Is there an absolute morality?

[stevevw]

True! But A and B is clear that it is not necessary. Don’t get me wrong, often reason and logic does involve critical thinking, my point is that it is not a requirement.

So it is your claim that the official definition of personhood/human life begins when a being becomes sentient? Can you provide an outside source to confirm this claim?

No my position is the Christian one that life begins at conception.

But as far as secular society is concerned human life has value but there is differing opionion on what constitutes human life during pregnancy. Some say 20 weeks others say 12 weeks or earlier. The issue can be sorted to some extent by the science. The point is its not determined by subjective views but an objective one.

I disagree! That which is objective is not up for debate. If you disagree, provide an example of something based on objective facts (not related to morality) that is up for debate.

I am not saying its not up fro debate. The very fact its up for debate indicates that there needs to be an objective basis otherwise nothing can be debated. I am saying that people can still disagree on a personal level about something objective. Like climate change, quantum physics, the shape of the earth ect.

Your problem is you seem to think people will behave differently under subjective morality vs objective morality; they would not. By your own definition, subjective is about how people perceive things, objective is beyond how people perceive things. If we only look at how people react to what they perceive, it will be the same under subjective as it would be under objective morality.

Everyone has an subjective view of things. Thats how it all starts with the subject doing the percieving through our senses. But like in science to find the objective stuff we have to put aside our subjective view and look for facts/truths outside oursleves.

So under subjective morality one persons opinion about morality is not wrong compared to another. BUt the problem is people do act like morals are more than just opinions. They act like moral wrongs are truths beyond themselves. Thats a contradiction for subjective morality. I am not saying subjectivists don't know moral truths. I am saying they have no basis for saying something is morally wrong.

Actually it makes perfect sense because if morality were objective, it would never change because people would have figured it out by now. The fact that it is constantly changing, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse; proves subjective morality.

But the fact it changes for the better or worse means there is an objective basis to measure whats better or worse. Otherwise morals would be like differences in what food people like and you cannot have better or worse food "LIkes and Dislikes" only different food tastes.

 

[stevevw]

If humans have decided it, its not "objective".

Humans can determine/decide what are objectives or facts by reasoning.

No, this is just nonsense.

Why, otherwise I could just say you saying its nonsense is nonsense and we have nothing to discuss.

This is not how it works.

Why, it actually is how it works. If a subjectivists makes a claim that "there is no objective morality" or that "we cannot know moral truths" in any moral situation then they are making a "Truth" and need evdience for this. So people are being hypocritical in that I am making similar opposite claims but subjectivists are demanding evdience.

I am saying lets see the same standard of verification for subjectivists. What will happen is that subjectivists will realise that they cannot support their claims and yet they claim the "TRuth" so they will see that some things just cannot have physical evdience but still a truth can be determined.

Science do not have any stance on morals.

No but it can determine the facts of a situation. Its by determining the facts that we can betetr get to the truth of a matter. For example if science proves the Fetus is a life at 6 weeks then we have a fact which we can base morality on that abortiuon ios wrong after 6 weeks. .

Rational does not mean objective.

Morality is a rational enterprise. Reasoning helps us find the morla truths (objectives).

Thats just means that many people belive life to be valueable. Not thats it "objective".

Its more than belief. The position is forced onto everyone like its a truth and people have no choice. The deetrmination is based on objectives like Humans have an inalienable right to life and dignity, we cannot descriminate on the basis of race, religion ect. The sciences show humans are meant to live and function in a certain way otherwise they are negating being human.

Human knowledge and understanding puts us in a position that we have to do certain things to be human otherwise we are failing to act on what we know and should do. By not doing it it has natural consequences. The fact that these determinations are truths and have been based on facts reasoned by humans supports this.

As you constantly say that you can use logic to prove moral statements I want you to make a formal logic proof that life is valueable.

JUst did above.

 

[Moral Orel]

JUst did above.

I'm waiting for the same thing, and no, you have never offered a formal logical proof that "We ought to value life".

This is a formal logical proof:

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.

Now provide one for your claim that "We ought to value life" is a true fact.

