Is there an absolute morality?

[stevevw]

I'm not making an argument here for subjective morality. I'm making the argument that your argument you just presented is bad. Other reasons you think are evidence for objective morality are irrelevant. Do you see how this specific argument fails?

Why because it doesnt argue the point. It just assumes that morality must be objective because people use that type of language.

But if I am right and we can only refer to objective terms when enagging in moral situations as to being right or wrong then this shows practcially that we can only live out morality as if it is objective. Our moral language is restricted by subjectivism so its impractcial. Because we need to determine moral issues so that we can live this becomes a necessity.

 

[Moral Orel]

Why because it doesnt arge the point. It just assumes that morality must be objective because people us that type of language.

Huh?

But if I am right and we can only refer to objective terms when enagging in moral situations as to being right or wrong then this shows practcially that we can only live out morality as if it is objective. Our moral language is restricted by subjectivism so its impractcial. Because we need to determine moral issues so that we can live this becomes a necessity.

Looks like a Red Herring. Do you understand why that specific argument fails?

 

[stevevw]

Huh?


Looks like a Red Herring. Do you understand why that specific argument fails?

I'm not sure. But you claimed you can translate subjective tastes into moral objectives. I just explained/reasoned and gave examples of how you can't because morality requires a right and wrong answer and you cannot be wrong in the same sense as morality when it comes to food tastes.

You are trying to make it fit and its funny how far people will go into the rediculous to make it fit. But it doesn't. It seems if there was any fail of an arguement it is this as its a false analogy.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm not sure. But you claimed you can translate subjective tastes into moral objectives.

I did not. I demonstrated that the specific argument we're talking about works for subjective things too. Look at this part from the actual article:

The argument for this conclusion begins with a tautology, a statement that is necessarily true because it is logically impossible that it is false. For instance, the tautology “all husbands are married men” is just true by definition. The tautology in question is: Either [either P or Q] or [not-P and not-Q]. This is trivially true. Whatever x is, it is either going to be P or it’s going to be Q or it’s going to be neither P nor Q. Of course, P and Q are individual propositions rather than properties of x, but it gets the point across.​

So your argument wants to talk about the statements "X is P" or "X is Q". It goes on to show (correctly) that either "X is P" or "X is Q" or "X is neither P nor Q". That's all true so far.

Do you understand how this works? Leave out the discussion of morality for now. Stick to talking about it in terms of the letters.

I just explained/reasoned and gave examples of how you can't because morality requires a right and wrong answer and you cannot be wrong in the same sense as morality when it comes to food tastes.

You are trying to make it fit and its funny how far people will go into the rediculous to make it fit. But it doesn't. It seems if there was any fail of an arguement it is this as its a false analogy.

Red Herring. Other reasons you think morality is objective are irrelevant to this discussion. This is why we're going to stick to the letters.

 

[stevevw]

I did not. I demonstrated that the specific argument we're talking about works for subjective things too. Look at this part from the actual article:

The argument for this conclusion begins with a tautology, a statement that is necessarily true because it is logically impossible that it is false. For instance, the tautology “all husbands are married men” is just true by definition. The tautology in question is: Either [either P or Q] or [not-P and not-Q]. This is trivially true. Whatever x is, it is either going to be P or it’s going to be Q or it’s going to be neither P nor Q. Of course, P and Q are individual propositions rather than properties of x, but it gets the point across.​

So your argument wants to talk about the statements "X is P" or "X is Q". It goes on to show (correctly) that either "X is P" or "X is Q" or "X is neither P nor Q". That's all true so far.

Do you understand how this works? Leave out the discussion of morality for now. Stick to talking about it in terms of the letters.


Red Herring. Other reasons you think morality is objective are irrelevant to this discussion. This is why we're going to stick to the letters.

Ok so yes I undersdtand how the letters and logic works.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok so yes I undersdtand how the letters and logic works.

Okay, so you understand that we use letters as representations because no matter what we put in for those variables, the argument works the same, yes?

 

[stevevw]

Okay, so you understand that we use letters as representations because no matter what we put in for those variables, the argument works the same, yes?

Does that include statements that can be proven false.

 

[Estrid]

Life as intrinsically valuable means it is valuable in and of itself and nothing is used to make it valuable.

Value is value coz its valuable

 

[stevevw]

Value is value coz its valuable

Yes but humans are rational beings. We can do science and determine facts. Humans reason that "Life" in itself has value as a self-evident truth. This is seen in how we give humans inalienable rights which apply to all regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, culture and relative views.

