Yeah I know people can trip up on this. There are two statements
1) moral values are independent facts similar to scientific facts and not determined by subjective thinking
Prove it.
2) But the moral facts are not measured physically like in science.
Then how do you know they exist independently?
Yeah I know this is becoming a bit repetitive. Ok let me try something different and more real life. I know you will think this is an extreme example but it makes the point fast. Do you think torturing innocent children is morally wrong.
Yeah, once again you are resorting to the extreme example to prove your point. Maybe one day you'll surprise me and be able to prove your point without resorting to extremes.
But in any case, yes, I personally hold the position that torture of anyone is morally wrong. That is a subjective point of view, and it is not made objective just because nearly everyone else on the planet holds the same view.
Not at all. I'trying to explain how something can be a fact or truth without it material. Do you think there are facts or truths in the world that are non-physical.
What do you mean by "non-physical truth"? I think it's true that 1+1=2, but numbers are an abstract and non-physical concept.
An "öught"is not subjective. What do you mean an "Ought" is subjective.
Because when someone says you OUGHT to do something, then they are telling you their own desires for what they would like to do. If I tell my daughter that she ought to go to bed now, it's not an objective fact that she MUST go to bed in the way that a photon MUST travel at the speed of light. It's simply me saying that I believe in my subjective opinion that it would be best for her to go to bed.
But no one uses OUGHT when they are describing objective facts. No one says, "We OUGHT to see that Pluto is farther from the sun that Earth is." Not unless they are trying to make a little joke. "Because it's closer to the sun that earth, we've got a serious problem! Hyuk hyuk!"
Actually there is 100% agreement on the core morals. Anyone who disagrees is said to be mistaken and objectively wrong. So its easier to use these as examples as they hit right at the heart of moral truths. So any arguement about these morals has an objective base. Even secular moral realist acknowledge there needs to be an objective base for moral disagreement and agreement.
So then nobody thinks rape is okay? Nobody thinks murder is okay? Then why do we have rapists and murderers?
Again, you make a claim which not only is unsupported, but contradicted by reality.
If we continue your example we could then say.
Person 1: "Killing criminals as punishment is wrong."
Person 2: "That's just your opinion."
Person 1: No its not my opinion. I base this on the fact that retributive justice does not deter crime and research shows that rehabilitaive or deterent justice works better. Because human life has intrinsic value we should try to preserve life as musch as possible.
Person 2: May continue to dispute person 1 but if the independnet evdience stands up they have no justification to continue to assert that its person 1's opinion. Person 1 has moved things from subjective opinions to something outside each of them that can act as a basis for determining what is morlaly right or wrong.
Person 2: "Killing criminals is right, since it prevents them from murdering again. It is not being used as a punishment or a deterrent, but it is used as a way to protect the people in society by ensuring that they cannot kill any more people."
So any moral agreement will eventually be traced back to some objective basis that is outside people be it human wellbeing, human happiness ect that people agree is the best basis. You cannot argue and reason subjectively because subjective opinions are not wrong. They don't need to be reasoned about what is the best behaviour. But morals do.
Objective facts about a situation are not the same thing as the morality of the situation. I've just shown you that there can be objective facts that support execution, for example. (Do not assume that means I support the death penalty, because I don't.)
Ok I think your saying that moral disagreements are sorted by majority opinion. Well some are. Is that right. BUt I am wondering if this is a good way to sort out morals because the majority may be wrong. How can we determine if its really right or wrong.
This is my point. There IS no REALLY RIGHT OR WRONG.
It's just the same as how we can't say if Star Trek REALLY IS better or worse than Star Wars.
You keep looking for an objective answer and don't seem to realise that there isn't one with subjective things.
Yes but your using a well established proven fact which has come from a history of disagreement. Most scientific facts we have today have come from much disagreement and as time has gone by and we gain more knowledge we understand better what is really going on. We are a step closer to the truth and facts of the matter.
That disagreement matches what we see in morality. Like slavery was considered OK and I would imagine as things progressed more and more people began to question and disagree about enslaving humans as a sub species. Evdience came along that showed slaves were equal as humans and this began the demise of slavery.
No, it is different. The disagreement with science is so one sided because we have evidence that is shown with a well structured language designed to communicate the concepts. Such a system is impossible with morality because these systems only work with things that are actually objective.
Its not a claim I showed you how "descriptive and prescriptive" work. Its not my idea but thankyou. Its just how it works according to how ethics work. You can look it up if you want.
However, you did just assert that morality is prescriptive without showing why.
No I want to go through with you how morality works, how you think it works. It would be useless me trying to change anything in you and thats not my aim. This is about debating the issue and that means reasoning things down to see what is happening. That includes understanding how subjective and objective morality differs and why. Is it practical, do people really act that way ect.
You're still asking me to assume that your point of view is correct so you can show me that your point of view is correct.
I will not accept your conclusion unless you present evidence to support it. So far, all you have done is make claims.
Well you know I make the same arguement against that each time. So I guess I could say that I have to keep repeating my rejection of your objection lol.
Wait, do you actually think that if everyone holds the same opinion, then the opinion is objectively true?
REALLY?
But that is what moral realism is. It says that we do act and speak like there are moral objectives or truths in the world and that some of this is actually true.
Moral realism (also ethical realism) is the position that ethical sentences 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.
Moral realism - Wikipedia
No, it is not.
Moral realism says that when we speak in an objective way about morality, we are referring to objective features of the real world.
I have been saying that when we speak in an objective way about morality, we are using a shorthand to speak about subjective opinions.
Once again, if I said, "Oysters taste disgusting," I am speaking in a way that suggests objectivity, yet it is still a subjective opinion.
The proposition that we are justified to believe that objective morality exists based on our lived moral experience just as we are justified to believe in our lived experience of the physical world. So, any defeater of our lived moral experience would have to show that objective morality was totally unreliable and that we could not realize objective morality at all.
Lived experiences are subjective.
So saying that "acting like something is objective doesn't make it objective" is not enough to defeat that there are objective morals. You have to come up with a defeater that our lived moral experience is totally unjustified and wrong. IE that our intuition that its wrong to abuse a child is completely out of whack and we are imagining it..
No, that claim is not enough to suggest that there are no objective morals.
But it is plenty to show that the argument, "We act like there is objective morality, so that means there IS objective morality" is completely destroyed.
