Is there an absolute morality?

[Moral Orel]

It is the expression of the subject and "good" is a subjective term.

We are evaluating the statement. The statement mentions no subject. It is stated in a way that can be true or false. It is stated in a way that implicit in the claim is that anyone who says, "Chocolate ice cream is bad" is wrong. These are the only relevant criteria.

 

[Kylie]

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.

And what if someone declares that Star Trek is better than Star Wars beyond their subjective measure? Does that make Star Trek objectively better?

Once again, people acting like their opinions are objective doesn't make them objective.

I'm starting to think I need to put that in my signature so I don't have to keep typing it out all the time, since I seem to be saying it a lot.

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.

First of all, people acting like their morality is objective is still consistent with subjective morality, because subjective morality does not preclude people treating their subjective moral viewpoints as objective.

Secondly, where did I claim that people NEVER act consistently with objective morals?

I said that SOMETIMES people act in a way that is inconsistent with objective morality, yet they never act in a way that is inconsistent with subjective morality.

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.

Sure it does. It happens all the time.

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.

Since when does "X is consistent with Y" mean "X proves Y"?

If X is the sound of the microwave dinging to say it has finished cooking something, that is entirely consistent with the idea that someone has just finished heating up some left overs. But it doesn't prove that they just heated up some left overs.

But no ding at all is inconsistent with the idea that someone has just heated up some leftovers in the microwave.

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.

And that agreement came about because scientists were able to describe things in a formal system of language. I've mentioned this several times now. This has not happened with morality.

Your oft-repeated claim of, "People used to disagree about science and that's objective," isn't going to be convincing in the slightest until morality can do the thing that science did to get people to agree about it.

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.

Very well, if you think that there is such a formalised systematic language that can be used to describe morality, please use it to tell us whether it is morally acceptable to raise animals for consumption.

 

[stevevw]

I have been extremely clear and open about my position. I can't for the life of me see why you would need any more clarification.

Probably because this keeps coming up when you pose certain scenarios that seem to need a right and wrong determination.

So in reality you claim that that there are no objective morals but you keep conversing like there is. This creates a conflicting and contradiction in your replies where I keep needing to clarifying what you really mean. This is a good example of how relative/subjective morality is impossible and impracticle to apply in real life.

You know, people can make a decision about things, even if those things are subjective...

Not when it comes to morality. Explain to me how 2 people can "make decisons" I presume you mean make moral judgements when they are disagreeing. How do they use their subjective thinking to determine what is the better/best way to act morally.

Well, it comes across as either you not being able to remember my position, or that you haven't read my posts, or that you just don't believe me. All of those are very rude.

I have made my position clear. You do not need to keep checking with me.

You've yet to provide any convincing evidence to support that claim.

Sorry but I am only responding to what you say and if what you say implies that there needs to be an objective basis then it seems fair to clarify that you are not implying this and/or point out the implication of what you are saying (that it imples an objective basis). So in reality you are creating the impression that there are objective morals and I am just showing you this each time.

It means exactly what it sounds like.

Why, what does it sound like to you?

Well I asked you a straight forward questions
1) if people disagree morally does that mean all subjective moral views are equal.
2) If all subjective views are equal how can you determine what is the best thing to do morlaly.
3) In your moral scenario where we 'have to kill one person' how would you determine whether to kill the young person or the old person.

Except there are lots of moral opinions that don't have such agreement. Premarital sex, for example.

Apart from being a logical fallacy (REd Herring) we cannot debate that one as mentioned. Debating this specific moral issue about whether s morlalt right or wrong is the evdience that there must be an objective of some sort. Otherwise as your implying people disagree about pre-marital sex. What are they disagreeing about.

What basis do they use to disagree. They must have some basis like it may cause more relationship breakups and harm people psychologically. So that basis is human and community wellbeing. So regardless of getting into the details we already see that an objective basis of some sort is needed just to have disagreements. But like I said come up with another and we can go through this.

Once again it seems I must point out that people acting as though their opinions are objectively true does not mean they are objectively true...

You know you said to me how many times you had to point out something. This seems the same thing except even people on your side are agreeing with me that this is a logical fallacy. So why even mention it.

It sort of shows that you have no answer to this difficult moral situation. On the one hand you want to claim relative/subjectiv morality is all there is and theres no absolute/objective morals. But at the same time you find yourself having to appeal to absolutes/objectives when we look at how morals work normatively. This is an untenable position.

