Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If there was an authority, that would just beg the question, "Why should I comply with that authority?"He has dodged the question about authority the whole debate, he dont seem to grasp the concept.
This seems to be at the crux of our debate where we are getting stuck on translating subjective thinking into moral thinking. They are different types of thinking. Subjective thinking is descriptive. It describes the subjects state such as the prefer Star Trek. Whereas morality is prescriptive so it attributes “oughts” and “should” which we cannot apply to subjective states i.e. We cannot say or apply that “we ought not to prefer Star Trek” or that “we should not prefer Star Trek as its wrong”. Doesn’t work.
It doesnt mean the sun rotates around the earth because we know objectively that it doesn't.
But when it comes to morality because it’s prescriptive when you “rape is wrong” you are making an objective and normative claim that something is either right or wrong which we know is like a natural law just like we know the laws of physics and the relationship of the earth to the sun.
Under subjective thinking there is no right and wrong. It doesn’t matter how many examples you give me it doesn’t translate into morality because it’s descriptive. Like the earth orbiting the sun is a description of what is happening and not prescriptive about how we ought to act morally. That is why I keep questioning what you mean because the examples you give are not how morality works.
Ok so if “Different people have different values” how do we determine the right value to apply to a situation. How do we find out which is the best way to behave in any moral situation.
It can't be just the person with the most elegant debating style or personal opinion as some opinions may have more to offer or be reasoned better than others.
I think I understand that people have feelings, views about the world and can come to their own worldview. But this is tainted with personal experience which can skew their view of things. So its not a reliable base to make such important judgements as moral situations require. We would want to be able to reason the best or at least better option as it concerns peoples lives and wellbeing.
I don’t doubt “you believe” that morality is subjective. But believing is one thing and how we act or converse in real life situations is another. I think this is the heart of the issue as I have been saying that people cannot help but make morality objective. The way we act and converse has implications for reality when it comes to moral issues.
When you say things like TV shows are equivalent to moral values it doesn’t make sense so I try to show you why. When you say people claim something is morally wrong it implies an objective determination. It’s either right or wrong so I try to point this out and how it doesnt translate to poreferences ie 'its not wrong to dislike Star Trek'.
When you say people disagree over moral values it implies someone is right and someone is wrong which needs to be determined by some independent measure. When you say people reason about moral issues it implies there needs to be some objective basis to determine which moral values are the right ones. So I keep clarifying what you mean because what you keep implying in using this language is that there are objective morals.
it’s interesting that you emphasize “FROM MY PERSPECTIVE” as this is what I have been saying all along. That subjective preferences and feelings are only about the subject perspective and are not “Truths” outside the subject for others like morality is.
So Apart from YOUR PERSPECTIVE do people’s preferences for TV shows have equal status in the world. If a person holds the opposite view that Star Wars is better than Star Trek is their view any less of value outside the subjects thinking in the world. But here is where the subjective system falls down. You say “I'm not going to act as though I love Star Wars and hate Star Trek just because someone else holds that view” But we do act like we hate immoral behaviour. We do march in the streets and protest to our leaders over moral issues, we do sack people for immoral behaviour. See how preferences for TV shows don’t translate.
When you say “I'm going to live my life by the moral standards that I have found are best for me”.
So let’s apply this subjective thinking to morality. Can the person with the opposite view to you “live their life by the moral standards that they have found are best for them”.
So if 2 people were arguing about a moral issue and they both express their views how do we determine which view is the right moral behaviour. Surely if they are only expressing personal opinions we cannot base important matters on this. People’s opinions and views are skewed by their personal experience so they will be an unreliable and even dangerous way to determine what is the right behaviour for moral issues.
OK this is what I have been trying to point out that we cannot help but make morality objective. Everything you spoke about in how to determine which person to kill implies an objective basis to measure things. For example you said "you have to be in the situation to know what to do". Why would you need to be in the situation unless you needed to know the circumstances and how this impacts on your judgement? But in doing that reasonong why one determination is better than the other can only make sense if there is an object basis to reason against.
Secondly when you say “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” you are acknowledging that you need an objective base to reason and use logic against to find the facts.
And I have shown you by applying this thinking to moral issues and it doesn’t work. That’s why I said I think this is the crux of the matter that we keep getting stuck on and therefore we need to break this down and apply it practically to work out what’s really happening. I have sort of done that a bit above and will continue to do so as I think we are just going around in circles otherwise.
