Is there an absolute morality?

[stevil]

This seems to closely associate a couple of things for you then.

1. Morality is a result of social interaction. I would guess this holds true even for the Christian who believes in an actor observer relationship with God.

I'm not a Christian, so I have to ask rather than to presume to know.

But would some Christian's believe that it is immoral to touch?
Masturbation is something that is typically done in private, there are no witnesses, no victims and yet potentially some people may believe this to be immoral.

 

[stevevw]

You give a lot of weird arguments that are supposed to prove morality is objective without demonstrating an actual moral fact.

Can you demonstrate one moral fact, through a purely logical non-fallacious argument, without having to assert that some other moral fact is self-evident?

So if we can say that torturing an innocent child is objectively wrong beyond any individual subjective or cultural relative view and that anyone who claims its OK to torture an innocent child is mistaken and objectively wrong how is this not stating an objective fact.

 

[VirOptimus]

So if we can say that torturing an innocent child is objectively wrong beyond any individual subjective or cultural relative view and that anyone who claims its OK to torture an innocent child is mistaken and objectively wrong how is this not stating an objective fact.

You have not supported that its "objectively wrong", just asserted it (as an emotional argument at that).

 

[stevevw]

Indeed, but its you who claim that there are such a thing as "objective morality" so the burden of proof is on you. [/qupte] Yes I have been posting evdience for this but people are refuting te evidence with evidence claims themselves that morality is only relative or subjective or in your case there are no morals at all. So likewise if people want to refute my evdience with claims about what morality really is then they need to provide evidence as well. You caný refute objective morality by making claims to objective facts about morality.

I dont know how many times I have to repeat that for me objective is a meaningless term. When will you accept that? Yes I keep forgetting as most people are relativists. Even so as I pointed out being a relativists leads to no objective morality and thus no morality.

We sure do. Look at morality around the world, most of it is because of how it makes us feel and it sure is arbitary in many cases.

What do you mean arbitrary in many cases. Are you saying that in some cases its not arbitrary.

I cannot believe that we treat important moral decisions arbitrary. The meaning of "Arbitrary is as follows
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system
Are you saying important moral decisions like whether torturing a child for fun is wrong or not is random and based on a "whim". That is counter intuitive to how morals wrork.

Morality is a formal logical system? I dont know anyone who says that.

It works like morality as in its abstract yet states facts. We intuitively know 2+2=4 without having to reflect on it. We intuitively know that when we see a person being mugged it is wrong without needing to reflect on it.

Try using your own words, I wont read your links.

I have already. I thought some evidence may help to show that I am not making this stuff up. It's actually the most common moral position to take among philosophers. Though I realize this is a logical fallacy it also lends some weight in that experts in a specific field usually know what they are talking about as well.

You have not supported that life is intrinsically valuable. And valuable for who? A value has to have an agent to appreciate the value. And by what metric? Who gets to decide?

I have provided independent support for this many times. For something to be intrinsically valuable it has to be objectively determined to have value in and of itself without anything else making it valuable. Humans are rational beings and they can reason that life has value not because they say so but because it does in itself.

That is why UN Univseral Human Rights state that the right to "LIfe" is inalienable which means that no indiviudal, culture or government can deminish the right to life.

Who obligates us? By what authority?

I have already answered this. If we understand that life is intrinsically valuable then we are oblighed to not devalue life as it is. Each person has a right to life and this is like a law that we ought to uphold.

You have not supported that harm is "bad by definition". Also, bad for whom? who gets to decide? How is it measured? Who has the authority?

Harm is determined by science. WE now know how certain harm not only affects us physically but also the brain. We can see how this causes people to suffer and deminish their ability to flourish.

 

[stevevw]

You have not supported that its "objectively wrong", just asserted it (as an emotional argument at that).

Yes I have. We intuitively know that torturing a child is wrong. We can be justified to believe that this is a moral truth that applies to all because thats how morality works. We don't live in a world where torturing children is morally good. WE condemn this practice and others like it as a matter of fact. We don't allow views that think torturing kids is good.

Until someone can defeat our moral intuition that torturing innocent children is truthfully wrong with an arguement that shows that torturing little children is morally good we are justified to go with our moral intuition as the best way to act morally.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes I have. We intuitively know that torturing a child is wrong. We can be justified to believe that this is a moral truth that applies to all because thats how morality works. We don't live in a world where torturing children is morally good. WE condemn this practice and others like it as a matter of fact. We don't allow views that think torturing kids is good.

Until someone can defeat our moral intuition that torturing innocent children is truthfully wrong with an arguement that shows that torturing little children is morally good we are justified to go with our moral intuition as the best way to act morally.