Okay, and I'll even make it easy for you by keeping it as extreme as possible.

Is execution for crimes like murder ever morally justifiable? There are plenty of people who say it is, and plenty of people who say it isn't. And if you take the pro-execution side and list all their arguments, I suspect that most if not all of them would be labelled as subjective by the anti-execution side. And vice versa.

how can they label it subjective when they have argued their reasons. They must have some objective basis to argue their reasons. Thats how disagreement works. If we have no objective basis then all we have is people calling out subjective reasons like , "I hate (feelings) murderers they should all be executed", which may be because they had a personal experience that skews and biases they their thinking.

We have to ask why is that a justified reason to execute people. Say I hate murders is not enough to base this important issue on. You have to have a basis ie execution of people who commit henious murders is justified because this is based on research that shows its a deterent. Or theres no justification for execution because it violates the value of human life where people have a right to rehabilitation. ect.

So to even disagree we need some basis and to eventually agree we need shared basis to reach that agreement. This cannot be done unless there is some objective basis outside humans subjective thinking.

 

[Moral Orel]

You know you said to me how many times you had to point out something. This seems the same thing except even people on your side are agreeing with me that this is a logical fallacy.

No, we're not. No one is agreeing with you that acting like morality is objective shows it is objective. That's all you, buddy. No one else.

 

[Moral Orel]

Hey @stevevw Lemme ask you something. We know that you think it is objectively wrong to rape. But aside from that, would you prefer that some people be raped, would you prefer that no people would be raped, or do you not have a preference at all on whether people get raped or not?

 

[stevevw]

And what if someone declares that Star Trek is better than Star Wars beyond their subjective measure? Does that make Star Trek objectively better?

Of course not because its not a noramtive statement. Normative statements are value judgements about what we "Ought" to do or not do. You cannot apply that to preferences for TV shows because its not wrong to like Star Trek.

Your conflating tow different things. Its like saying what if someone preferred 2+2=5 in stead of 2+2=4 as a fact beyond themselves. It cannot be its just the persons preference and not a fact.

Once again, people acting like their opinions are objective doesn't make them objective.
I'm starting to think I need to put that in my signature so I don't have to keep typing it out all the works. Thats because the "acting" is not really acting like something is real its actually making it real. time, since I seem to be saying it a lot.

lol. And I have told you its more than just acting that way. Under a noramtive system"acting that way" is what makes it real and the truth. That how ethics

Thats what moral realism is. There is no choice but to act that way. If there are no other options then acting that way is the option for morality. But heres the ironic thing. You keep asking me to stop using this anaolgy while you are doing it your self ie "people are socially consitioned to act that way and this means morals are subjective".

First of all, people acting like their morality is objective is still consistent with subjective morality, because subjective morality does not preclude people treating their subjective moral viewpoints as objective.

How do you treat a subjective view as objective. Its impossible. Subjective is all about self (the subject). Where as objective is beyond the subjects views.

I agree that peoples subjective view can be reagrded an an objective fact but only for the person holding the view. It doesnt apply beyond the person onto others or in a normative way. But that is what happens with morality. People take that subjective view and apply in like its a truth or fact for all people. They cannot do that as its inconsistent with subjetcive morals.

Secondly, where did I claim that people NEVER act consistently with objective morals?

I said that SOMETIMES people act in a way that is inconsistent with objective morality, yet they never act in a way that is inconsistent with subjective morality.

Fair enough, I cannot remember or be bothered to go through the posts. Anyway this is all irrelevant because as you even acknowledge "acting consistently with something doesnt mean morality is subjective or objective.

Sure it does. It happens all the time.

How, its impossible. The moment a person declares something is morally wrong as a fact beyond themselves they have given up their subjective position and taken an objective one.

Since when does "X is consistent with Y" mean "X proves Y"?

Then why did you say
"if morality is socially conditioned, then it is subjective". That implies your saying because people act consistent with subjective morality then morality must be subjective.

If X is the sound of the microwave dinging to say it has finished cooking something, that is entirely consistent with the idea that someone has just finished heating up some left overs. But it doesn't prove that they just heated up some left overs.

But no ding at all is inconsistent with the idea that someone has just heated up some leftovers in the microwave.