Why, it actually is how it works. If a subjectivists makes a claim that "there is no objective morality" or that "we cannot know moral truths" in any moral situation then they are making a "Truth" and need evdience for this. So people are being hypocritical in that I am making similar opposite claims but subjectivists are demanding evdience.

I am saying lets see the same standard of verification for subjectivists. What will happen is that subjectivists will realise that they cannot support their claims and yet they claim the "TRuth" so they will see that some things just cannot have physical evdience but still a truth can be determined.

I did prove it in the other thread. You said "That's just wrong". And yet the fact that you are incapable of giving a reasoned argument as to why "We ought to value life" is a demonstration of my argument's proof.

 

[VirOptimus]

Humans can determine/decide what are objectives or facts by reasoning.

Why, otherwise I could just say you saying its nonsense is nonsense and we have nothing to discuss.

Why, it actually is how it works. If a subjectivists makes a claim that "there is no objective morality" or that "we cannot know moral truths" in any moral situation then they are making a "Truth" and need evdience for this. So people are being hypocritical in that I am making similar opposite claims but subjectivists are demanding evdience.

I am saying lets see the same standard of verification for subjectivists. What will happen is that subjectivists will realise that they cannot support their claims and yet they claim the "TRuth" so they will see that some things just cannot have physical evdience but still a truth can be determined.

No but it can determine the facts of a situation. Its by determining the facts that we can betetr get to the truth of a matter. For example if science proves the Fetus is a life at 6 weeks then we have a fact which we can base morality on that abortiuon ios wrong after 6 weeks. .

Morality is a rational enterprise. Reasoning helps us find the morla truths (objectives).

Its more than belief. The position is forced onto everyone like its a truth and people have no choice. The deetrmination is based on objectives like Humans have an inalienable right to life and dignity, we cannot descriminate on the basis of race, religion ect. The sciences show humans are meant to live and function in a certain way otherwise they are negating being human.

Human knowledge and understanding puts us in a position that we have to do certain things to be human otherwise we are failing to act on what we know and should do. By not doing it it has natural consequences. The fact that these determinations are truths and have been based on facts reasoned by humans supports this.

JUst did above.

You dont seem to know how formal logic works (what a surprise). Try again.

 

[Ken-1122]

No my position is the Christian one that life begins at conception.

The Egg is alive, the sperm is alive; how can you say life begins at conception?

But as far as secular society is concerned human life has value but there is differing opionion on what constitutes human life during pregnancy. Some say 20 weeks others say 12 weeks or earlier. The issue can be sorted to some extent by the science. The point is its not determined by subjective views but an objective one.

No; science does not sort these things out because it isn’t about when life begins for everybody. That may be your standard, but not everybody has your standard, it seems everybody has their own view of when it is acceptable to abort or not.

I am not saying its not up fro debate. The very fact its up for debate indicates that there needs to be an objective basis otherwise nothing can be debated.

But there is not an objective basis, yet we debate because it is subjective. If it were objective it would not be up for debate, because that which is objective can be empirically proven If you disagree, point to something objective (other than morality) that can’t be proven.

I am saying that people can still disagree on a personal level about something objective. Like climate change, quantum physics, the shape of the earth ect.

But those disagreements are subjective even though the basis of their disagreement (shape of the Earth, Climate change etc.) is objective.

Everyone has an subjective view of things. Thats how it all starts with the subject doing the percieving through our senses. But like in science to find the objective stuff we have to put aside our subjective view and look for facts/truths outside oursleves.

You can't use the scientific method for morality because morality can't be empirically demonstrated.

So under subjective morality one persons opinion about morality is not wrong compared to another.

No; it’s not objectively wrong compared to another; it’s subjectively wrong.

BUt the problem is people do act like morals are more than just opinions. They act like moral wrongs are truths beyond themselves.

Your perception of how people act has nothing to do with whether something is subjective or not. Nothing becomes objective due to your perceptions.

But the fact it changes for the better or worse means there is an objective basis to measure whats better or worse.

There is no objective base, the base for better or worse is human subjectivity. If you disagree, point to a moral objective base that is not human

 

[stevevw]

I'm waiting for the same thing, and no, you have never offered a formal logical proof that "We ought to value life".