That being said I want to focus on this quote you said ” Obviously, they would be disagreeing about whether it is morally permissible or not”. By saying we need to determine “whether it is morally permissible or not” this implies something is either right or wrong behaviour. It doesn’t allow for preferences for TV shows like subjective thinking does.
If 10 people had different preferences about TV shows we don’t need to determine whether a preference for a TV is right or wrong like we do for moral issue. So you begin your reply with a supposition that there needs to be some objective to measure if it’s permissible or not.
So like I said, give me an example of how that happens. So if two people are debating this issue how do they sort it out as to which is the best thing to do. Don’t they need an agreed basis to even argue this issue? Can they turn to some research to see if there are any negative effects of certain behaviours? Is that something they could use to argue their moral position?
Yes but the fact is only true for you. Your describing your subjective state ie “Ew, disgusting,, tastes like”. It doesnt apply objectively outside youself as morals do.
In science objective is outside the personal views of people. So when someone says “the earth is round” that is an objective fact outside the person. It is true for you and me and everyone. But your taste for oysters is only true for you. Unlike morality which works like science, and logic similar to Math (but is not science) moral truths are facts outside the person.
So applied to your example of oysters we cannot say “Ew oysters are wrong” because it doesn’t make sense and subjective preferences or feelings don’t translate to moral issues which require right or wrong determination.
I am not accusing anyone of trying to wriggle out of anything. I am merely pointing out the difficulty of applying subjective morality practically. This is a well know problem in philosophy.
But I am interested in how you think I try to wriggle out of things.
This is another good example. People do have reasons for wht “They” think something is wrong. But as morality is normative it is a system that applies to all. So the problem you have is translating that into moral issues. You even acknowledged the limitation of subjective thinking when you said “but that doesn't actually make Trek objectively better”. So if subjective thinking cannot deetrmine what is better/best moral behaviour then we must need some other way to do this thus moral realism (objective morality).
Before I answer as I have answered this before I want to clarify something. Are you saying we cannot even reason about this issue to see if there is a better/best way to act? That’s the implication you seem to be claiming that there is no better/best way to behave that is better than other ways to behave.
lol, No.Ah, so your post 724 was completely off topic then?
Thats right morality is not determined the same way as science determines facts. BUt it works the same way inthat moral truths are facts like in Math which also cannot be verified through scientific tests. When someone says "Rape is wrong" that is stating a moral truth that the act of rape is objectively wrong.Likewise, there is also no "ought" when it comes to morality. Not in the same way that we say, "There is a photon, so it OUGHT to be moving at the speed of light."
No if you make an objective statement the truth of this has to be beyond the subject. Otherwise they are just make any statement. Otherwise about the subjects state of mind and nothing actually beyond the mind that is a fact. So when you say 2+2=4 its an objective fact beyond the subject. We can know by looking at the equation that is adds up correctly.Irrelevant. It demonstrates that we can phrase things in an objective way as a shorthand, in just the same way that we can phrase statements about morality as objective even if they aren't.
Like I said objective morality has no scientific test to prove it. It is like a law of nature, just like Maths is a law or fact. We know moral laws just like we know Math laws. 2+2=4 is the same as rape = moral wrong. Saying rape is morall good is like saying 2+2+5.Yeah, you'll need to do more than just claim that morality is objective to get me to believe it.
I have given this information many times. I just did it again above. Thats all there is and if your waiting for some lab test verfication its not going to happen. But we can look at human behaviour as I have mentioned and see that moral language is like Math, and is about facts.Also, natural laws like physics etc can be described in mathematical terms., I've repeatedly mentioned this kind of logical and structured language in regards to science, maths and logic, and have also repeatedly asked you to provide this kind of language for morality. I hope one day you'll actually do it and show that morality is as you claim it instead of just asserting it repeatedly.
No it would be like a Star Wars fan raving on about how "Star Wars is the best movie ever" and someone saying but thats just your opinion. It doesnt mean Star Wars is actually the best movie ever. Thats why I keep saying your examples of subjective preferences for TV shows doesnt work for moral situations. If someone said Star Wars is full of space ships then this is an objective claim. JUst like someone says "Rape is wrong".If you keep discounting my efforts to show that morality is subjective because you keep saying, "But morality is objective, so your example doesn't count," then we aren't going to get very far.
