Is there an absolute morality?

[Neogaia777]

No worries goodnight. God Bless and sleep tight. Don't let the bed bugs bite lol. I had to say it.

Thank you...

God Bless!

 

[FireDragon76]

Yet it is a common basis for morality. Harm can be qualified as an action that causes damage to a person which makes them less effective or successful than they were. In that sense any harm is wrong.

Sam Harris is a proponent of objective morality based on human wellbeing for which harm/pain plays a significant role. He uses a moral landscape where there are various degrees of moral wrong with valleys and peaks as the ultimate measure of wrongness. He uses human flourishing as a measure of what is right and wrong

Harris's perspective is interesting but it needs some work. I think he would do well to study philosophy, and less science, and he'ld find more grounding for his humanism.

 

[Astrid]

Its still a moral wrong just like murder. All of the core morals are also illegal but that doesnt mean they are not immoral. You need to show that torturing a child for fun is morally good. Otherwise its a fact that its wrong and no one can change this by subjective thinking.
The determination that torturing a child for fun is not arbitrarily determined. The meaning of arbitrary is
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
No one decides such an important issue as torture by a whim. WE reason and find that it is wrong because it harms children.
What do you mean. Are you talking about assisted suicide or torture as they are completely different.
Torturing a child for fun is always bad, never good.

That is just a arguement ad populum. As if because others disagree with me on this thread therefore I am wrong.

If you are going to use that sort of logic to say that I am wrong then I can use the fact that the majority of philosophers (over twice as many antirealists) who are much more of an expert in ethics than you or me or anyone on this thread support moral realism (objective morality).

Many philosophers claim that moral realism may be dated back at least to Plato as a philosophical doctrine,[3] and that it is a fully defensible form of moral doctrine.[4] A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents[5] found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).[6] Another study in 2020 found 62.1% accept or lean towards realism.[7]
Moral realism - Wikipedia

But even philosophers that are anti-realists think that moral realism (objective morality) makes sense and is a rational position. So I have thought it through and I am in good company with others that have thought it through and we are in the majority. It is the anti realist who needs to rethink things. .

But even philosophers who are committed to moral anti-realism think that there are some good reasons to be a moral realist. They don’t think that proponents of objective morality are just confused, rhetorically sneaky, or crypto-theists.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhiloso..._there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/

Maybe some day you will allow for the possinility
that you dont have everything nailed down and others have
ideas with equal or greater merit than your own.

 

[stevevw]

Maybe some day you will allow for the possinility
that you dont have everything nailed down and others have
ideas with equal or greater merit than your own.

I agree, and we have to be open to all possibilities. There are many views on morality and I am learning some. Its a big topic. I understand your (relative/subjective) position. I just happen to believe that they are not the only way we can know morality.

Like I said I am in the majority position on this so I have thought about things and agree with the majority. But that doesn't mean I should not get to know other moral positions like Nilhilism. Understanding moral realism entails understanding opposing views as a big part of supporting a position is to refute opposing views. But I wonder if you really know about moral realism. I believe once understood it is a common sense and reasonable position to take.

In fact I'm in a position where I can say that there are subjectivea and relative views on morality. But I can also say that there are objective morals as well. This is something a relativist/subjectivists cannot declare. So I am really more open to different moral positions than the relativist who is in the difficult position of having to declare their relative position as a truth and yet not really a truth at the same time.

The question is why do people take different and opposing positions on morality. Morality doesn't occupy the materialistic world of physics which is held up as the best and often declared only way to understand reality. Yet all through history we have appealed to this moral truth or "The Good" like its part of the real world.

As we have seen in recent years especially in QM and consciousness science is limited and more people are turning to ideas that make consciousness a fundemental part of reality. If thats the case then its not such a crazy idea that there is some moral law existing as part of reality.

Humans (the observer) play a part in what makes reality. So maybe the only way we can measure and know moral truths is by how we intuit them and reason them to become like unwritten Laws similar to Math or other abstract ideas.