 

[Estrid]

Yes but humans are rational beings. We can do science and determine facts. Humans reason that "Life" in itself has value as a self-evident truth. This is seen in how we give humans inalienable rights which apply to all regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, culture and relative views.

There's no "but". That's just using more word words to say the same thing.

 

[Moral Orel]

Does that include statements that can be proven false.

Yes. That's how you prove an argument invalid by providing counterexamples. I predict you're going to want to argue with me on that, so here's a source on how arguments work:

Proving Invalidity by Counterexample

The argument is fine so far as we've worked through it no matter what we put in.

 

[Kylie]

OK then something being consistent doesnt prove anything. We could say that a common core of morlaity that everyone agrees on is consistent with objective morality. But as you have said many times "just because people live like that doesnt mean that morality is objective. The same then applies to you. So it seems you have just as much trouble proving subjective morality.

You miss my point.

There are plenty of times when morality is inconsistent with objectivity, yet I have never seen a situation where it is inconsistent with subjectivity.

You have just contradicted yourself. You said "it doesn't prove that morality is subjective". Now your saying it does.

How in the world do you figure that? Something being consistent with a certain situation doesn't mean that it proves that situation. Silence from my daughter's room is consistent with her being asleep, but that doesn't prove that she is asleep. Maybe she's reading. But her singing loudly is certainly INconsistent with her being asleep.

You just said it above that it does.

No I didn't.

So if consistency doesnt prove anything then why do you keep repeating this like it actually means its evidence for subjective morality.

Because it shows that disagreement is something we should not be surprised to see if morality is subjective, yet the amount of disagreement we see is NOT what we would expect for something that is objective.

Yes we can. People speak clearly about moral wrongs being objectively wrong. They don't say "well maybe its morally wrong in my opinion but I could be wrong" or " I feel its wrong but I do have a personal reason on this so my feelings may be bias". No they say "Murder is wrong" as a moral truth that applies to everyone.

We can also argue that certain acts are wrong against an objective basis such as "Life" being intrinsically valuable and by using human "wellbeing or flourishing" as the basis as some do like Sam Harris. That way we can measure what is right and wrong behaviour against that basis.

No, that is nothing like the clear and specific language we have for maths, logic, etc.

 

[Kylie]

Im going to do this point seperately as it is an important one. This article argues that moral language seems to show that in reality we speak like morals are right and wrong objectively.

The argument we shall advance in this paper is quite simple. It’s that the meaningfulness of moral language presupposes the objective existence of moral properties. That is, if moral claims are the sort of statements that can be in the first place either true or false, then it follows that some of them are in fact true.

The relevance of this tautology to ethics is revealed when P and Q are substituted by indicative moral propositions. In this case, P = “eating people is right” and, Q = “eating people is wrong”. The tautology can now be transformed into a true statement that has some relevance to the real world: Either [“eating people is right” or “eating people is wrong”] or [“eating people is not right” and “eating people is not wrong”] which of course means the same as, either “eating people is right” or “eating people is wrong” or “eating people is neither right nor wrong”.

The moral sceptic, however, holds that all moral propositions are false. It follows from this, if the sceptic is correct, that both P and Q are false because they are moral propositions. This in turn entails the truth of [not-P and not-Q] because the tautology in question is true. The sceptic therefore has to conclude that “eating people is neither right nor wrong”. This means the same as “eating people is not a moral issue”.

However, the sceptic holds that it is not only the activity of eating people that is neither right nor wrong. Rather, he holds that all actions are amoral. No moral issues exist. All is amorality.

The logical consequence of this is that the claim that “all actions are amoral” is senseless. IThe sceptic has destroyed the meaning of the words he uses by eliminating the contrast between the classifications. He apparently fails to understand that there can be no counterfeit coins without genuine currency. The claim that an action is not a moral issue is meaningful if and only if moral issues do actually exist.

It follows from this that moral issues exist. In turn, the logical consequence of this is that some indicative moral propositions are true, just as the realist claims they are.

To return to the original example, it is mindnumbingly obvious that whether or not you eat people is a moral issue. Then, the truth of the statement “either eating people is right or eating people is wrong” ensures that at least one of these moral claims is true and, therefore, ‘objective’. But which one? Of course, eating people is wrong.
The Necessity of Moral Realism | Issue 6 | Philosophy Now

This shows that moral language shows we do speak in terms of true or false statements about moral behaviour. Either a moral act is right or wrong. To say that our moral language is not about right and wrong statemnets is to commit to ammorality.