This is a formal logical proof:

Now provide one for your claim that "We ought to value life" is a true fact.

Well that would be along the lines of
1) if human life is not intrinsically valuable then humans don't exist
2) Humans exist
Conclusion: Human life is intrinsically valuable

I did prove it in the other thread. You said "That's just wrong". And yet the fact that you are incapable of giving a reasoned argument as to why "We ought to value life" is a demonstration of my argument's proof.

There are different ways to argue life is intrinsically valuable. The human state means we have certain knowledge and understanding which leads us to value life. We are able to use reason and use logic to determine life is instrinsically valuable beyond the subject.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well that would be along the lines of
1) if human life is not intrinsically valuable then humans don't exist
2) Humans exist
Conclusion: Human life is intrinsically valuable

There are different ways to argue life is intrinsically valuable. The human state means we have certain knowledge and understanding which leads us to value life. We are able to use reason and use logic to determine life is instrinsically valuable beyond the subject.

I reject P1. Try again.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well that would be along the lines of
1) if human life is not intrinsically valuable then humans don't exist
2) Humans exist
Conclusion: Human life is intrinsically valuable

There are different ways to argue life is intrinsically valuable. The human state means we have certain knowledge and understanding which leads us to value life. We are able to use reason and use logic to determine life is instrinsically valuable beyond the subject.

Thats not a valid formal logic statement.

Try again.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thats not a valid formal logic statement.

Try again.

I think it may be.

It's modus tollens.

1) P -> Q
2) not Q
C) not P

It's valid but not sound. P1 simply isn't true. Why would existence follow from value. How about if humans don't smell good, humans don't exist. Even if it were true that humans have intrinsic value, the premise would still be false.

 

[VirOptimus]

I think it may be.

It's modus tollens.

1) P -> Q
2) not Q
C) not P

It's valid but not sound. P1 simply isn't true. Why would existence follow from value. How about if humans don't smell good, humans don't exist. Even if it were true that humans have intrinsic value, the premise would still be false.

You are correct, I was sloppy in my comment!

 

[stevevw]

The Egg is alive, the sperm is alive; how can you say life begins at conception?

Ok the Egg and sperm are alive but its only together that they will create a human.

This is a complex issue. Apart from being off topic the point is its not so much about when human life begins but that we need to find some objective measure of when life begins which points to there being an objective determination to measure that.

The logic being that if we leave open what is a human life as to when it is life or not they we risk using arbitrary means like subjective opinions as determinations which is not a good way to determine such an important moral matter.

No; science does not sort these things out because it isn’t about when life begins for everybody. That may be your standard, but not everybody has your standard, it seems everybody has their own view of when it is acceptable to abort or not.

But the fact that it matters morally and people get passionate, outraged, condemn and protest abortion, stand up for individual rights, shows that its about " LIfe" one potential life verses the child bearers life.

As we know the science has already caused laws and peoples views to change. For example its rare to have full term abortions or even over 24 weeks now. Some States and countries have even lower limits of 16 or 12 weeks. So obviously all these varying limits are based on some objective idea of what is a human life.

But there is not an objective basis, yet we debate because it is subjective. If it were objective it would not be up for debate, because that which is objective can be empirically proven.

But before something is objectively proven it is sort of debated/argued by people (the subjects) who can then find the objectives. Just because we can debate doesnt mean morality is subjective. Its by debating (reasoning) that we can clarify the objectives.

So you have it backwards. That which is subjective cannot be debated (reasoned) as to what is morally right and wrong because its only about peoples preferences and feelings which can never be wrong. When people argue/debate about something they need a basis for which to argue from.

You can't do that with subjective morality as there is no basis to argue from beyond the person (subject). Its only about the persons (subject) feelings and preferences and nothing else.

But those disagreements are subjective even though the basis of their disagreement (shape of the Earth, Climate change etc.) is objective.

Yes thats right. But those subjective views/opinions cannot be used to determine the fact/truth about the shape of the Earth, Climate change etc. So why use subjective views to determine morality. Same logic applies.