It would be like if a Star Wars fan was trying to show me how good Star Wars is, and I kept saying, "Yeah, but it's not Star Trek, so it doesn't count."
But how do people reach that agreement. How do they determine that which is agreed on is the best way to go. When people do disagree what are they disagreeing over and how do they sort out that disagreement.As I have said many times, we live in essentially one society, so for the most part our morality is in agreement. But there have been many instances that deal with moral issues where that agreement does not exist that do lead to arguments over the right value. Marriage equality, execution as punishment, abortion, stem cell research, etc...
There is also no complete agreement about scientific objectives. But when agreement is reached it is complete agreement that there is an objective. When people agree on a moral value they obviously have a shared basis like say rape is wrong because it harms women. If someone subjectively disagrees they are just mistaken just like they would be mistaken of they disagreed that 2+2=4.Exactly, that's why there's no complete agreement about morality. Because sometimes people in moral situations act in a certain way and others disagree.
But its not and I keep showing you how its not. How we act and converse with preferences for TV shows is descriptive (it describes something about the subject. Morality is different as its prescriptive. It tells us how something is outside the subject. How the act of "Rape" is wrong beyond the subjects preferences. Just like the Math equation 2+2-4 tells us a fact beyond the subjects personal view that 2+2=5.My analogy with Star Trek is an attempt to show you how the way we act in subjective situations is the same as how we act in morality.
I am only explaining the difference in how morality works compared to subjective thinking. Lets just get how morality works right first.You are also holding to your assumption that morality is objective, and then discounting my argument because it doesn't fit with your preconceptions.
Its funny when I explain thiongs logically rather than address this you fall back on saying it all doesnt matter as I haven't proved objective morality to your satification. What I am explaining is the support for objective morality. EXplaining that we don't act or converse like morals are subjective is part of the support which you keep fobbing off.Again, you need to do more than just repeatedly claim morality is objective.
I'm not saying that. I am asking So do people’s preferences for TV shows have equal status in the world as yours even if they have the opposite view ie (they like Star Wars and not Star Trek).Uh, no.
I'm not going to hold X position just because someone else holds that position. I'm not going to think that Star Wars is better than Star Trek just because someone else holds that position, and likewise, I'm not going to think that assaulting someone who robbed you is okay just because someone holds that position.
But when people march and protest these morals they are not some new subjective moral view they want to impose on others. When people protest about the treatment of women as we have seen with the "Me To" movement or above domestic violence or about BLM these are already established moral truths.The big difference with your march analogy is that people don't march because someone holds a view they disagree with. They march because someone holds a view they disagree with and are trying to force that view onto others.
So therefore if a person had the subjective view that rape is morally ok where do they stand.Sure, why not?
If there is someone who is against gay marriage, then they don't need to get married to a gay person.
But, the instant they use their morality as a way to stop gay couples from getting married, they are no longer just living their life, they are trying to control the lives of others as well.
No I am using logic. I am questioning how we determine moral judgements. Is it best to use subjective thinking or objective thinking when making moral decisions about what is right or wrong.Again, you are assuming there must be an objectively correct moral viewpoint simply because you can't believe that it could be subjective. Argument from incredulity.
Yes thats what Ive been trying to point out. This is what moral realism is about. That we converse and act/react as though morals are laws like in nature. Just like we do with the physical world. What we think in our imagination which is subjective thinking is not how morality works in reality. A person can say I think stealing is relative to the situation but when they have something stolen from them they act live stealing is a moral truth and is wrong regardles of relativity.Because facing an event in your imagination is a lot different to facing that event in reality.
I can base a subjective decision on objective facts, y'know.
But as you have been shown it doesnt matter what example is used be iut extreme or non-extreme. It only has to be shown (extreme or non-extreme) that absolute morals exist. If its accomplished by an extreme example to it doesnt matter as an absolute moral truth has been shown. Using more complicated examples is not going to deminsh the fact that an absolute moral truth has supported.I bet he goes for "rape is bad" as the moral absolute.