No, thats not how it works. You cant just assert something to be true, you have to in some way support it and you dont. You just say "we intuitively know" whch is just an empty statement.

And you still dont understand what not accepting a "objective" morality entails. Hint; it wont mean that I have to accept torturing children for fun.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes I keep forgetting as most people are relativists. Even so as I pointed out being a relativists leads to no objective morality and thus no morality.

Not accepting a "objecitve morality" is not the same as not having a moral stance (which would be impossible for a moral agent). Seriously, learn the basics of moral philosophy.

What do you mean arbitrary in many cases. Are you saying that in some cases its not arbitrary.

Moral stances can have better or worse arguments, and are therefore more or less arbitrary. Wont make it objective though.

I cannot believe that we treat important moral decisions arbitrary. The meaning of "Arbitrary is as follows
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system
Are you saying important moral decisions like whether torturing a child for fun is wrong or not is random and based on a "whim". That is counter intuitive to how morals wrork.

No, I dont say that. Why do you keep strawmaning?

It works like morality as in its abstract yet states facts. We intuitively know 2+2=4 without having to reflect on it. We intuitively know that when we see a person being mugged it is wrong without needing to reflect on it.

Now, 2+2=4 is not known intuitively, its learned. And its very tricky to prove.

No, we learn morality as is evidenced by how it varies through time and place.

I have already. I thought some evidence may help to show that I am not making this stuff up. It's actually the most common moral position to take among philosophers. Though I realize this is a logical fallacy it also lends some weight in that experts in a specific field usually know what they are talking about as well.

You argue (very badly) for objective morality without understanding the subject and by parroting people who you percieve to side with your view without really understanding the subject. I suggest a philosophy 101.

I have provided independent support for this many times. For something to be intrinsically valuable it has to be objectively determined to have value in and of itself without anything else making it valuable. Humans are rational beings and they can reason that life has value not because they say so but because it does in itself.

No, you have not. In fact, you have not managed to explain how something can be "intriniscally valuable" without an agent.

That is why UN Univseral Human Rights state that the right to "LIfe" is inalienable which means that no indiviudal, culture or government can deminish the right to life.

That codified by humans yes, not objective. Learn the history of human rights and you would understand why it was codified.

I have already answered this. If we understand that life is intrinsically valuable then we are oblighed to not devalue life as it is. Each person has a right to life and this is like a law that we ought to uphold.

Obliged by who/what? By what authority? Why should we uphold this? Who gets to decide?

Harm is determined by science. WE now know how certain harm not only affects us physically but also the brain. We can see how this causes people to suffer and deminish their ability to flourish.

Science describes physical reality, no more no less. You are here talking metaphysics which is not physicla reality. Again, learn the basics.

 

[stevevw]

You defined "effective" and "successful". Both of which are not mentioned in the definition of "harm". Sometimes harm is good, sometimes harm is bad. Sometimes we dislike being harmed, sometimes we like being harmed. Harm is not always "wrong".

Actually they were mentioned in the definition I used under verb here

VERB
To harm a thing, or sometimes a person, means to damage them or make them less effective or successful than they were.

Then show me a good basis that you can answer "why" it is a good basis. If I claimed that "Blonde hair and blue eyes is intrinsically valuable" we would have a basis for a morality that we can make objective facts about. But so what?

AS I mentioned "Life" is intrinsically valuable in and of itself and not because anyone makes it that way. This is the basis for Human Rights and the value of life as upheld in the constitutions of nations. This is classed as inalienable rights which means their value is upheld regardless of individuals, cultures or nations opinions.

Life as an intrinsic value is a First Principle that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. From this certain obligations need to be upheld to ensure life has value such as dignity, respect, happiness ect come.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-.

Life as an intrinsic value is a First Principle that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. From this certain obligations need to be upheld to ensure life has value such as dignity, respect, happiness ect come.

This is just an assertion, just because you think this is good does not make it objective.

 

[stevevw]

No, thats not how it works. You cant just assert something to be true, you have to in some way support it and you dont. You just say "we intuitively know" whch is just an empty statement.

"Life" as an intrinsic value is regarded as a "First Principle" so it cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. This has been supporte rationally. We know that life needs a certain state as to constitutes "Being" as in Human being (conscious experience). We understand our own worth independent of oursleves and that there are certain obligations to experiencing "LIfe".

We know the consequences of not valuing "Life" for itself when we put that determination in the hands of humans who are morally fallible. Therefore it is protected and this is seen in the HUman Rights and laws that make "LIfe" valuable. We know and understand both intuitively and rationally that "LIfe" is valuable in "itself". This is seen in the way we treat life. Just like it is seen in the way we act like there are additional moral values which all trace back to "Life" being intrinsically valuable.