You can't use the scientific method for morality because morality can't be empirically demonstrated.

Yes thats right. But morality can be support as a fact/truth in a different way like with Math or logically argued as a truth.

Your perception of how people act has nothing to do with whether something is subjective or not. Nothing becomes objective due to your perceptions.

But they do through observation. We can observe moral behaviour to determine whether some behaviours are better/best compared to other behaviours which can reveal moral truths.

There is no objective base, the base for better or worse is human subjectivity. If you disagree, point to a moral objective base that is not human

Ok so take 10 pin bowling for example as I use to play. So the base for measuring a good and bad bowler is from the scoring system. The perfect score is 300, so average is around 150/160. We can then measure how good or bad bowlers are from that. But if you didnt have that scoring system then we couldnt tell what was happening. It would just be bowling balls knocking down pins with no meaning.

So it is with morality. We need to have a measuring base for determining what is right and wrong. The fact that we can say some things are worse than others, have moral progress and change morals for the better, have different degrees for killing or assult or stealing all only make sense if they have a base for which to measures these things.

A subjective view cannot be the base because as we know its unreliable, biased, unpredictable, incapable, affected by psychological experiences to use as a base for measuring something so important that needs to be independent of all that type of thinking.

 

[Moral Orel]

We are able to use reason and use logic to determine life is instrinsically valuable beyond the subject.

If you can use reason and logic to deduce that "we ought to value life", then you can put it into a formal argument like Vir and I asked for. Tinker already explained why that last attempt doesn't work. So let's see another one. If it can't be proven via a formal argument, then it can't be proven via reason and logic.

 

[durangodawood]

.... intrinsically valuable .....

What is "intrinsic value"??? Those two words together dont even make sense.

Value exists for a valuing agent. Its the regard the agent has for the object or condition.

 

[stevevw]

I reject P1. Try again.

Why what is your objection.

 

[stevevw]

What is "intrinsic value"??? Those two words together dont even make sense.

Value exists for a valuing agent. Its the regard the agent has for the object or condition.

As far as I understand intrinsic value means that something has value of its own accord.

In ethics, intrinsic value is a property of anything that is valuable on its own.
Intrinsic value (ethics) - Wikipedia

 

[durangodawood]

As far as I understand intrinsic value means that something has value of its own accord.

In ethics, intrinsic value is a property of anything that is valuable on its own.
Intrinsic value (ethics) - Wikipedia

Right. But that makes no sense. As wiki states: "In ethics, value denotes the degree of importance of some thing or action."

"Importance" requires a subject for whom something is important. Makes no sense to say something has import in itself.

 

[VirOptimus]

As far as I understand intrinsic value means that something has value of its own accord.

In ethics, intrinsic value is a property of anything that is valuable on its own.
Intrinsic value (ethics) - Wikipedia

Valuable for who? By which metric?

 

[Moral Orel]

Why what is your objection.

He explained his objection in post #429. I'd like to see you prove P1 myself.

 

[stevevw]

If you can use reason and logic to deduce that "we ought to value life", then you can put it into a formal argument like Vir and I asked for. Tinker already explained why that last attempt doesn't work. So let's see another one. If it can't be proven via a formal argument, then it can't be proven via reason and logic.

Why is that arguement wrong. The premise is sound. Human Life is protected under law, by treaty, by UN Human Rights and by Declarations and constitutions that entire nations are built on.

The right to Life and the right to a certain level of Life is a natural law and recognised by humans. Without that intrinsic value placed on life we could not exist as humans. That is also supported by scientific evidence. By nature humans cannot just exist. They have to have a certain type of life to be able to even exist.

 

[VirOptimus]

Why is that arguement wrong. The premise is sound. Human Life is protected under law, by treaty, by UN Human Rights and by Declarations and constitutions that entire nations are built on.

The right to Life and the right to a certain level of Life is a natural law and recognised by humans. Without that intrinsic value placed on life we could not exist as humans. That is also supported by scientific evidence. By nature humans cannot just exist. They have to have a certain type of life to be able to even exist.

Prove that existing is objectivly good, with formal logic.