Yes so if we read the manufacturers instructions and it says that to heat a meal it takes 5 minutes we have used an objective measure for what will heat the meal. When the microwave dings we know that it should heat the food. Thats why there are buttons for heating different foods as the manufacturer has ytested the mechanisms to heat we can have an objective measure of how long it takes to heat food.

Thats why they have all the different presets for different food. We should expect that setting the timer for a certain length will heat the meal. If it doesnt then something went wrong with the machine. These are all objective measures.

And that agreement came about because scientists were able to describe things in a formal system of language. I've mentioned this several times now. This has not happened with morality.

Why do you answer replis with a another objection rather than just addressing the point made. The point was you said disagreements = morality being subjective. I said that doesnt follow because even when there is an objective to find people still disagree on the way to finding that objective.

So disagreement alone doesn't prove morals are subjective. You need to acknowledge that you are wrong on this rather than create a Red Herring about some other issue.

Your oft-repeated claim of, "People used to disagree about science and that's objective," isn't going to be convincing in the slightest until morality can do the thing that science did to get people to agree about it.

That wasn't the point. The point was "people disagreeing about science doesnt mean there are no objective facts to find. This equates to people disagreeing about morality doiesnt mean there are no objective morals to find. This is a logical fact.

Very well, if you think that there is such a formalised systematic language that can be used to describe morality, please use it to tell us whether it is morally acceptable to raise animals for consumption.

This is silly. Your question proposes that this issue requires a value judgement. That in itself opens the door for objective reasoning to determine what is morally acceptable or not in consuming animals. So you have already implied objective morality by the way you ask the question as an issue that matters morlaly and needs a determination. We cannot make any determination unless we have some objective basis ie

Is it justified to kill animals for human consumption as its a source of food to sustain and keep humans alive. Is it best to do this in by animal raising rather than killing animals in the wild. These are all ethical questions that need a right or wrong answer. You cannot even discuss this issue without some common objective basis to reach an agreement.

 

[stevevw]

Hey @stevevw Lemme ask you something. We know that you think it is objectively wrong to rape. But aside from that, would you prefer that some people be raped, would you prefer that no people would be raped, or do you not have a preference at all on whether people get raped or not?

Obviously I would say I prefer people not to get raped.

 

[Moral Orel]

Obviously I would say I prefer people not to get raped.

Of course, me too. Same goes for most people. But like you said, it doesn't make sense to talk about objective things like that:

We don't say I prefer that the earth is round or that I feel that the earth is round. That doesn't make sense. So our objective language reflects what really is and doesnt sound like how we speak subjectively.

So I guess for subjective things, we sometimes speak subjectively, "I prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream" and sometimes we speak objectively "Chocolate ice cream is tasty". And for morals we sometimes speak objectively "Rape is wrong" and sometimes we speak subjectively "I prefer that people don't rape". Kind of an eerie coincidence dontcha think?

 

[stevevw]

No, we're not. No one is agreeing with you that acting like morality is objective shows it is objective. That's all you, buddy. No one else.

I cannot remember why I said that as I realise that it doesnt follow. It may have been about Kylie using the same faulty logic when claiming people act subjectively so moralit is subjective.

Anyway I was pointing out that my arguement was not that people act objectively therefore morality must be objective. It was that in people acting like morality is objective they are actually imposing this on others as though is a fact/truth in the world.

So that gives some qualification to how they act. As morality is normative this is about how we ought to act. So when people live like ,morality is objective that is the evdience for morality being objective because they have made it real normatively.

As morality is an abstract concept there is no other way to determine it apart from how people actually live. They are not acting like morality is objective. They are making morality objective and saying there is no subjective option to this moral matter.

 

[stevevw]

Of course, me too. Same goes for most people. But like you said, it doesn't make sense to talk about objective things like that:

Yes I agree but don't understand your point.

So I guess for subjective things, we sometimes speak subjectively, "I prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream" and sometimes we speak objectively "Chocolate ice cream is tasty". And for morals we sometimes speak objectively "Rape is wrong" and sometimes we speak subjectively "I prefer that people don't rape". Kind of an eerie coincidence dontcha think?

