God believer, he will tell you he answers to God, but if you look at his actions, you will see he is far more obedient to the laws of the land than the laws of his God thus both theist and atheist obey the same laws; the laws of the land.

That's fair enough. The problem though as I have been pointing out is explaining how these transcendent truths come about through a naturalistic cause. If they are transcendent then they transcend material causes because they are no material themselves, they don't occupy space or have mass so there is nothing about them you can pick up, measure, observe, equate directly to work out the naturalistic cause.

That's not a problem with me because as I've pointed out before, just because something is material doesn't mean it can't produce something that transcends material; I provided the example of the brain which is material producing thoughts which is immaterial. What about laws? That's immaterial; where do you think the laws of the land come from?

Therefore you have to assume without evidence and make explanation jumps to bridge the gap which is no different to believing these transcendent truths are just as valid an explanation. In fact like I have mentioned our conscious experience is how we know transcendent morals like empathy and our conscious experience is the best evidence as its a direct link between transcendent truths and ourselves.

I disagree. Empathy is an example of something that originates from our thoughts. Thoughts come from our brain thus empathy is just another example of something immaterial coming from something material

P.S. Would you mind answering the question on my previous response? Basically; if you truly believe moral truth to be objective, do YOUR personal moral views just so happen to align perfectly with objective moral truth for each moral issue that you are aware of? IWO would it be perfectly reasonable to say that anybody who disagrees with you on any moral issue, is not only wrong, but objectively wrong? If not, can you provide an example where your personal views does not align with objective truth? Because another person indicated he asked the same question of someone else and didn't get a response, perhaps you can answer for both of us.

 

[Bradskii]

well no .... it's a matter of whether once believes in happen chance or design .... if design then there is a designer .... if not then there is the theory of evolution ....and I do not believe the theory. I find the theory way too far of a reach knowing the tremendous complexity and intricacy of the universe and nature to claim it "just happened" on it's own.

Quantum mechanics says that a particle can be in two places at the same time. Relativity says that you could end up older than your father. Do you reject those out of hand because you don't understand them? That they are 'too far of a reach' to comprehend? That evolution isn't true because you don't happen to believe it?

All of which was nothing at all to do with the question that I asked: Do you have an internal dialogue to confirm to yourself that moral laws are valid, as I do? Or do you accept them without question?

 

[Bradskii]

But you've overlooked the possibility that evolution IS the designer. Or at least the handiwork and fingerprints of the Designer. Evolution just suffers from really bad PR. Starting with that awful hashtag... "survival of the fittest", how un-enamoring is that?

Great post. And I might add that most people assume that 'fittest' means strongest, fastest etc. When it actually means those that are the best fit for the environment. If I fit it better than you then I am fitter. If I am the best fit, then I am the fittest.

 

[expos4ever]

If they are transcendent then they transcend material causes because they are no material themselves, they don't occupy space or have mass so there is nothing about them you can pick up, measure, observe, equate directly to work out the naturalistic cause.

You appear (to me, at least) to think that if something is not itself material, it cannot be explained by "naturalistic" means.

But surely this is not correct. For example, Pythagorus's theorem (geometry) is certainly not a material thing, yet it characterizes the way the world is - it is a fact of reality that is "caused", if you will, by the natural state of affairs in the physical world.

 

[stevevw]

You appear (to me, at least) to think that if something is not itself material, it cannot be explained by "naturalistic" means.

But surely this is not correct. For example, Pythagorus's theorem (geometry) is certainly not a material thing, yet it characterizes the way the world is - it is a fact of reality that is "caused", if you will, by the natural state of affairs in the physical world.

But that seems to support what I am saying, "that consciousness, Mind, Information is fundamental to reality". Yes these ideas are abstract and non material and yet they can be used to describe reality. This ties in with Wheeler's experiment and 'Anthropic Participatory Principle' and Stapps arguments that make Mind fundamental as well as several other interpretations such as IIT and Panpsychism.

Henry P. Stapp's contention is that the very structure of quantum mechanics implies a central and irreducible role for mind: an experiential aspect of nature distinct from that of the physical matter and energy described by the dynamical equations of physics.

That mind may in some way extend beyond the brain and body – connecting personal conscious awareness with more extended sources of information in the world – is a powerful and compelling hypothesis that could account for many currently inexplicable phenomena. It is also a hypothesis that can be subjected to rigorous scientific investigation, both empirical and theoretical.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1904/1904.10528.pdf

According to the physicist John Wheeler, quantum mechanics implies that our observations of reality influence its unfolding. We live in a "participatory universe," Wheeler proposed, in which mind is as fundamental as matter.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-scientific-materialism-almost-certainly-false/

The Integrated Information Theory shows that consciousness could be found within the universe.
Tononi's theory of Integrated Information Theory (IIT), published in the journal BMC Neuroscience, is one of a small class of promising models of consciousness. “IIT is a very mathematical theory.
https://www.space.com/is-the-universe-conscious

It also implies that the line between material and non material or natural and supernatural is blurred and we cannot really know what caused what. If that is the case then assuming that these transcendent phenomena are materially caused in some way has no basis as we cannot really know. That then makes materialist claims more an ontological belief than science.

