Is there an absolute morality?

[stevevw]

Very few things are "self evident". Morality sure aint one of them.

wrong reply sorry

 

[VirOptimus]

Well who are we to believe your personal opinion or the experts. Surely we caný just base this assertion on a personal opinion.

The "experts" dont say this is "self evident", read some real moral philosophy material. Not just random articles that agree with your point of view.

And as there is quite a few different schools on moral philosophy this should in itself show that its not "self-evident".

Yes as we do in science. But we test those assumptions and in the case of morality it is how we can be justified that our belief in our intuitions of morality are a real and truthful representation of morality. How we behave kike morals are objective. How we can then reason that certain behaviours in these moral situations are better/best than others.

"We" dont behave as morals are "objective". Thats just an unsupported assertion from you.

And we certainly cant test those assumptions. Also, "belief" means its not "objective morality" as belief demands an moral agent (who by definition cant be "objective" as its a subject).

Also, better/best? By which standard? Better/best for whom? Who got the authority to decide?

This is what determines moral truths. We recognize them, act them out, react like morals are objective. We already know the truth and we can test that truth.

"We" certainly dont react like "morals are objective", thats just an assertion without any support.

Yes and we can take all those things into consideration when determining moral truths. But the truth should stand independent of all human opinions and value judgements.

If morals would be "objective", yes they should be seperate, there should also be a way of finding out what they are if they are to be meaningful. They also need authority or they arent meaningful either.

Humans know that life is intrinsically valuable. Whether it's by evolution (survival behaviour) or religion (beliefs) this knowledge is in us and we cannot pretend that life has no value. So its self-evident in the way we act like life has intrinsic value. Thats the basis for most other moral truths as it comes back to "Human life"being valuable.

"Humans" certainly dont know that "life is intrinsically valuable", you cant just assert things without giviing it support.

Evolution is a process that explains how populations change, you ascribing it metaphysical properties do you no favours.

Again, its not "self-evident". Just me disagreeing shows that it isnt.

If that is the case then we can say that "Torturing" children is not really wrong.
"You cannot be wrong for liking peas".
"You cannot be wrong for liking to torture children".

That seems like an unreal and counter intuitive way to view things or behave. Thats because there is not basis for whether torturing children is actually forbidden to do.

I certainly can hold the view that torturing children is wrong. That does not mean that I believe it to be "objectivly right" (whatever that would be).

You keep doing strawmen and not understanding the opposing view. Study, stop reading crap articles telling you what you want to hear. Read som real moral philosophy material.

 

[Bradskii]

If that is the case then we can say that "Torturing" children is not really wrong.

Pete's my new neighbour. Just moved in a few weeks back. He's on his deck cooking a couple of steaks on the barbie. He just looked up when I read that sentence above. Probably because I literally shouted 'No!'

Sorry, Pete! Just something I was reading. I'm good. Steak smells good!

Steve, you really don't seem to understand. I think torturing children is wrong. You think that torturing children is wrong. Unless one is mentally ill, then everyone thinks that torturing children is wrong. Does that make it objective? No! Is it wrong anyway? Yes!

Do you know what's frustrating? It's that I can see your point of view. But I disagree with it. But you seem to have no conception of my view. And that's indicated by comments like the one above. You're reading what we say but you're not understanding what we mean. It's actually beyond frustrating.

 

[Neogaia777]

You have to define torture when it comes to discipline, and or life training, etc, involved in child rearing, etc...

Nowadays everything one thinks it means we should never even ever offend them or ever hurt their feelings, etc, but then, how is that preparing them for life, or giving them any kind of real life training, etc...

"Torture"...? It maybe can be seen based upon the context of where one draws the line a bit maybe, but maybe we can all agree or come to a general consensus if we define it further, and all agree "somewhere" maybe, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[stevevw]

Pete's my new neighbour. Just moved in a few weeks back. He's on his deck cooking a couple of steaks on the barbie. He just looked up when I read that sentence above. Probably because I literally shouted 'No!'

Sorry, Pete! Just something I was reading. I'm good. Steak smells good!

Steve, you really don't seem to understand. I think torturing children is wrong. You think that torturing children is wrong. Unless one is mentally ill, then everyone thinks that torturing children is wrong. Does that make it objective? No! Is it wrong anyway? Yes!

What do you mean "Its wrong anyway".