And you still dont understand what not accepting a "objective" morality entails. Hint; it wont mean that I have to accept torturing children for fun.

Why.

 

[VirOptimus]

"Life" as an intrinsic value is regarded as a "First Principle" so it cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. This has been supporte rationally. We know that life needs a certain state as to constitutes "Being" as in Human being (conscious experience). We understand our own worth independent of oursleves and that there are certain obligations to experiencing "LIfe".

If its "we" as in humans that think this, then its not objecitve. Objective means that its not dependendant on humans at all.

We know the consequences of not valuing "Life" for itself when we put that determination in the hands of humans who are morally fallible. Therefore it is protected and this is seen in the HUman Rights and laws that make "LIfe" valuable. We know and understand both intuitively and rationally that "LIfe" is valuable in "itself". This is seen in the way we treat life. Just like it is seen in the way we act like there are additional moral values which all trace back to "Life" being intrinsically valuable.

No, "we" dont understand this. I certainly reject any ideas about objective values. And you still just assert things.

Why.

Because every moral agent have moral stances.

 

[Moral Orel]

Actually they were mentioned in the definition I used under verb here

VERB
To harm a thing, or sometimes a person, means to damage them or make them less effective or successful than they were.

That's the definition you made up. I already cited an actual dictionary describing how people use the word "harm" and your made up definition ain't it. So no, we won't use the definition you made up to justify your arguments.

AS I mentioned "Life" is intrinsically valuable in and of itself and not because anyone makes it that way. This is the basis for Human Rights and the value of life as upheld in the constitutions of nations. This is classed as inalienable rights which means their value is upheld regardless of individuals, cultures or nations opinions.

Life as an intrinsic value is a First Principle that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. From this certain obligations need to be upheld to ensure life has value such as dignity, respect, happiness ect come.

Right, we just have to assume there is a moral fact, and then you can prove that there are moral facts.

It's impossible to justify rationally that "We ought to value life" so you just declare it doesn't require justification.

 

[Moral Orel]

So if we can say that torturing an innocent child is objectively wrong beyond any individual subjective or cultural relative view and that anyone who claims its OK to torture an innocent child is mistaken and objectively wrong how is this not stating an objective fact.

How do you know it's an objective fact? You say that morality is arrived at through reason, show me the reasoning process. Produce an actual logical argument.

 

[stevevw]

If its "we" as in humans that think this, then its not objecitve. Objective means that its not dependendant on humans at all.

Humans are rational beings and morality is a rational enterprise. We are capable of rationalizing something as valuable in itself just as we are able to recognise and rationalize Math or scientific facts.

That rationalization tells us that there are certain values that stand independent of human subjective thinking. If any individual or culture claimed otherwise we can refer to these values or moral truths like they are natural laws.

For example if anyone claimed that torturing a child for fun was morally ok they are shown to be objectively wrong because we can stand on those moral laws or truths and claim they stand regardless of personal moral opinion. The fact that we can make this law stand independent of human or cultural view makes it objective as it stands independent as a fact or truth. No one can devalue that status.

No, "we" dont understand this. I certainly reject any ideas about objective values. And you still just assert things.

Yet despite you rejecting these truth values in Human Right laws and the constitutions of nations that make explicit the intrinsic value of human "Life". These truth values still stand and your personal opinion cannot change that. Its bigger than you and stands independent of you, me and everyone.

Let someone try claiming that torturing children is morally ok as a personal truth and see how far anyone gets. They would certainly be hels to account by the Human Rights. But most people would say that this person is mistaken and wrong and in fact is untrustworthy to be near children and thus a member of society. We don't do that with subjective feelings, preferences and opinions about food or other everyday things.

Because every moral agent have moral stances.

So obviously having different moral stances implies there is disagreement. How do we sort which moral stance or aspects of that moral stance are better/best than others.

 

[Astrid]

Humans are rational beings and morality is a rational enterprise. We are capable of rationalizing something as valuable in itself just as we are able to recognise and rationalize Math or scientific facts.

That rationalization tells us that there are certain values that stand independent of human subjective thinking. If any individual or culture claimed otherwise we can refer to these values or moral truths like they are natural laws.

For example if anyone claimed that torturing a child for fun was morally ok they are shown to be objectively wrong because we can stand on those moral laws or truths and claim they stand regardless of personal moral opinion. The fact that we can make this law stand independent of human or cultural view makes it objective as it stands independent as a fact or truth. No one can devalue that status.