Except you seem to be forgetting or ignoring the fact that morality is normative and applies to others besides the subject. So therefore

Speaking subjectively "I prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream" is only true/fact for you (the subject).
Speaking objectively "Chocolate ice cream is tasty" is only an objective fact for you and no one else. You are more or less speaking to yourself. Though you express it to others it doesnt apply to them normatively. There is no fact outside your self that "Chocolate ice cream is tasty". You cannot then say "If someone says "Chocolate ice cream is not tasty" they are wrong which is an independent objective.

But for morality
Speak objectively "Rape is wrong" is a normative value judgement that we öught" not rape. It applies to others beyond the subject.
Speak subjectively "I prefer that people don't rape". Once again only applies to the subject. The "I" gives it away "I prefer"which is about the subject only. So its different to morality which applies normatively to others as what we should and should not do.

If you said I prefer people not rape or in my opinion people should not rape this has no normative basis and people could just say "so what, I prefer people rape or in my opinion its ok to rape" and both these statements hold the same status value subjectively as they are what the subject thinks and that can never be wrong.

 

[stevevw]

We are evaluating the statement. The statement mentions no subject. It is stated in a way that can be true or false. It is stated in a way that implicit in the claim is that anyone who says, "Chocolate ice cream is bad" is wrong. These are the only relevant criteria.

I am not sure I understand this logic. Statements can only be made by subjects. So no subject involved and no statement. Its communicating a claim and implicit in that is the subject who makes the claim. To take any statement in isolation and out of context we could rationalise anything. For example when someone says "rape is wrong" it mentions no subject but it still points to a normative claim. Normative claims are value judgements and value judgements are made by subjects.

 

[Moral Orel]

I am not sure I understand this logic. Statements can only be made by subjects. So no subject involved and no statement. Its communicating a claim and implicit in that is the subject who makes the claim. To take any statement in isolation and out of context we could rationalise anything. For example when someone says "rape is wrong" it mentions no subject but it still points to a normative claim. Normative claims are value judgements and value judgements are made by subjects.

If you want to differentiate between "Chocolate ice cream is good" and "Rape is wrong" pointing out that there's a person making the statement doesn't show a difference. Someone stated "Rape is wrong" too. That someone made the statement doesn't make it subjective in any way. 2+2=4 There, I just stated something objective, but I'm the subject who stated it, so what? So nothing. We're evaluating the statement.

People talk about morality and subjective things the same way.

"Chocolate ice cream is good. This chocolate ice cream is better than that chocolate ice cream! You should try this chocolate ice cream! You're going to love this chocolate ice cream!". All of these statements are stated as facts. Implicit in these statements is that someone would be incorrect if he said:

"Chocolate ice cream is bad. This chocolate ice cream is worse than that chocolate ice cream. You shouldn't try this chocolate ice cream. You're going to hate this chocolate ice cream".

You say, "Rape is wrong". Implicit in that statement is that someone else would be wrong if he said, "Rape is right". Same thing. When we talk about people "speaking objectively", this is all that we're talking about. Even the source you provided for this argument defined "speaking objectively" in this manner. The other stuff you keep trying to bring up about people sacking folks over differences of opinion is irrelevant to this discussion. That argument offers no support whatsoever to this argument.

Insisting that it only works for "normative" things doesn't do you any favors. When I say "The Earth is round" I'm not making any statements about how people should behave either. You're trying to link morality to objective things, not drive a wedge between them. But hey, let's try that out.

When we talk about things we know are objective, we don't use normative statements! We don't say, "The Earth should be round" that wouldn't make any sense! See the problem with your current course of action?

 

[Moral Orel]

Anyway I was pointing out that my arguement was not that people act objectively therefore morality must be objective.

So when people live like ,morality is objective that is the evdience for morality being objective because they have made it real normatively.

These two statements are in conflict with one another ^

As morality is an abstract concept there is no other way to determine it apart from how people actually live. They are not acting like morality is objective. They are making morality objective and saying there is no subjective option to this moral matter.

You can't make morality be objective. The rules don't become facts simply because some people treat them like they're facts. Might doesn't actually make right. You can claim, "There is no subjective option to this moral matter" and be incorrect.

Now let me ask you this. You've pointed out that we make laws, and that's evidence of objective morality. So consider this scenario. Imagine I step out into my kitchen right now and call my wife fat. I would hurt her in doing so, and you would call that objectively wrong. But there's no law against it. Why not?