I agree materialism can be a slippery idea. But to me saying that material object can produce or be immaterial is like magic or supernaturalism when your not having supernaturalism. The usual explanatory method now allows for the addition of what would usually be considered non scientific as far as being subject to observation and testing. I think we are seeing this happen more and more in the sciences. Attributing supernatural power almost top nature.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
The examples you provided prove justice is subjective. If justice were objective, they would have been able to provide absolute proof that oJ did it, and juries and judges would not have been necessary he would have been convicted.

The examples I gave were about when justice is not being served. You can't determine if justice is being served or not unless you have some objective determination of what justice is. The OJ case is an interesting one. Most people of color thought he was innocent and most whites thought he was guilty. That tells us that race was involved and that is what the defense tapped into to take the focus off the evidence and the truth. That shows that we can corrupt the truth.

Like I said sometimes the truth is corrupted and sometimes the evidence is not strong enough. But none of that changes the fact that somewhere in that situation someone did something wrong in brutally taking someone's life and that justice needs to be done. Justice as a principle still stands up regardless of whether it has been done in a practical sense.

No. Human empathy is caused buy humans. Evolution did not cause humans, the way humans are, are the result of evolution.

Either way the process of evolution is said to have created or as you say resulted in intelligent moral beings. Anyway its a mute point now.

The naturalist has to answer to the laws of the land, just like the God believer. If you ask the God believer, he will tell you he answers to God, but if you look at his actions, you will see he is far more obedient to the laws of the land than the laws of his God thus both theist and atheist obey the same laws; the laws of the land.

But what if the laws of the law actually stemmed from the laws of God. What if as part of being human we have the knowledge of Gods laws. Then we could say that non-believers act out Gods laws by making them laws of the land. This is consistent with the Bible which says that people know Gods laws before they were set in stone.

That's not a problem with me because as I've pointed out before, just because something is material doesn't mean it can't produce something that transcends material; I provided the example of the brain which is material producing thoughts which is immaterial.

But that is not scientific. It jumps from the physical brain to consciousness without any account of how that exactly happens. It would be like saying a physical lamp can produce a genie or a computer can create a ghost. Whereas the science method depends on observations and testing but there is nothing to observe materially to test between consciousness and the physical brain.

If a miracle was to happen and the person happened to be rigged up to brain scans and other testing devices we would expect to see some physical activity. But in the case of a miracle the physical activity was not the cause only the bodies reaction to something beyond it. So science could never in principle account for non material phenomena.

What about laws? That's immaterial; where do you think the laws of the land come from?

That's the question many don't stop to think about. Its the laws that really model the universe and these are a product of Mind. We use mental model of Math in physics and cosmology and it seems to map out things very well. In fact Einstein said that one of the greatest mysteries is how Math can explain the universe so well.

I disagree. Empathy is an example of something that originates from our thoughts. Thoughts come from our brain thus empathy is just another example of something immaterial coming from something material

But like I said 'thoughts' themselves are materially transcendent. Thoughts are of mind which points to Mind being fundamental and not matter. I think its the other way around as it explains a lot more about what is happening in the world. I agree that we embody ideas like empathy. But we are more than just material beings. We have a mental life which is powerful in the world and often transcends the material world. Even QM seems to support this.

P.S. Would you mind answering the question on my previous response? Basically; if you truly believe moral truth to be objective, do YOUR personal moral views just so happen to align perfectly with objective moral truth for each moral issue that you are aware of? IWO would it be perfectly reasonable to say that anybody who disagrees with you on any moral issue, is not only wrong, but objectively wrong? If not, can you provide an example where your personal views does not align with objective truth? Because another person indicated he asked the same question of someone else and didn't get a response, perhaps you can answer for both of us.

The answer is and I don't want to cop out but I think its yes and no. Yes in that everything is really a subjective view of the conscious subject. We all as subjects have our point of view. That can be influenced by many factors and taint things even morality. But at the same time I think we can sort through this to find moral truths and our long history of doing this lends support for these truths because we didn't just prefer or feel these truths we embodied them to know their reality.

There is support for everyone knowing these moral truths from birth or a very early age before we can be indoctrinated and that they are more sophisticated then human made ideas. I think for various reasons we corrupt and deny these truths which doesn't mean their open to personal opinion. The very nature of morality is that its normative so we live like morals require a right or wrong determination.

So its not really about mine or anyone else personal moral views but whether morals require an objective determination by nature. I could claim that I know a moral truth about something but then be wrong in that I did not fully understand what was involved. Some moral truths seem very clear like rape, child abuse, murder and others not so clear at the time. But none of this means there is not a truth to be found.

I think everyone's subjective morals views including my own line up for the most part with these moral truths. But that's not surprising if we all have this knowledge in the first place. I don't think there's as much difference between people morally whether they act in in accordance with these truths or not.