Thats another way of saying that there is no way to say an act is morally right or wrong because all moral statements are false. Yet for something like Ëating people" we have to be able to say its just plain wrong objectively otherwise we cannot say its right or wrong at all.

I disagree.

The fact that morality is subjective doesn't mean that things aren't moral issues. It just means that there is no objectively correct answer (despite the fact that the majority of people would share the same position with the example they used).

Applying this same logic to the Star Trek/Star Wars example I've used before, this would say...

The meaningfulness of fan language presupposes the objective existence of fan properties. That is, if moral claims are the sort of statements that can be in the first place either true or false, then it follows that some of them are in fact true.

The relevance of this tautology to ethics is revealed when P and Q are substituted by indicative moral propositions. In this case, P = “Star Trek is the better franchise” and, Q = “Star Wars is the better franchise”. The tautology can now be transformed into a true statement that has some relevance to the real world: Either [“Star Trek is the better franchise” or “Star Wars is the better franchise”] or [“Star Trek is not the better franchise” and “Star Wars is not the better franchise”] which of course means the same as, either “Star Trek is the better franchise” or “Star Wars is the better franchise” or “Star Trek is neither better nor worse”.

The fan sceptic, however, holds that all fan propositions are false. It follows from this, if the sceptic is correct, that both P and Q are false because they are moral propositions. This in turn entails the truth of [not-P and not-Q] because the tautology in question is true. The sceptic therefore has to conclude that “Star Trek is neither better nor worse”. This means the same as “Whether Star Trek is better or worse is not a fan issue”.

Do you see the problem there?

 

[Kylie]

The question would then be is all those peoples different opinions just as valid as each other. Can we say that if someone said its OK to kill them all and not worry about age could we say they are objectively wrong.

Lemme get this straight...

I have repeatedly made it abundantly clear that I do not think there is any objective right or wrong, and yet you still think it's a good use of your time to ask if I think something is objectively wrong.

That's a waste of your time and mine.

If you aren't interested in having a proper discussion, just say so. But don't waste my time.

The moral that they would agree on is that its wrong to kill innocent people unless there is a greater moral that trumps this ie killing in self defence to save lives , killing in war against a dictator who is threatening innocent people or in your scenario where someone has to die because of a greater reason like there is not enough resources which may threaten many more lives ect like the Eskimo example. Everyone agrees on this and if they don't then we can say they are objectively wrong.

Why is it that I need to keep telling you that things are not objective just because most people agree on them?

But let me ask you once again if people came to different decisions does that mean all moral views are equal and there is no determination as to what may be the best thing to do. Is that what you are saying. How would you determine who to kil. Have a lottery, throw a dart blinded foled and whoever you come closest to hitting is killed. Leave it to luck. Allow personal opinions which can be biased against age (agism) ect. How would you decide this important issue.

I have no idea. I don't think I could really know the answer to that until I was in that situation.

But once again I have to say that the idea that people will have different opinions doesnt mean there is no moral truth. I also think the differences are exaggerated. The issue is about which innocent person to kill in a difficult situation that requires someone to be killed for a greater moral reason. Disagreeing who should be killed is not the moral issue. The moral issue is that an innocent life no matter who it is has to be taken.

If the issue is explained and that we have no choice but to take a persons life regardless so that we can save 10 other lives then most people will say that it ius better to takem the 1 life to save as many people as possible. Anyone who says we should take 10 lives and spare the one would be regarded as wrong just based on the numbers involved and that we care about the value of any life.

Again, things are not objective just because most people agree on them.

So I don't think the disagreement is as big as you make out. We could make a list of all the subjective reasons that should be dismissed and that should leave us with only one option, the best one considering the circumstances.

Of course most people are going to agree on that, since you used an extreme example. I've repeatedly said how the use of extreme examples is cheating, since most people will share the same view and it's easy to get people to believe a widely held view is objectively true, even if it is subjective.

Funny how you never use the less extreme examples, isn't it? I suspect it's because you know that using such examples will show the holes in your argument.

 

[Moral Orel]

I have repeatedly made it abundantly clear that I do not think there is any objective right or wrong, and yet you still think it's a good use of your time to ask if I think something is objectively wrong.

That's a waste of your time and mine.

Ugh... He does the same thing to me. He just can't comprehend separating his emotions from evaluating these situations from a purely rational perspective. The Appeal to Emotion fallacy is automatic with some people.

 

[stevevw]

Lemme get this straight...