 

[stevevw]

If you want to differentiate between "Chocolate ice cream is good" and "Rape is wrong" pointing out that there's a person making the statement doesn't show a difference. Someone stated "Rape is wrong" too. That someone made the statement doesn't make it subjective in any way. 2+2=4 There, I just stated something objective, but I'm the subject who stated it, so what? So nothing. We're evaluating the statement.

but why is 2+2-4 objective. Isnt saying something is objective doesnt mean its objective. But rather the statement 2+2=4 is objective because we recognise the objectiveness of Math.

But if we say "chocolate icecream is good" there is no objective to recognise. It doesnt say anything but some subjective state of the subject. Thats why there is different language for morality which is normative. The moral language has evaluative judgement about oughts.

People talk about morality and subjective things the same way.

"Chocolate ice cream is good. This chocolate ice cream is better than that chocolate ice cream! You should try this chocolate ice cream! You're going to love this chocolate ice cream!". All of these statements are stated as facts. Implicit in these statements is that someone would be incorrect if he said:

"Chocolate ice cream is bad. This chocolate ice cream is worse than that chocolate ice cream. [/quote] That only makes sense if there is a objective basis. Otherwise what are you measuring which ice-cream is best against. If its your personal opinion then its not a fact beyond you and is not normative.

You shouldn't try this chocolate ice cream. You're going to hate this chocolate ice cream".

But because they are only facts for the subject they cannot imply "oughts" for others.

You say, "Rape is wrong". Implicit in that statement is that someone else would be wrong if he said, "Rape is right". Same thing. When we talk about people "speaking objectively", this is all that we're talking about.

No its not. Saying rape is wrong is expresing a fact outside the subject. It is saying "Rape" in itself is wrong.

Even the source you provided for this argument defined "speaking objectively" in this manner. The other stuff you keep trying to bring up about people sacking folks over differences of opinion is irrelevant to this discussion. That argument offers no support whatsoever to this argument.

Insisting that it only works for "normative" things doesn't do you any favors. When I say "The Earth is round" I'm not making any statements about how people should behave either. You're trying to link morality to objective things, not drive a wedge between them. But hey, let's try that out.

When we talk about things we know are objective, we don't use normative statements! We don't say, "The Earth should be round" that wouldn't make any sense! See the problem with your current course of action?

Ok so therefore saying chocolate icecream should be nice tasting doesnt make sense either. But saying we should not rape does.

 

[stevevw]

My heads starting to hurt. You are giving me a headache with all this debate lol.

 

[stevevw]

These two statements are in conflict with one another ^

Yeah I know, I'm shocking at explaining things. What I was trying to say is that my argument was not just based on people living like objective morality is true/real. I acknowledged that this alone doesn't mean there are objective morals.

I was pointing out that people were not only acting like something is true they were actually making objective morality true (real) like a law of nature where no other subjective view can be allowed. This makes it something real in the world that we live in. This states that certain moral acts are wrong not just for me and you but for everyone and no subjective view will change that. This seems more than just acting like something is real but actually making it real.

You can't make morality be objective. The rules don't become facts simply because some people treat them like they're facts. Might doesn't actually make right. You can claim, "There is no subjective option to this moral matter" and be incorrect.

I think its more a matter of subjective language being descriptive and objective moral language being prescriptive. As moral statements are prescriptive they are telling us what we "ought" to do rather than explaining how things are.

Now let me ask you this. You've pointed out that we make laws, and that's evidence of objective morality. So consider this scenario. Imagine I step out into my kitchen right now and call my wife fat. I would hurt her in doing so, and you would call that objectively wrong. But there's no law against it. Why not?

When I say we make laws I am referring more to Human Right laws, ethical codes of conduct or constitional laws regarding the treatment of people. I am not saying this means there are absolute/objective morals but that its part of the evdience that points to certain moral truths being upheld similar to natural laws that we all know.

I think there is a law for calling your wife fat. We can test that law when you call your wife fat in front of your friends or at work. You can even get the sack for it. So the law is known by all and we recognise it as wrong. But I think this unwritten law can apply to you and your wife as well for which we could say that if people outside the relationship think its a law then you are breaching that law in the privacy of your house.

The fact that you can get away with it in the privacy of your home doesn't mean there is no unwritten law. There can be all sorts of immoral acts within the privacy of someones home that have clear laws that forbid doing them.