Do you know what's frustrating? It's that I can see your point of view. But I disagree with it. But you seem to have no conception of my view. And that's indicated by comments like the one above. You're reading what we say but you're not understanding what we mean. It's actually beyond frustrating.

Maybe thats just a communication problem and not the actual issue. I have said before to you that I don't doubt your moral knowledge and that this was not the point. It was how one grounds their moral knowledge. When I explain how subjective morality is impossible and self defeating I am not meaning for you or any particular subjectivists. I am meaning as a moral system it doesnt really work. Morality is about what actually is right and wrong and subjectivity is about personal

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip- When I explain how subjective morality is impossible and self defeating I am not meaning for you or any particular subjectivists. I am meaning as a moral system it doesnt really work. Morality is about what actually is right and wrong and subjectivity is about personal

This shows that you really reallly dont understand the fundamentals of moral philosophy.

 

[stevevw]

You have to define torture when it comes to discipline, and or life training, etc, involved in child rearing, etc...

Nowadays everything one thinks it means we should never even ever offend them or ever hurt their feelings, etc, but then, how is that preparing them for life, or giving them any kind of real life training, etc...

"Torture"...? It maybe can be seen based upon the context of where one draws the line a bit maybe, but maybe we can all agree or come to a general consensus if we define it further, and all agree "somewhere" maybe, etc...?

God Bless!

Yes I agree. You said it how it is. We can define "Torture" better with some reasoning and that will give us a clearer position about what is right and wrong way to act when it comes to torture and bringing up kids. Its really that simple. We would be not acting as humans if we did not at least find some point that we can say its wrong. That is how we want to treat this matter, like its something to be avoided and stopped. Thats all consistent with objective morality.

 

[stevevw]

This shows that you really reallly dont understand the fundamentals of moral philosophy.

Then I will have to blame the sources as it is their supported and educated opinion I am relying on

There are a number of serious objections to subjectivism. Here are just three:
1. If subjectivism is true, then there is no possibility of anybody being wrong; there will only be differences of opinion and preference.

2. If subjectivism is true and ethical claims express nothing more than our own attitudes about a particular act or behavior, then genuine ethical disagreement would be impossible.

3. If subjectivism is true and ethical claims express nothing more than our own attitudes about a particular act or behavior, then neither would any genuine ethical agreement be possible.
Isn't Ethics Just an Opinion?, Ethics - Wesleyan University

 

[VirOptimus]

Then I will have to blame the sources as it is their supported and educated opinion I am relying on

There are a number of serious objections to subjectivism. Here are just three:
1. If subjectivism is true, then there is no possibility of anybody being wrong; there will only be differences of opinion and preference.

2. If subjectivism is true and ethical claims express nothing more than our own attitudes about a particular act or behavior, then genuine ethical disagreement would be impossible.

3. If subjectivism is true and ethical claims express nothing more than our own attitudes about a particular act or behavior, then neither would any genuine ethical agreement be possible.
Isn't Ethics Just an Opinion?, Ethics - Wesleyan University

These "objections" is quite shallow and also quite frankly misrepresentations.

As above, read some real academic material and stop leaning on links that support what you already believe.

 

[Neogaia777]

The law is constantly dealing with our definitions of things, part of the reason it's so complicated now, well, part of the reason anyway, but the law has to deal with definitions of terms all of the time, and it then starts to become a complicated, and long, matter of degrees, etc, but which seek to bring justice to every situation and circumstance, but can never seem to ever perfectly, just gets longer and more complicated, till the whole earth can no longer contain the books that would need to be written on it, etc...

Anyway, some say it's our languages maybe, like after Babel, definitions of terms, but I don't know...?

But it really goes all the way back to the fall, etc...

But, anyway...?

God Bless!

 

[stevevw]

These "objections" is quite shallow

No they hit right at the heart of the matter. That subjective morality is unreal and we act like there are real and thruthful moral values.

and also quite frankly misrepresentations.

How is it a misrepresentation. You are the one who is objecting. On what grounds.

As above, read some real academic material and stop leaning on links that support what you already believe.

This is a real academic material, these are argued ethical and moral theories which address the objections posed. Moral realism isn't something that fits into someones personal belief, preference or feeling. It just is because its supported by rationality and logic.

 

[Neogaia777]

The law is constantly dealing with our definitions of things, part of the reason it's so complicated now, well, part of the reason anyway, but the law has to deal with definitions of terms all of the time, and it then starts to become a complicated, and long, matter of degrees, etc, but which seek to bring justice to every situation and circumstance, but can never seem to ever perfectly, just gets longer and more complicated, till the whole earth can no longer contain the books that would need to be written on it, etc...