I have repeatedly made it abundantly clear that I do not think there is any objective right or wrong, and yet you still think it's a good use of your time to ask if I think something is objectively wrong.

That's a waste of your time and mine.

If you aren't interested in having a proper discussion, just say so. But don't waste my time.

Sorry, I am just clarifying that you don't think there is an objective determination for this matter. If you say there is no objective way to determine what is the right or wrong thing to do, what is a better way to behave than other ways to behave then it follows that you cannot know which way to behave in this matter.

I realize I have repeatedly asked you this but each time I am clarifying your position to be sure thats what you mean because its very important as to the implications of that position as pointed out above.

Why is it that I need to keep telling you that things are not objective just because most people agree on them?

I guess its the same reasons I have to keep telling you that social conditioning doesnt mean morals are subjective.

I have no idea. I don't think I could really know the answer to that until I was in that situation.

What do you mean you will have to wait until you are in that situation.

Again, things are not objective just because most people agree on them.

But as I said its not just about the majority blindly agreeing to something they are actually saying there is no other option but the one we agree on. There is no room for subjective opinions as all opinions are wrong except the one we agree on.

Thats more than just subjective morality as under subjective morality no sibngle view holds any weight because as you have claimed there are no objective morals so no view is better than another. Yet this majority claim that there is no room for subjectivity. They are saying if anyone diagrees with us they are mistaken.

Of course most people are going to agree on that, since you used an extreme example. I've repeatedly said how the use of extreme examples is cheating, since most people will share the same view and it's easy to get people to believe a widely held view is objectively true, even if it is subjective.
Funny how you never use the less extreme examples, isn't it? I suspect it's because you know that using such examples will show the holes in your argument.

Thats a logiocal fallacy. As I have and also others on this thread have said it doesnt make any difference. OK so let me ask you how would a less extreme example make a difference.

 

[stevevw]

I disagree.

The fact that morality is subjective doesn't mean that things aren't moral issues.

Yes it does as moral matters are a matter of "right and wrong" unlike subjective matters which is a matter of personal opinion or feelings which can never be wrong in a normative way like morality is.

When we speak about moral matters we make statemenst about something being wrong beyond our subjective thinking. We don't say "In my opinion" or "I feel that something is wrong" but I could be mistaken. We say that the behaviour is wrong as a matter of fact or truth beyond our personal opinions. And morality needs to be that way as when we want to stop others behavig badly we need to have a solid base to refute their immoral behaviour.

It just means that there is no objectively correct answer (despite the fact that the majority of people would share the same position with the example they used).

Like I said its more than people just agreeing. They are actually taking an objective position which only allows 1 option and rejects any subjective thinking. Thats more than just agreeing. Thats actually enacting objective morality. Thats endorsing objective morality and declaring there is no other option but to take an objective position.

Applying this same logic to the Star Trek/Star Wars example I've used before, this would say...

The meaningfulness of fan language presupposes the objective existence of fan properties. That is, if moral claims are the sort of statements that can be in the first place either true or false, then it follows that some of them are in fact true.

The relevance of this tautology to ethics is revealed when P and Q are substituted by indicative moral propositions. In this case, P = “Star Trek is the better franchise” and, Q = “Star Wars is the better franchise”. The tautology can now be transformed into a true statement that has some relevance to the real world: Either [“Star Trek is the better franchise” or “Star Wars is the better franchise”] or [“Star Trek is not the better franchise” and “Star Wars is not the better franchise”] which of course means the same as, either “Star Trek is the better franchise” or “Star Wars is the better franchise” or “Star Trek is neither better nor worse”.

The fan sceptic, however, holds that all fan propositions are false. It follows from this, if the sceptic is correct, that both P and Q are false because they are moral propositions. This in turn entails the truth of [not-P and not-Q] because the tautology in question is true. The sceptic therefore has to conclude that “Star Trek is neither better nor worse”. This means the same as “Whether Star Trek is better or worse is not a fan issue”.

Do you see the problem there?

Yes in your analogy. Your analogy works well for subjective thinking like preferences for TV shows because there is no true or false determination for preferences or feelings. But it cannot translate to morality. As you said moral issues require a true or false determination. Already we see that subjective thinking fails as we cannot determine a true or false answer. You are making the assumption that subjective morality translates to moral issues when it doesn't and I have shown independent support for this.