 

[Estrid]

Not sure what a Red Herring logical fallacy has to do with how certain words express a moral statement like person X was abused. This is not a subjective expression. It states "abuse" has taken place. People can argue what sort of abuse or what severity of abuse but still the person expressing the statement has already made a value judgement by using the word abuse.

If we did reason about whether or not its abuse or how severe the abuse was we are implying an objective basis to measure these things. Thats how morality works. There is no room for subjective preferences or feelings. Its either abuse or its not, its either morally right or its not.

Misuse of the term " red herring" is the topic.
Certain specific things are identifiable as right or wrong,
for practical purposes.
However-two big probs with your simple black and
white.
Few things can be identified as 100 percent good or bad,
Moral or immoral, right or wrong.

Second, you nor anyone can provide a general rule
that covers every questionable act.

Nice if "god" ( here meaning an ultimate authority )
could provide a general rule for all situations.
" dont steal", say.
But we can spin ten thousand ways that the greater sin
would be not to steal.

 

[Kylie]

Probably because this keeps coming up when you pose certain scenarios that seem to need a right and wrong determination.

And I have been as clear as I can possibly be that such determinations can be made subjectively, just like how people decide whether Star Trek or Star Wars is better subjectively.

So in reality you claim that that there are no objective morals but you keep conversing like there is. This creates a conflicting and contradiction in your replies where I keep needing to clarifying what you really mean. This is a good example of how relative/subjective morality is impossible and impracticle to apply in real life.

Aghain, I have responded to this countless times. First of all, people acting like morality is objective doesn't make it objective, and secondly, I also say sunrise and sunset, that doesn't mean that I actually think the sun is moving and the Earth isn't.

Not when it comes to morality. Explain to me how 2 people can "make decisons" I presume you mean make moral judgements when they are disagreeing. How do they use their subjective thinking to determine what is the better/best way to act morally.

Because they are basing their decision on their own experience and their own values. Different people have different values, after all.

Of course, I find it hard to believe that you do not understand how people can reach decisions subjectively. Most people make such decisions every day. Don't you?

Sorry but I am only responding to what you say and if what you say implies that there needs to be an objective basis then it seems fair to clarify that you are not implying this and/or point out the implication of what you are saying (that it imples an objective basis). So in reality you are creating the impression that there are objective morals and I am just showing you this each time.

You say you are just responding to what I have said, yet it appears to me that you have completely ignored me when I have stated repeatedly that I believe that morality is subjective.

Well I asked you a straight forward questions
1) if people disagree morally does that mean all subjective moral views are equal.
2) If all subjective views are equal how can you determine what is the best thing to do morlaly.
3) In your moral scenario where we 'have to kill one person' how would you determine whether to kill the young person or the old person.

1) Different views are not equal in the view of any one particular person. I, for example hold the opinion that Star Trek is better than Star Wars. There are plenty of people who hold the opposite view, and yet their opinions are not equal to mine FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. And by that, I mean that I'm not going to act as though I love Star Wars and hate Star Trek just because someone else holds that view. I'm going to live my life based on my own view, in just the same way that I'm going to live my life by the moral standards that I have found are best for me.
2)My answer above applies here as well. People base their decision on their own experience and their own values. Different people have different values, after all.
3) I've already answered this. I would not be able to answer this unless I had actually been in a situation where I actually had to do it. Logically, I would say that the older person is the more logical choice based on the fact that they have already lived more of their life, and yet if the older person was my husband, I don't think I could choose to not save him. And yet if the younger person were my daughter, well, you get the idea.

Apart from being a logical fallacy (REd Herring) we cannot debate that one as mentioned. Debating this specific moral issue about whether s morlalt right or wrong is the evdience that there must be an objective of some sort. Otherwise as your implying people disagree about pre-marital sex. What are they disagreeing about.

Obviously, they would be disagreeing about whether it is morally permissible or not. Do I really need to explain this?

And once again I will point out that people can debate an issue that has no objective truth. I've already pointed out more times than I can count about how people have debated whether Star Trek is better than Star Wars, and yet that does not have an objective truth to it.

