Is there an absolute morality?

[VirOptimus]

That is nonsense unworthy of you.

Its pretty much par for the course.

 

[Astrid]

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.

For a simple example, "age of consent" never agreed to
by the girls of course.
Rape on this side of a geographic line or date
is just good fun on the other.

Nothing objective going on there.

 

[Astrid]

Its pretty much par for the course.

Well, i hope not. But it was pretty silly.

 

[Astrid]

This has been pointed out many times to him. He refuse to understand this.

Hmm, didnt know this was one more time around picadilly circus.

 

[VirOptimus]

Hmm, didnt know this was one more time around picadilly circus.

There has been no new ”points” made for many many posts.

 

[stevevw]

That is nonsense unworthy of you.

But why. I am only applying the same logic that is used for subjective thinking to morality. If peoples preferences and feelings for TV shows and food is not right or wrong but merely expressions of they subjective state. The if we applied this to moral situations then someones preference for rape is not wrong. Its justa different opinion to other people.

 

[stevevw]

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.

I never said that. I am merely pointing out that under a subjective system it allows for the view that rape is ok to stand equal with rape not being OK. If under a subjective moral system views about morals are like views for TV shows and food then no one can be wrong for thinking rape is ok just like no one can be wrong for thinking Star Trek is ok.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I never said that. I am merely pointing out that under a subjective system it allows for the view that rape is ok to stand equal with rape not being OK. If under a subjective moral system views about morals are like views for TV shows and food then no one can be wrong for thinking rape is ok just like no one can be wrong for thinking Star Trek is ok.

When a person commits an act, I may judge it wrong by my standards. Then you may judge it wrong by your standards. And the majority of people in our circle may judge it wrong each by their own standards. Then society has judged them wrong. If that person wishes to continue in our society, he/she will stop doing that. If not, he/she will either be punished or leave.

This is the whole of morality.

If I think something is right/wrong, I will try to convince my society of it. If they agree, good. If not, I will either come up with better arguments or find a different society.

This is the whole of morality. We negotiate wrong/right. There is no absolute or objective standard.

 

[VirOptimus]

I never said that. I am merely pointing out that under a subjective system it allows for the view that rape is ok to stand equal with rape not being OK. If under a subjective moral system views about morals are like views for TV shows and food then no one can be wrong for thinking rape is ok just like no one can be wrong for thinking Star Trek is ok.

You still dont understand what a non-objective moral stance entails.

 

[VirOptimus]

But why. I am only applying the same logic that is used for subjective thinking to morality. If peoples preferences and feelings for TV shows and food is not right or wrong but merely expressions of they subjective state. The if we applied this to moral situations then someones preference for rape is not wrong. Its justa different opinion to other people.

Maybe you should study the subject instead of just making strawmen.

 

[Astrid]

But why. I am only applying the same logic that is used for subjective thinking to morality. If peoples preferences and feelings for TV shows and food is not right or wrong but merely expressions of they subjective state. The if we applied this to moral situations then someones preference for rape is not wrong. Its justa different opinion to other people.

Im really sorry you cant work this out in your mind, and wont pay any attention to the things others say, that could help.
Notice plz that i pointed out how ten feet ( or less,
since its a border with different laws on each side)
and ten minutes ( girls age ) make the difference between
Felony Rape, and, good fun.

Think that over.

 

[stevevw]

When a person commits an act, I may judge it wrong by my standards. Then you may judge it wrong by your standards. And the majority of people in our circle may judge it wrong each by their own standards. Then society has judged them wrong. If that person wishes to continue in our society, he/she will stop doing that. If not, he/she will either be punished or leave.

This is the whole of morality.

If I think something is right/wrong, I will try to convince my society of it. If they agree, good. If not, I will either come up with better arguments or find a different society.

This is the whole of morality. We negotiate wrong/right. There is no absolute or objective standard.

It seems that all this is being determined by reasong and argueing what is best. One person arguing their view with another and coming to some agreement. But that can only be done if we have some common basis ie raping harms people and society.

Otherwise an agreement of subjective personal opinions alone without any qualification cannot be a basis as it holds no weight, its just an opinion. Even if 1,000s of opinions agree. They could also agree and be wrong because there is no need to reason over subjective views.

If they do argue and reason about what behaviour is better/best then they have abandoned their subjective thinking and are now taking an objective position about morality because reasoning implies some objective basis for moral behaviour that is not based on subjective thinking.