So lets see how applying how morality works to to your scenario. Morality is a normative system we can say some behaviour is truely wrong beyond the subjective preference. People acting immoral are ostrasized from the community or their social group, they can lose their jobs, companies lose their sponsorships, people will protest in the streets and to governments against immoral behaviour as we have seen with abuse of women or BLM. We have to have some shared moral grounds to be able to declare something is truely wrong.

But none of this can be translated to subjective preferences for TV shows. If we put your wrong analogy to moral system we would have to say that anyone who likes Star Wars should get the sack, companies supporting Star Wars should lose all credibility and sponsors, we should ostrasize those who like Star Wars and we should march in the streets and petition the government against this evil scurge. lol. Even if people think Darth Vadar is a menice.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes in your analogy. Your analogy works well for subjective thinking like preferences for TV shows because there is no true or false determination for preferences or feelings.

That is not an analogy. That is proving the invalidity of your argument via counterexample. We put other things into your argument and arrive at a conclusion which we know is false because of independent reasons. Your argument is only valid when the conclusion must be true if all of the premises are true. We insert other things into the premises, those premises are true, and yet we know the conclusion comes out false. That's proof that your argument is invalid. That's how logic works.

Do you understand why that specific argument fails now?

 

[stevevw]

You miss my point.

There are plenty of times when morality is inconsistent with objectivity, yet I have never seen a situation where it is inconsistent with subjectivity.

Thats not true. Every time someone declares that someone is wrong truthfully beyond their subjective view it is being consistent with objective morality. I think objective morality is more consistent with how we behave than subjective morality.

If you recall all the times you said to me "just because people act like morals are objective" you are acknowledging a consistency with objective morality. So your own words contradict your claim that people "Never" act consistently with objective morals.

In fact I would say objective morality is more consistent. Thats because when people act consistently with objective morality they actually proclaim that position as being right as well. So they are not just being consistent with their behaviour they are also making a declaration that morals are objective and there is no subjective opinions allowed. But that doesnt happen with subjective morality.

How in the world do you figure that? Something being consistent with a certain situation doesn't mean that it proves that situation. Silence from my daughter's room is consistent with her being asleep, but that doesn't prove that she is asleep. Maybe she's reading. But her singing loudly is certainly INconsistent with her being asleep.

I figured this when you said

And if morality is socially conditioned, then it is subjective, isn't it? And it's entirely consistent with what we actually see.

You first made the claim that morality is socially conditioned and therefor its subjective. That qualified your second statement as a fact "That what we see is that the consistent behaviour of people due to social conditioning means that morality is actually subjective. Then the nextreply you claim you were not saying this and that just because behaviour is consistent doesnt mean there really is subjective morality.

No I didn't.

Refer to above quote from last post.

Because it shows that disagreement is something we should not be surprised to see if morality is subjective, yet the amount of disagreement we see is NOT what we would expect for something that is objective.

THat still is not evidence. Your still pushing the idea that Disagreement = subjective morality when you have not shown this. Everything you say applies to subjective morality can apply just the same to objective morality epistemically. If we look at the history of science we see tremendous disagreement until we came to understand things better.

Granted that science is to do with the physical world and still we have a lot of disagreement it is understandable that people will find it harder to see the moral truths so we would expect disagreements until a truth is found. Second as I said the disagreements are not about moral issues but the facts around that moral issue.

No, that is nothing like the clear and specific language we have for maths, logic, etc.

yes it does. Using for example human wellbeing we can say anything that denied wellbeing is objectively wrong. Wellbeing is our basis. So we can show that say stealing affects peoples and societies wellbeing.

Any act that harms human wellbeing can be said to be objectively wrong as it violates that basis. Thats our measuring stick for what is morally right or wrong and anyone who subjectively thinks stealing is OK ican be shown to be wrong against that basis.

So we can say stealing = harming human wellbeing is objectively wrong just like we can say 2+2=4.

 

[stevevw]

That is not an analogy. That is proving the invalidity of your argument via counterexample. We put other things into your argument and arrive at a conclusion which we know is false because of independent reasons. Your argument is only valid when the conclusion must be true if all of the premises are true. We insert other things into the premises, those premises are true, and yet we know the conclusion comes out false. That's proof that your argument is invalid. That's how logic works.

Do you understand why that specific argument fails now?

I understand how logic works. Like I said I am not good at logical equations. Wasn't good at Math either. But this still doesn't negate that subjective preferences don't translate to morality. This is a well known false anology of how morality works in a normative way.

You cannot be sacked for liking Star Wars. You can be sacked for acting immoral. So this shows that using subjective thinking doesn't work for morality so any comparison is a false analogy when it comes to how morals work.