What basis do they use to disagree. They must have some basis like it may cause more relationship breakups and harm people psychologically. So that basis is human and community wellbeing. So regardless of getting into the details we already see that an objective basis of some sort is needed just to have disagreements. But like I said come up with another and we can go through this.

They use their own personal values.

You know you said to me how many times you had to point out something. This seems the same thing except even people on your side are agreeing with me that this is a logical fallacy. So why even mention it.

I don't see how it is a logical fallacy. There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from claiming their subjective opinion is an objective fact. If I say, "Ew, oysters are disgusting! They taste like boogers!" I am presenting my subjective opinion in the same way I would present an objective fact.

It sort of shows that you have no answer to this difficult moral situation. On the one hand you want to claim relative/subjectiv morality is all there is and theres no absolute/objective morals. But at the same time you find yourself having to appeal to absolutes/objectives when we look at how morals work normatively. This is an untenable position.

I think it's a bit rich that you accuse me of trying to wriggle out of a difficult moral situation when you and the other moral objectivists in this thread have done so numerous times.

how can they label it subjective when they have argued their reasons. They must have some objective basis to argue their reasons. Thats how disagreement works. If we have no objective basis then all we have is people calling out subjective reasons like , "I hate (feelings) murderers they should all be executed", which may be because they had a personal experience that skews and biases they their thinking.

People can have reasons to back up their position while that position is subjective. I can give a list of reasons why Star Trek is better than Star Wars, but that doesn't actually make Trek objectively better.

We have to ask why is that a justified reason to execute people. Say I hate murders is not enough to base this important issue on. You have to have a basis ie execution of people who commit henious murders is justified because this is based on research that shows its a deterent. Or theres no justification for execution because it violates the value of human life where people have a right to rehabilitation. ect.

So to even disagree we need some basis and to eventually agree we need shared basis to reach that agreement. This cannot be done unless there is some objective basis outside humans subjective thinking.

Okay, you just gave a reason for each side of the debate. Can you tell me which of those two reasons is the morally correct one? And if they are both correct to some degree, which is correct to a greater degree?

 

[stevevw]

Misuse of the term " red herring" is the topic.
Certain specific things are identifiable as right or wrong,
for practical purposes.
However-two big probs with your simple black and
white.
Few things can be identified as 100 percent good or bad,
Moral or immoral, right or wrong.

I think there are a small core of moral truths that we all intuitively know about and its because of this knowledge we make them like natural laws. So really all the moral disagreement is traced back to these core moral truths. Also often the disagreement isn't over the moral truth itself but a cultures understanding of the facts around that moral issue.

Second, you nor anyone can provide a general rule
that covers every questionable act.

According to moral realism the idea is that moral statements express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately.

So its not identifying any truths its just saying that there is a truth to be found. So the fact that people disagree or that its too hard or complicated to find that truth doesn't negate that there is a truth to be found. We usually reason moral issues and that can help us find the truth.

Nice if "god" ( here meaning an ultimate authority )
could provide a general rule for all situations.
" dont steal", say.
But we can spin ten thousand ways that the greater sin
would be not to steal.

Humm I'm not sure what you mean. But if you mean we can come up with 10,000 ways to make stealing ok or justified I think this is a big exaggeration. I don't think any god or authority like a dictator can force moral laws as this would be just there version.

I am interested in which ways we can rationalise stealing as OK if thats what you mean because I think its pretty clear that stealing is one of the core moral truths. But what I find interesting is that if we did start to argue about what is regarded as stealing or not we would be appealing to some objective to determine what is stealing or not.

 

[Kylie]

Of course not because its not a noramtive statement. Normative statements are value judgements about what we "Ought" to do or not do. You cannot apply that to preferences for TV shows because its not wrong to like Star Trek.

Your conflating tow different things. Its like saying what if someone preferred 2+2=5 in stead of 2+2=4 as a fact beyond themselves. It cannot be its just the persons preference and not a fact.

And the same applies to morality.

lol. And I have told you its more than just acting that way. Under a noramtive system"acting that way" is what makes it real and the truth. That how ethics

Thats what moral realism is. There is no choice but to act that way. If there are no other options then acting that way is the option for morality. But heres the ironic thing. You keep asking me to stop using this anaolgy while you are doing it your self ie "people are socially consitioned to act that way and this means morals are subjective".

Oh, for crying out loud...

People acting like it's objective, or normative, or whatever else, doesn't actually make it that way!

