Is there an absolute morality?

[VirOptimus]

But your creating a strawman. My original point was that there are certain things about humans we all know that they pocess naturally like they have a conscence. Its because of this we can make confident claims about what humans pocess. So my claim that all humans know about morality is supported by the science that shows that as a natural ability.

The fact that some lose that ability or not has nothing to with my point because it doesnt negate that all humans have this ability. I acknowledge that my grammar or way of explaining this may have been poor. But now I am clarifying what I said and meant.

Yes I may have been sloppy with my explanation as I assumed that those who have damage to their conscioence cannot know. Thats obvious. So I will clarify that all people who still have a working conscience know the core moral truths.

But this sort of deminishes the point which is that knowing right and wrong is not something we make up and is based on an innate knowledge of right and wrong that even babies have well before they can be taugfht that. In fact some say it is inherited by evolution. So its tere early and is innate.

That points to it being something we all know but may lose. But the default position is its a human natural ability like bonding is or a love of music. Sure some people lose this but that is in the minority and is because of something that takes away a normal ability just like losing any other natural ability.

To reiterate;

You cant tell where morals are or what they are made of (except that they are "spiritual", whatever that would mean), nor can you tell how humans interact with this "objective morality".

You cant specify what morality contains, only that it can be known thorugh rationality and logic.

You still have nor answered why this "objective morality" have any authority.

Neither can you answer why morality is so different through time and space.

 

[stevevw]

No, let's go back to the claim I addressed:

So my claim was
Through the sciences we can get to know some basic common thinking and bahviours common to all humans. Through Epistemology we can work out what how humans know and what they can know. That is all I was referring to. For example research shows that children as young as 6 months know right from wrong. So its seems to be an ability humans just have.

you said
Okay, let's look at the source your provided to prove that all humans think and act the same in some ways. 75% of the infants acted one way, 25% of the infants didn't. Try again.

so thats what I addressed by saying that the ability is common to all humans apart from those who have lost that ability. Not that they never had that ability in the first place. The idea of showing that its a noram and innate ability humans have was to support the idea that the moral cores all humans know is something beyond subjective ideas because we were more or less born with it.

The 25% who didnt act the same way was not evdience that humans don't have this innate ability but for other reasons. My point was that you assume that the different ways the 25% acted showed they didnt have a conscience when that was not the case. The researchers didnt say the 25% didnt have this natural ability. They said there were other reasons that were not related to conscience. You used the findings out of context.

As evidence for these ways of thinking and behaviors that are common to all humans you present a study where 75% of the participants acted one way, and 25% of the participants did not. Is 75% the same as 100%? No. You have yet to provide evidence that there are ways of thinking or behaviors that are common to all humans.

But your assuming you know the reason why the 25% acted differently without showing why. You did not show why the 25% acted differently at all but just assumed that their actions contradicted that all infants have the ability to know right from wrong. You need to show that the different ways they acted was not because of other factors.

Start saying "most" and stop saying "all" or your points will continue to be trivially easy to shoot down.

As I have clarified now all people who don't have damage to their ability to have a conscience know these moral truths.

 

[Moral Orel]

If someone says that torturing children is morally good would we think they are irrational.

If you or I saw such a thing we would both feel the same things. We'd feel sick, and angry, and sad, all at the same time. We'd both desire that it stop. Heck, we'd both desire that it had never happened to begin with. But you say it's more than that. But our desire to stop it, and our desire that it never happened aren't what makes it irrational. So what does? If it's a rational endeavor, then you can prove it with a formal argument. Here's your conclusion:

C One ought not torture innocent children for fun.

What are the premises?

I know you're going to want to cite studies and articles, but that doesn't answer the question. I don't want to know "why I should believe you", I want to know "why is it true?"

For example. You tell me, "The Earth is heating up". I ask, "Why is it heating up?". If you answer, "Scientific consensus is that it is heating up". That doesn't answer the question. I don't want evidence that it's true, I want a demonstration using reason that it's true. Can you do that?

 

[Moral Orel]

The fact that some lose that ability or not has nothing to with my point because it doesnt negate that all humans have this ability.

You're still doing it. Stop saying "all". "Some humans lose X" absolutely positively 100% without a doubt negates "all humans have X".