Yet despite you rejecting these truth values in Human Right laws and the constitutions of nations that make explicit the intrinsic value of human "Life". These truth values still stand and your personal opinion cannot change that. Its bigger than you and stands independent of you, me and everyone.

Let someone try claiming that torturing children is morally ok as a personal truth and see how far anyone gets. They would certainly be hels to account by the Human Rights. But most people would say that this person is mistaken and wrong and in fact is untrustworthy to be near children and thus a member of society. We don't do that with subjective feelings, preferences and opinions about food or other everyday things.

So obviously having different moral stances implies there is disagreement. How do we sort which moral stance or aspects of that moral stance are better/best than others.

You say rational, then go straight in second paragraph to something
completely irrational.

 

[VirOptimus]

Humans are rational beings and morality is a rational enterprise. We are capable of rationalizing something as valuable in itself just as we are able to recognise and rationalize Math or scientific facts.

That rationalization tells us that there are certain values that stand independent of human subjective thinking. If any individual or culture claimed otherwise we can refer to these values or moral truths like they are natural laws.

For example if anyone claimed that torturing a child for fun was morally ok they are shown to be objectively wrong because we can stand on those moral laws or truths and claim they stand regardless of personal moral opinion. The fact that we can make this law stand independent of human or cultural view makes it objective as it stands independent as a fact or truth. No one can devalue that status.

Yet despite you rejecting these truth values in Human Right laws and the constitutions of nations that make explicit the intrinsic value of human "Life". These truth values still stand and your personal opinion cannot change that. Its bigger than you and stands independent of you, me and everyone.

Let someone try claiming that torturing children is morally ok as a personal truth and see how far anyone gets. They would certainly be hels to account by the Human Rights. But most people would say that this person is mistaken and wrong and in fact is untrustworthy to be near children and thus a member of society. We don't do that with subjective feelings, preferences and opinions about food or other everyday things.

So obviously having different moral stances implies there is disagreement. How do we sort which moral stance or aspects of that moral stance are better/best than others.

Sigh.

You just keep repeating the same assertions without understanding the issues. Its like trying to argue partial differential equations with someone who barely understands basic arithmetics.

Lets try something else.

Explain why this objective morality has authority over me. Who/what gives it the authority to tell me how to behave?

 

[stevevw]

You say rational, then go straight in second paragraph to something
completely irrational.

How is the second paragraph taliking about something "completely irrational". I see no mention of anything irrational. I said "That rationalization tells us that there are certain values that stand independent of human subjective thinking".

Its the same process that rationality that tells us that there are Math equations that have certain answers independent of human subjective thinking.

 

[stevevw]

Sigh.

You just kerp repeating the same assertions without understanding the issues. Its like trying to argue partial differential equations with someone who barely understands basic arithmetics.

Lets try something else.

Explain why this objective morality has authority over me. Who/what gives it the authority to tell me how to behave?

Well theres a number of reason for how it has authority over you. If a moral value stands independent of anyone then it has authority. Its not something subjectively determined but is a fact. Just like 2+2=4 is a fact and has authority in that it stands and people have no choice but to uphold this in their daily lives. Try disregarding Math for a day and see how it is necessary.

There are the obvious cases where a person cannot just go around stealing, murdering, abusing and raping people. Try doing any of these and see how far you get. Not just legally but socially as people ostrasize and condemn them. But this cannot be the case if morals are relative or subjective as each culture and subjects view is not morally wrong. So the fact that we can stand up against moral wrong and otrasize and condemn people shows morals are objective.

Then there are the moral truths we live with everyday just to be able to be human and engage with others. There are certain epistemic values we apply and are bound by. For example "being honest" in any discussion seeking the truth of a matter. We cannot engage without making "Honesty" a stand alone value that is not subject to peoples personal opinions.

Sure you can choose not to engage but you can never have a coherent discussion that involves seeking the truth. This comes down to a simple fact like a Math equation. You cannot find the truth of a matter without making the "truth" a moral value that guides things independent of the human subject.

 

[Astrid]

How is the second paragraph taliking about something "completely irrational". I see no mention of anything irrational. I said "That rationalization tells us that there are certain values that stand independent of human subjective thinking".

Its the same process that rationality that tells us that there are Math equations that have certain answers independent of human subjective thinking.

I KNOW what you said.
If you cant see any problem with it, you cant.
Try though. VirO gets it, you can if you try.

 

[stevevw]

How do you know it's an objective fact? You say that morality is arrived at through reason, show me the reasoning process. Produce an actual logical argument.

Its a fact because there is no alternative. There is only one alternative and that is that Torturing a child for fun is morally wrong when we reason things.