 

[stevevw]

Harris's perspective is interesting but it needs some work. I think he would do well to study philosophy, and less science, and he'ld find more grounding for his humanism.

Yes I agree, morality needs philosophy more than science.

 

[Moral Orel]

You need to show that torturing a child for fun is morally good. Otherwise its a fact that its wrong and no one can change this by subjective thinking.

And that, my friend, is a textbook example of the Shifting the Burden of proof fallacy.

So all of us here have been asking you to show us the reasoning, and it's clear that you can't. You can't because you didn't use reasoning to come to the conclusion that it's objectively wrong. If you had reasons, you would have stated them.

So, what caused you to actually hold the belief that such a thing is "objectively wrong" now that we know it had nothing to do with reason, or being rational, or logic or anything of the sort? Certainly you have very strong feelings about it, most people do, I'm sure all of us here do. So what else can we conclude other than you believe it because you feel it to be true?

 

[stevevw]

And that, my friend, is a textbook example of the Shifting the Burden of proof fallacy.

Actually it is not shifting the burdon of proof. Our intuition that certain acts are morally wrong is a justified and true belief. It is the skeptic who claims its not. So if our intuition shows that torturing a child for fun, mugging someone, sexual harassment ect is morally wrong and the skeptic claims its not then it is the skeptic who has to show that our intuition is wrong and we are not imagining it and that acts like torturing a child for fun is not morally wrong.

Just like we intuit that the physical world is a good representation of how things really are so is our moral intuition is a good representation of how morality really is. It is an assumption we use and it works well. We may be wrong but it would take some convincing through reasoning. Until someone can defeat this and show that our moral intuition is totally unjustified and we are completely deluded we are justified to go with our moral intuition.

So all of us here have been asking you to show us the reasoning, and it's clear that you can't. You can't because you didn't use reasoning to come to the conclusion that it's objectively wrong. If you had reasons, you would have stated them.

So, what caused you to actually hold the belief that such a thing is "objectively wrong" now that we know it had nothing to do with reason, or being rational, or logic or anything of the sort? Certainly you have very strong feelings about it, most people do, I'm sure all of us here do. So what else can we conclude other than you believe it because you feel it to be true?

Actually I have given a variety of arguements and reasons ie we are justified to believe that "Life" is an intrinsic value that we should uphold, we are justfied to believe our moral intuition as the starting point for morality and the epistemic arguement.

I have also argued that society uses reasoning and grounds morality through "norms" and these are based on reasoning and are objective in that they use a premise of some sort ie "human wellbeing", human flourishing", to keep soceity in order, to protect people and keep society safe, to get along ect.

These are all appealing to some objective measure. It cannot be helped. Epistemically we have a responisility to investigate and understand what is happening in a given situation. We can investigate whether our beliefs about something stand up.

Sometimes in doing this our epistemic duty is entangled with our moral duty. So epistemic and moral facts stand and fall together. If there are epistemic values and facts then it follows there are moral values and facts. I have explained this early in the other thread. But I am happy to elaborate.

But before I do this I would like to understand what you mean by "Feelings" and how this relates to an act being right or wrong morally. Maybe an example like 2 people debating a moral issue and how they would engage and sort out what is the best way to act in that situation.

 

[stevevw]

Heres another thing I cannot work out under relative morality. Under relative morality cultures have different moral views to their relative position which are their moral truths. Another culture will have different moral truths so no culture is ultimately right in the overall scheme of things. You have your truth, we have ours so let each live their morality according to how they see things sort of thing.

The question could be asked what is a culture. Is it a group of 20 people, an isolated village or town, a State or Nation. What about different cultures within the same walls of a city or nation or a tribe within a nation. We know even coporations can have a culture.

Someone mentioned that we see different views of relative morality within States so that a different moral truth may be a matter of 10 feet away over a State border line. So it got me thinking what if this is really the case then just like one culture can practice treating women badly as that was their moral truth and a neighbouring State was against this.