I mentioned this before. As human "Life" is intrinsically valuable and that humans are rational moral beings understanding this truth that Life has intrinsic value creates an obligation to uphold life. That is why all the major world organisations, nations and all ethical standards are based on this truth.Let's imagine that morality really is objective. And let's imagine there's a fella named Jack who actually knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what the right and wrong thing to do in any situation is. Why should he do the right thing and why shouldn't he do the wrong thing?
Why should Jack fulfill his obligations?I mentioned this before. As human "Life" is intrinsically valuable and that humans are rational moral beings understanding this truth that Life has intrinsic value creates an obligation to uphold life. That is why all the major world organisations, nations and all ethical standards are based on this truth.
Certain values and behaviours that sustain and help life thrive are moral laws and we see this in the language we use and the way we behave. Just like we would behave and speak about the physical world. Except because these are moral values and and morality is a rational enterprise the moral laws reflect an objectigation as well to uphold life.
Unfortunately the word "Tasty" is a reflection of the subject. You could replace that word with "Not tasty, tastes horrible , tastes delicious ect with other subjective terms. So its a descriptive statement about ice-cream being tasty rather than an objective one like "Icecream is frozen" which speaks about an objective fact beyond tastes.Yes, it is. And I'm using your source to prove it. If the statement can be evaluated as true or false, then we're speaking objectively. The statement "Chocolate ice cream is tasty" states that "chocolate ice cream" is in itself tasty. What any given person means or is thinking when they make the statement is irrelevant.
First of all, wrong. "Tasty" means the flavor is a good flavor. No one says "tasty" and means "not tasty". Don't be ridiculous.So Ice-cream being tasty is subjectt to interpretation. We can ask what is tasty. Can Tasty be interpreted in more than one way ie "not tasty, weird tasting, strange tasting ect.
I am noy saying "tastÿ" means "non tasty". I am saying you can substitute "tasty" with other subjective terms like not tasty or horrible tasting, or deliciously tasty. In fact delicious is equivelent to tasty.First of all, wrong. "Tasty" means the flavor is a good flavor. No one says "tasty" and means "not tasty". Don't be ridiculous.
Or you could substitute yucky with 20 other subjective terms. Your comparing subjective states. If someone made the statement that "Chocolate ice cream is tasty" it will be a true statement for them only.So we'll use "tasty" to mean that it is a good flavor and "yucky" to mean it is a bad flavor. Evaluate the following statements:
Chocolate ice cream is tasty.
Chocolate ice cream is yucky.
Which one is a true statement? Either it is tasty, or it is yucky, or neither is true. That's the tautology from your source.
See, that's just false. You said "tasty" might be interpreted as "not tasty":I am noy saying "tastÿ" means "non tasty".
But more to the point, which of the following statements is true?Can Tasty be interpreted in more than one way ie "not tasty, weird tasting, strange tasting ect.
Once again if you read the entire post you will see I clearly clarified what I meant by saying you can replace the word "Tasty" with other subjective words.See, that's just false. You said "tasty" might be interpreted as "not tasty":
So neither of them are true in any real objective sense.Chocolate ice cream is tasty.
Chocolate ice cream is yucky.
Is one of them true, or are neither of them true? It's a simple question. I'm not asking for any other information.
[/quote][/quote][/quote][/QUOTE]Thats right morality is not determined the same way as science determines facts. BUt it works the same way inthat moral truths are facts like in Math which also cannot be verified through scientific tests. When someone says "Rape is wrong" that is stating a moral truth that the act of rape is objectively wrong.
No if you make an objective statement the truth of this has to be beyond the subject. Otherwise they are just make any statement. Otherwise about the subjects state of mind and nothing actually beyond the mind that is a fact. So when you say 2+2=4 its an objective fact beyond the subject. We can know by looking at the equation that is adds up correctly.
But if someone said 2+2=5 we can say this is not objective beyond the subject but rathe rits just how the subject personally views things. It may be an objective truth for the subject but its not an objective truth beyond the subject.
Like I said objective morality has no scientific test to prove it. It is like a law of nature, just like Maths is a law or fact. We know moral laws just like we know Math laws. 2+2=4 is the same as rape = moral wrong. Saying rape is morall good is like saying 2+2+5.
I have given this information many times. I just did it again above. Thats all there is and if your waiting for some lab test verfication its not going to happen. But we can look at human behaviour as I have mentioned and see that moral language is like Math, and is about facts.