Anyway, some say it's our languages maybe, like after Babel, definitions of terms, but I don't know...?

But it really goes all the way back to the fall, etc...

But, anyway...?

God Bless!

Is the law an exercise in exceptions, and punishment a matter of degrees, etc...?

Because it could get quite long if it wishes to bring justice to all, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[VirOptimus]

No they hit right at the heart of the matter. That subjective morality is unreal and we act like there are real and thruthful moral values. How is it a misrepresentation. You are the one who is objecting. On what grounds.

They oppose "subjective morality" on the ground that then there is only "opinions" and there cant be any right or wrong. That is kinda sorta true, but its not the whole truth. There is nothing stopping debate about morals or indeed having strong convictions about ethics and morals without beliving in "objective morality". See f.ex. Sweden where the norm is value nihilism in academic and political circles.

Also, "we" dont act as "there are real and truthful moral values". Thats not true no matter how many times you assert it.

This is a real academic material, these are argued ethical and moral theories which address the objections posed. Moral realism isn't something that fits into someones personal belief, preference or feeling. It just is because its supported by rationality and logic.

*sigh*

Take a moral philosophy 101.

Also, logic 101.

Also, try to answer post #222

 

[stevevw]

They oppose "subjective morality" on the ground that then there is only "opinions" and there cant be any right or wrong. That is kinda sorta true, but its not the whole truth. There is nothing stopping debate about morals or indeed having strong convictions about ethics and morals without beliving in "objective morality". See f.ex. Sweden where the norm is value nihilism in academic and political circles.

Yes I am yet to get my head around nihilism. But as you and I agree it is the opposite of moral realism then I would expect we don't see eye to eye. But also that I think moral realism is the default position for most. Thats because it makes sense.

Also, "we" dont act as "there are real and truthful moral values". Thats not true no matter how many times you assert it.

But its also not false no matter how many times you say so. I have given support for why it is more likely true than you have given for why it is false.

*sigh*

Take a moral philosophy 101.

Also, logic 101.

Also, try to answer post #222

Ok I will check it out. Sorry must have slipped by.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes I am yet to get my head around nihilism. But as you and I agree it is the opposite of moral realism then I would expect we don't see eye to eye. But also that I think moral realism is the default position for most. Thats because it makes sense.

Sense for who? It must be clear even for you that thats not universal, just look at this thread.

Value nihilism is not the "opposite of moral realism". Its its own thing.

But its also not false no matter how many times you say so. I have given support for why it is more likely true than you have given for why it is false.

No, you have asserted it time and time again with no backing data besides "its self evident" which is as scientific as "common sense". Try again.

Ok I will check it out. Sorry must have slipped by.

K

 

[durangodawood]

Are acts wrong in themselves?....

This sounds weird.

What does wrong even mean outside the context of a mind?

 

[Ken-1122]

Then I will have to blame the sources as it is their supported and educated opinion I am relying on

There are a number of serious objections to subjectivism. Here are just three:
1. If subjectivism is true, then there is no possibility of anybody being wrong; there will only be differences of opinion and preference.

No; there is no possibility of anybody being OBJECTIVELY wrong (concerning moral matters)

2. If subjectivism is true and ethical claims express nothing more than our own attitudes about a particular act or behavior, then genuine ethical disagreement would be impossible.

No, nothing will stop people from having genuine ethical disagreements; you’re wrong here.

3. If subjectivism is true and ethical claims express nothing more than our own attitudes about a particular act or behavior, then neither would any genuine ethical agreement be possible.

Again; nothing stops people from agreeing on what is ethical

 

[Ken-1122]

Is it wrong to rape and murder a child?
It is a universally accepted truth that doing such an act is wrong.

Consensus and popularity is not an indicator of truth

 

[Ken-1122]

Why, why can't we find the moral truth in any situation by reasoning out what is the best moral behaviour.

Because reasoning is completely subjective. What I find reasonable, you might find unreasonable; etc. When you use reason to reach your conclusion, your conclusion will likely be subjective.

 

[Ken-1122]

If that is the case then we can say that "Torturing" children is not really wrong..

You act as if "objective morality" will somehow "magically" prevent people from saying "torturing children is not really wrong" (LOL) You jokin right?