How do you treat a subjective view as objective. Its impossible. Subjective is all about self (the subject). Where as objective is beyond the subjects views.

I've already answered this.

"Ew, oysters are disgusting! They taste like boogers!"

Look at that, I presented my subjective view about the taste of oysters as though it was an objective fact.

I agree that peoples subjective view can be reagrded an an objective fact but only for the person holding the view. It doesnt apply beyond the person onto others or in a normative way. But that is what happens with morality. People take that subjective view and apply in like its a truth or fact for all people. They cannot do that as its inconsistent with subjetcive morals.

Why do you think that subjective views can't be held by more than one person, or even by a majority of people?

A subjective view that is held by EVERYONE is still going to be subjective. They may THINK it's objective, and they may argue that it's objective by saying, "It it isn't objective, why do we all agree on it?" but at the end of the day it's still subjective.

Fair enough, I cannot remember or be bothered to go through the posts. Anyway this is all irrelevant because as you even acknowledge "acting consistently with something doesnt mean morality is subjective or objective.

So I take it that you agree with that claim then?

In that case, I hope I never again see you argue that morality is objective just because people act like it is.

How, its impossible. The moment a person declares something is morally wrong as a fact beyond themselves they have given up their subjective position and taken an objective one.

Go read my oyster line again.

Then why did you say
"if morality is socially conditioned, then it is subjective". That implies your saying because people act consistent with subjective morality then morality must be subjective.

If X is consistent with Y, but inconsistent with Z, then finding X will be evidence that Y is correct and evidence that Z is incorrect.

Yes so if we read the manufacturers instructions and it says that to heat a meal it takes 5 minutes we have used an objective measure for what will heat the meal. When the microwave dings we know that it should heat the food. Thats why there are buttons for heating different foods as the manufacturer has ytested the mechanisms to heat we can have an objective measure of how long it takes to heat food.

Thats why they have all the different presets for different food. We should expect that setting the timer for a certain length will heat the meal. If it doesnt then something went wrong with the machine. These are all objective measures.

Yeah, this completely misses the point.

Why do you answer replis with a another objection rather than just addressing the point made. The point was you said disagreements = morality being subjective. I said that doesnt follow because even when there is an objective to find people still disagree on the way to finding that objective.

Compare the split between moral objectivists and moral subjectivists. The two different camps each make up a fairly significant part of the whole. Now compare the split between two different sides of something that we know is objective, like the shape of the Earth. You'll find that one side is absolutely massive and contains nearly everyone, and the other side is made up of a handful of conspiracy theorists, etc.

This indicates that any disagreement regarding things that are actually objective is going to be very one-sided. And that is NOT what we see with morality.

So disagreement alone doesn't prove morals are subjective. You need to acknowledge that you are wrong on this rather than create a Red Herring about some other issue.

And you'll find that I've never stated it was proof. I said it was evidence.

That wasn't the point. The point was "people disagreeing about science doesnt mean there are no objective facts to find. This equates to people disagreeing about morality doiesnt mean there are no objective morals to find. This is a logical fact.

The difference is that the objective facts about science can be described in a structured formal language, it's called maths. Logic can also be described in a mathematic-type language.

I'm still waiting for you to do that with morality.

This is silly. Your question proposes that this issue requires a value judgement. That in itself opens the door for objective reasoning to determine what is morally acceptable or not in consuming animals. So you have already implied objective morality by the way you ask the question as an issue that matters morlaly and needs a determination. We cannot make any determination unless we have some objective basis ie

Is it justified to kill animals for human consumption as its a source of food to sustain and keep humans alive. Is it best to do this in by animal raising rather than killing animals in the wild. These are all ethical questions that need a right or wrong answer. You cannot even discuss this issue without some common objective basis to reach an agreement.

I'm using a particular kind of proof in which I assume that one particular side is true and follow it to it's logical conclusion. In this case, I assume that morality is objective (even though I don't believe that it is, I am making the assumption to give you a chance to prove your point while playing in your own sandbox), and follow it to the conclusion that if morality is objectyive, it must be able to be described in an objective manner.

We can do it with science, we can do it with maths, we can do it with logic. So now I'm asking you to show me how to do it with morality, since you claim that it is objective like science, maths and logic. So far, you've gone out of your way to avoid doing this.