The point is its impossible to argue and disagree under subjective morality as no one is technically wrong. They just have a different view.

 

[stevevw]

Im really sorry you cant work this out in your mind, and wont pay any attention to the things others say, that could help.
Notice plz that i pointed out how ten feet ( or less,
since its a border with different laws on each side)
and ten minutes ( girls age ) make the difference between
Felony Rape, and, good fun.

Think that over.

Believe me I have thought long and deep about this topic. I understand what others are saying but am disagreeing. But it seems that because of that disagreement you are implying that I must be wrong ie "why don;t you listen to what everyone is saying". Which is a logical fallacy of ad populum anyway. I could use the fact that the majority of philosophers agree with my position moral realism.

But nevertheless you seem to be saying you hold the truth to this matter. But what if I am not wrong, what if both sides are wrong. You seem to be making an objective determination that you are right on this and I am wrong. What if its a case that people are not listening or acknowledging my truth.

As to your post itself I am not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that different states or cultures have different moral views and that this shows that morals are not absolute/objective. That one person or culture may see immoral acts like rape differently. So its hard to make an act like rape an absolute or objective moral truth.

 

[VirOptimus]

It seems that all this is being determined by reasong and argueing what is best. One person arguing their view with another and coming to some agreement. But that can only be done if we have some common basis ie raping harms people and society.

Otherwise an agreement of subjective personal opinions alone without any qualification cannot be a basis as it holds no weight, its just an opinion. Even if 1,000s of opinions agree. They could also agree and be wrong because there is no need to reason over subjective views.

If they do argue and reason about what behaviour is better/best then they have abandoned their subjective thinking and are now taking an objective position about morality because reasoning implies some objective basis for moral behaviour that is not based on subjective thinking.

The point is its impossible to argue and disagree under subjective morality as no one is technically wrong. They just have a different view.

You really dont understand even the basics of moral philosophy.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Otherwise an agreement of subjective personal opinions alone without any qualification cannot be a basis as it holds no weight, its just an opinion. Even if 1,000s of opinions agree. They could also agree and be wrong because there is no need to reason over subjective views.

Of course it has weight. It has the weight and force of society. Just because a view is subjective doesn't mean there aren't reasons. And when I try to convince others of my position, I use my reasons and I try to convince my interlocutor that they should adopt my reasons.

That's all morality is.

 

[Astrid]

Believe me I have thought long and deep about this topic. I understand what others are saying but am disagreeing. But it seems that because of that disagreement you are implying that I must be wrong ie "why don;t you listen to what everyone is saying". Which is a logical fallacy of ad populum anyway. I could use the fact that the majority of philosophers agree with my position moral realism.

But nevertheless you seem to be saying you hold the truth to this matter. But what if I am not wrong, what if both sides are wrong. You seem to be making an objective determination that you are right on this and I am wrong. What if its a case that people are not listening or acknowledging my truth.

As to your post itself I am not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that different states or cultures have different moral views and that this shows that morals are not absolute/objective. That one person or culture may see immoral acts like rape differently. So its hard to make an act like rape an absolute or objective moral truth.

Long but maybe not so deep.
You say rape is wrong.
Ok
What is rape.
What is wrong with it.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

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.

What I meant by interpret was that the subjective state "Tasty" could be interpreted by other subjective states like "Not Tasty, tastes horrible , tastes delicious ect. So maybe the word interpret was a bit misleading. But that should have been cleared up if you read my whole post in context.

lol So first you say it can be interpreted in different ways, and now you point to you saying the word could be replaced. Bologna. Just own a mistake for once.

So neither of them are true in any real objective sense.

Neither of them are true, period. There is no other sense for "true" other than "real and objective".

Is there some other food we could refer to instead that would make the statement "X is tasty" true?

Vanilla ice cream is tasty.
A hamburger is tasty.
Pizza is tasty.

What food is tasty if chocolate ice cream is not tasty?

 

[Kylie]

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.

Looks to me like you are trying to have it both ways. You can't say that morality works completely differently, but then claims it's objective just like science.

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.

And how many times do I need to point out that treating something as though it's objective does not make it objective? I've said this countless times, and still you bring out things like this.

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.

So the best argument you have is, "I can't prove it, you'll just have to believe me"?

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.

And an "ought" is a subjective thing.

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".