Your right that science is about desriotive statements and morality is prescriptive. Moral norms are a good example of prescriptive language that is about "Oughts". You "ought not rape" for example.
No it would be like a Star Wars fan raving on about how "Star Wars is the best movie ever" and someone saying but thats just your opinion. It doesnt mean Star Wars is actually the best movie ever. Thats why I keep saying your examples of subjective preferences for TV shows doesnt work for moral situations. If someone said Star Wars is full of space ships then this is an objective claim. JUst like someone says "Rape is wrong".
But how do people reach that agreement. How do they determine that which is agreed on is the best way to go. When people do disagree what are they disagreeing over and how do they sort out that disagreement.
There is also no complete agreement about scientific objectives. But when agreement is reached it is complete agreement that there is an objective. When people agree on a moral value they obviously have a shared basis like say rape is wrong because it harms women. If someone subjectively disagrees they are just mistaken just like they would be mistaken of they disagreed that 2+2=4.
But its not and I keep showing you how its not. How we act and converse with preferences for TV shows is descriptive (it describes something about the subject. Morality is different as its prescriptive. It tells us how something is outside the subject. How the act of "Rape" is wrong beyond the subjects preferences. Just like the Math equation 2+2-4 tells us a fact beyond the subjects personal view that 2+2=5.
I am only explaining the difference in how morality works compared to subjective thinking. Lets just get how morality works right first.
Its funny when I explain thiongs logically rather than address this you fall back on saying it all doesnt matter as I haven't proved objective morality to your satification. What I am explaining is the support for objective morality. EXplaining that we don't act or converse like morals are subjective is part of the support which you keep fobbing off.
I'm not saying that. I am asking So do people’s preferences for TV shows have equal status in the world as yours even if they have the opposite view ie (they like Star Wars and not Star Trek).
But when people march and protest these morals they are not some new subjective moral view they want to impose on others. When people protest about the treatment of women as we have seen with the "Me To" movement or above domestic violence or about BLM these are already established moral truths.
People are just making it known that these moral truths are basic natural rights that we all agree should be upheld. BUt this doesnt happen with preferences for TV shows. We don't march in the streets or sack people for preferening Star Wars. So what I am saying is that people do treat moral issues differently to subjective thinking.
So therefore if a person had the subjective view that rape is morally ok where do they stand.
No I am using logic. I am questioning how we determine moral judgements. Is it best to use subjective thinking or objective thinking when making moral decisions about what is right or wrong.
I am questioning whether subjective thinking is the right way to determine such important matters that need to be correctly decides as to what is the better/best moral behaviour. Like I said I am now trying to breakdown how subjective and objective morality works.
Yes thats what Ive been trying to point out. This is what moral realism is about. That we converse and act/react as though morals are laws like in nature. Just like we do with the physical world. What we think in our imagination which is subjective thinking is not how morality works in reality. A person can say I think stealing is relative to the situation but when they have something stolen from them they act live stealing is a moral truth and is wrong regardles of relativity.
And before you say "just because people converse and act like there are moral truths doesnt mean there are moral truths". As pointed out above that everything you said regarding "who to kill" in your moral scenario implied an objective basis for measuring how to determine what is the best way to act morally.
So its not just because we act/converse like something therefore its true. For morality acting & conversing is what makes it real and truth. There is no alternative way to act or speak in these matters because we know that moral matters need a truth.
That is moral realism in that it claims ethical sentences express moral 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. That is what I have been trying to explain to you and others.
If you base your decision on an objective fact then it cannot be subjective thinking. As soon as you appeal to some objective outside your subjective mind/thinking as the measuring stick for your decision you give you subjective thinking. We can then point to that fact outside the subject and say this is the truth and any personal opinion is wrong factually.
That is why I am pointing out that we cannot help but use objective reasoning/language for moral issues as you have just demonstrated in that you acknowledged that we need some fact to base moral decisions on and not subjective opinions.
Agreed. Words like rape, murder already contain the judgement. Rape is a certain sex act(s) we've deemed wrong. Murder is killing that is not approved by society.Rape cannot be objectively wrong as what "rape" is,
is subjective.
This has been pointed out many times to him. He refuse to understand this.Subjectivity does NOT mean that all people can do whatever they want whenever they want. It means society negotiates what one can do and not do.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?