If some humans have lost X, then some humans do not have X. "Some humans do not have X" and "All humans have X" cannot both be true.

Just say "most". Heck, go ahead and say, "The vast majority".

And your quote tags need a clean up in post 562.

 

[stevevw]

If you or I saw such a thing we would both feel the same things. We'd feel sick, and angry, and sad, all at the same time. We'd both desire that it stop. Heck, we'd both desire that it had never happened to begin with. But you say it's more than that. But our desire to stop it, and our desire that it never happened aren't what makes it irrational. So what does? If it's a rational endeavor, then you can prove it with a formal argument. Here's your conclusion:

C One ought not torture innocent children for fun.

What are the premises?

Well it would be something like

human life is intrinsically valuable
torturing children devalues human life
therefore to not devalue life we should not torture children

I know you're going to want to cite studies and articles, but that doesn't answer the question. I don't want to know "why I should believe you", I want to know "why is it true?"

For example. You tell me, "The Earth is heating up". I ask, "Why is it heating up?". If you answer, "Scientific consensus is that it is heating up". That doesn't answer the question. I don't want evidence that it's true, I want a demonstration using reason that it's true. Can you do that?

I thought I had been doing that but now that you point out my poor ability to explain things I don't know. Thats why I guess I like references. But I have already provided arguemnets which no one has really addressed.

"The Earth is heating up" is not a good example because thats not how moral truths are supported. As far as torturing a child is concerned we can reason that torturing children affects them physically and psychologically and this leads to deminished ability as a human. If human life is intrincially valuable then this is a contradictory behaviour that devalues human life.

We could mention the wider consequences for families and societies which builds a case that torturing children is not the best moral behaviour and there are better ways to behave that will bring more positive outcomes as far as valuing human life.

 

[stevevw]

You're still doing it. Stop saying "all". "Some humans lose X" absolutely positively 100% without a doubt negates "all humans have X".

If some humans have lost X, then some humans do not have X. "Some humans do not have X" and "All humans have X" cannot both be true.

My point is you are assuming people have lost X by the 25% who acted differently. You have not shown this so your arguemnet is invalid.

Just say "most". Heck, go ahead and say, "The vast majority".

And your quote tags need a clean up in post 562.

OK what about "humans are born with an innate ability to know right from wrong but some lose this ability from birth or during life".

 

[Estrid]

If you lived in Australia you would have good reason to dislike spiders and snakes. We have 20 of the 25 most venomous snakes in the world and we have some of the most deadlest spiders as well. lol.

Nope. I would learn which is which, as I do where I live.
You ignored my point about choosing which Creations
are bad though all are pronounced to be good.

 

[stevevw]

Nope. I would learn which is which, as I do where I live.
You ignored my point about choosing which Creations
are bad though all are pronounced to be good.

I wasnt sure what your point was. But I think animals themselves as creations are not bad even if they may seem dangerous. That is just them being them and tahts what they understand as how to live and survive.

 

[Estrid]

I wasnt sure what your point was. But I think animals themselves as creations are not bad even if they may seem dangerous. That is just them being them and tahts what they understand as how to live and survive.

And you can respect them, as well as such creator as they may have, by not disliking them.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well it would be something like

human life is intrinsically valuable
torturing children devalues human life
therefore to not devalue life we should not torture children

Not valid. And you changed the conclusion. You're cooking a premise into the conclusion.

P1 Human life is the sort of thing we ought to value
P2 Torturing children devalues human life
C One ought not torture children

So tell me why P1 is true. Don't tell me why I should believe it is true. Tell me why life is the sort of thing I ought to value. Keep using formal argumentation to make it clear.

 

[stevevw]

Not valid. And you changed the conclusion. You're cooking a premise into the conclusion.

P1 Human life is the sort of thing we ought to value
P2 Torturing children devalues human life
C One ought not torture children

So tell me why P1 is true. Don't tell me why I should believe it is true. Tell me why life is the sort of thing I ought to value. Keep using formal argumentation to make it clear.

That is what we have been debating for pages now remember. I have already given my reasons. Human life is intrinsically valuable and this is recognised by all the nationla and world bodies who set the HUman Rights and national Declarations, treaties and laws that human life is intrinsically valuable. That this cannot be taken away by peoples, cultures and a nation (government) opinion or views.