Person 1: "Killing criminals as punishment is wrong."

Person 2: "That's just your opinion."

But of course, you always go to the extreme examples that have almost universal agreement in order to prove your point, as though people will confuse universal agreement on a subjective issue as evidence for objectivity.

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.

Well, here in Australia when there was disagreement over whether gay couples should have the right to get married, they had a plebiscite.

They also vote for political parties that share their views.

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.

The disagreement we see with scientific issues is nothing like what we see with morality. Virtually all scientists in relevant fields hold the idea that nuclear processes are occuring within the sun, for example. You may find a handful; of scientists who disagree, but that number will be absolutely microscopic compared to the number who accept it, and I'd also bet that most of the disagreeing scientists are in fields that are irrelevant to the issue.

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.

No you have not shown it. You've just repeated the same claims. You can say it's prescriptive as much as you want, but merely saying it doesn't prove it or demonstrate it in any way at all.

I am only explaining the difference in how morality works compared to subjective thinking. Lets just get how morality works right first.

No. You want me to accept that morality is objective before you show me that morality is objective? Doesn't work that way.

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.

As I've repeatedly said, acting like something is objective doesn't make it objective. I'm astounded that I need to keep pointing this out.

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.

And again, acting like something is objective doesn't make it 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).

Sure, why wouldn't they?

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.

How funny that the moral truth that black people are equal to white people was only objectively demonstrated at the same time that as a culture we progressed to the point where that opinion became widespread.

Not so long ago, it would have been said with just as much conviction that black people were objectively inferior. Why couldn't people back then determine the objective truth as we see it today? I mean, we were able to determine the objective truth about logic thousands of years ago, and the only thing holding science back has been our level of technological development.

So why does morality seem to change with the collective opinions of society?

So therefore if a person had the subjective view that rape is morally ok where do they stand.

You do realise that if a person who thinks rape is okay goes out and commits rape, then they are using their morality as a way control the lives of others. Which I made it clear I was very much against.

Was this not obvious?

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.

We look at the objective facts about the situation (if that old lady has her purse stolen, she won't be able to afford groceries) and we reach a subjective decision.

Yes thats what Ive been trying to point out.

Then why did you demand I give you an answer to a question that you agree is unanswerable until I am in that situation?

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.

How do you figure that an objective fact in one part means the entire thing is objective?

I mean, if there's a mix of subjective and objective, why do we have to conclude that the presence of objective stuff makes it overall objective? We can just as easily conclude that it's overall SUBJECTIVE because there are subjective things in there as well.

 

[Kylie]

But as you have been shown it doesnt matter what example is used be iut extreme or non-extreme.

No. You haven't shown it. You've CLAIMED it, but you haven't shown it.

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.

And saying "but there are more complex situations that are harder to find those moral truths" does not negate that there may be a moral truth to find. It just means some moral situations are harder to work out.

Your technique so far seems to be to use the extreme examples in an effort to try to get people to think that the near universal agreement on some moral issue means it is objective fact.

As I've already said, there is near universal agreement that Battlefield Earth is a terrible movie, does that make it an objective fact that it's terrible?

Your logic would be like saying 2+2=4 is too obvious for proving that Math truths. I want to see this Math truth applied to more complex equations before I accept that there are Math truths. But thats irrelevant as the Math truth has already been supported by the simple equation. Any more complicated equations that the average person would not be able to work out would have to be reagrded as false.

But the thing is, that truth about maths can be easily applied to lots of equations and demonstrated to be true. And it can be described in clear and concise language - something I have been asking you for ages now to demonstrate with morality, and which you have constantly refused to do.

But thats illogical as we have already supported there are Math truths. So it follows that if there is a Math truths for obvious/simple equation then there will be a truth for more complicated Math equation even if we cannot work them out and find them at the time.

Of course, this analogy only works if morality is objective. If it is subjective, then it falls apart. Your argument here is nothing more than, "If morality is objective, then it's objective." Since it uses the conclusion as a premise, then it's circular reasoning, and thus logically flawed.

 

[stevevw]

Of course it has weight. It has the weight and force of society. Just because a view is subjective doesn't mean there aren't reasons. And when I try to convince others of my position, I use my reasons and I try to convince my interlocutor that they should adopt my reasons.

That's all morality is.

But giving reasons that adds weight to an arguement require an objctive basis. The moment you appeal to that objective basis you have abandoned subjective morality.