This is based on reasoning that shows us that to be human we understand a certain state of life to even exist that allows people to have a valuable life. That includes certain natural rights like the Right to life, happiness ect. These are not subjectively determined by the fact that people cannot subjective change them. They are reasons qualities that humans need to exist.

 

[Moral Orel]

That is what we have been debating for pages now remember. I have already given my reasons. Human life is intrinsically valuable and this is recognised by all the nationla and world bodies who set the HUman Rights and national Declarations, treaties and laws that human life is intrinsically valuable. That this cannot be taken away by peoples, cultures and a nation (government) opinion or views.

This would be an explanation as to why I ought to believe you. I don't want that.

This is based on reasoning that shows us that to be human we understand a certain state of life to even exist that allows people to have a valuable life. That includes certain natural rights like the Right to life, happiness ect. These are not subjectively determined by the fact that people cannot subjective change them. They are reasons qualities that humans need to exist.

Okay... This seems to be what I'm looking for. But put it in a formal argument with "Life is the sort of thing we ought to value" as the conclusion.

P1
P2
P3
C Life is the sort of thing we ought to value

Fill in the blanks. Feel free to use however many premises you want, of course.

 

[stevevw]

This would be an explanation as to why I ought to believe you. I don't want that.

Okay... This seems to be what I'm looking for. But put it in a formal argument with "Life is the sort of thing we ought to value" as the conclusion.

That would be a follow on of my other arguement

P1 if human life is not intrinsically valuable then humans don't exist
P2 Humans exist
Conclusion: Human life is intrinsically valuable

So it would then go something like this
P3 Human life is intrinsically valuable
P4 if human life is not intrinsically valued then humans don't exist
C Therefore human Life is the sort of thing we ought to value

 

[VirOptimus]

That would be a follow on of my other arguement

P1 if human life is not intrinsically valuable then humans don't exist
P2 Humans exist
Conclusion: Human life is intrinsically valuable

So it would then go something like this
P3 Human life is intrinsically valuable
P4 if human life is not intrinsically valued then humans don't exist
C Therefore human Life is the sort of thing we ought to value

Fail.

 

[Moral Orel]

P1 if human life is not intrinsically valuable then humans don't exist

I can't see the reasoning behind this. Let's see the argument for this too. It seems to imply that anything that exists is intrinsically valuable. Again, please express it in a formal argument. I have a hard time parsing out your paragraphs.

Lemme give you a head start. If/Then statements are mini arguments. You've already got one premise and the conclusion, you just have to fill in the rest because they aren't valid on their own. So what you've got is:

P1 Life is not intrinsically valuable
P2
C Humans don't exist

I know you aren't claiming those things are true, that's what the other argument is for. If you can make a valid argument by filling in the blanks (it won't be sound, just valid) then you'll prove your if/then statement is true.

 

[durangodawood]

P1 humans typically value life as a natural feature of the species.

 

[stevevw]

P1 humans typically value life as a natural feature of the species.

Yes help me, I'm not good at formal arguements. That was something I was thinking but could not put it into a statement.

I think its because life is intrinsically valuable humans do value life as a natural consequence which then leads to them having to uphold certain inalienable rights and other values like respect and dignity. They all go hand in hand as natural born values and rights.

So one of the premises has to include "because humans typically value life and this naturally leads to having to do certain things to uphold that value otherwise it negates valuing life" therefore we should value life. Something like that anyway.

 

[Moral Orel]

P1 humans typically value life as a natural feature of the species.

And? Let's see the rest of the argument.

 

[stevevw]

And? Let's see the rest of the argument.

well as I was trying to say it would be something like

P1 humans typically value life as a natural feature of the species.
P2 this makes valuing life a part of being human
C therefore humans ought to value life.

 

[stevevw]

I can't see the reasoning behind this.

Its quite simple. As I mentioned all the national and world bodies make life intrinsically valuable. They give humans inalienable rights to certain qualities that value life. That makes these values and rights stand despite peoples and governments subjective views.

These rights and values have been determined inalienable because they sustain life. They are basic qualities that protect life and make life worth living. Without them it has been shown humans suffer and die.