If each State has their own moral truth then the neighbouring State would have to accept the practice of treating women badly on their door step. That just doesn't make sense and is not how we actually live. We do make things wrong for all reagrdles of State lines and different cultures. THis defeats the idea of moral relativism.

 

[Moral Orel]

Actually it is not shifting the burdon of proof.

Actually, it is. You made a claim, you gave no reason to support that claim, you demanded that someone disprove your claim. Shifting the burden of proof.

Our intuition that certain acts are morally wrong is a justified and true belief. It is the skeptic who claims its not. So if our intuition shows that torturing a child for fun, mugging someone, sexual harassment ect is morally wrong and the skeptic claims its not then it is the skeptic who has to show that our intuition is wrong and we are not imagining it and that acts like torturing a child for fun is not morally wrong.

Just like we intuit that the physical world is a good representation of how things really are so is our moral intuition is a good representation of how morality really is. It is an assumption we use and it works well. We may be wrong but it would take some convincing through reasoning. Until someone can defeat this and show that our moral intuition is totally unjustified and we are completely deluded we are justified to go with our moral intuition.

There are no excuses for shifting the burden of proof.

Actually I have given a variety of arguements and reasons ie we are justified to believe that "Life" is an intrinsic value that we should uphold, we are justfied to believe our moral intuition as the starting point for morality and the epistemic arguement.

I have also argued that society uses reasoning and grounds morality through "norms" and these are based on reasoning and are objective in that they use a premise of some sort ie "human wellbeing", human flourishing", to keep soceity in order, to protect people and keep society safe, to get along ect.

These are all appealing to some objective measure. It cannot be helped. Epistemically we have a responisility to investigate and understand what is happening in a given situation. We can investigate whether our beliefs about something stand up.

Sometimes in doing this our epistemic duty is entangled with our moral duty. So epistemic and moral facts stand and fall together. If there are epistemic values and facts then it follows there are moral values and facts. I have explained this early in the other thread. But I am happy to elaborate.

None of these failed arguments and bare assertions have anything to do with the claim you made.

You claimed that we know moral facts via reason. But you have no reasons for the moral "fact" you stated, so you didn't use reason.

You've already demonstrated that reason is not part of your process when evaluating whether something is morally right or morally wrong. So what do you use to make such a determination now that we know it isn't reason? Is it just a feeling you get?

 

[VirOptimus]

Heres another thing I cannot work out under relative morality. Under relative morality cultures have different moral views to their relative position which are their moral truths. Another culture will have different moral truths so no culture is ultimately right in the overall scheme of things. You have your truth, we have ours so let each live their morality according to how they see things sort of thing.

The question could be asked what is a culture. Is it a group of 20 people, an isolated village or town, a State or Nation. What about different cultures within the same walls of a city or nation or a tribe within a nation. We know even coporations can have a culture.

Someone mentioned that we see different views of relative morality within States so that a different moral truth may be a matter of 10 feet away over a State border line. So it got me thinking what if this is really the case then just like one culture can practice treating women badly as that was their moral truth and a neighbouring State was against this.

If each State has their own moral truth then the neighbouring State would have to accept the practice of treating women badly on their door step. That just doesn't make sense and is not how we actually live. We do make things wrong for all reagrdles of State lines and different cultures. THis defeats the idea of moral relativism.

Just because there are no objective morality does not hinder making moral judgement on others.

You really dont understand the issues.

 

[FireDragon76]

Heres another thing I cannot work out under relative morality. Under relative morality cultures have different moral views to their relative position which are their moral truths. Another culture will have different moral truths so no culture is ultimately right in the overall scheme of things. You have your truth, we have ours so let each live their morality according to how they see things sort of thing.

"Moral truth" is not the terminology a person who rejects moral absolutism would use. Cultures have moral standards or mores that may or may not be unique to them.

If each State has their own moral truth then the neighbouring State would have to accept the practice of treating women badly on their door step. That just doesn't make sense and is not how we actually live. We do make things wrong for all reagrdles of State lines and different cultures. THis defeats the idea of moral relativism.

Liberal democracy isn't dependent on everybody in the society agreeing about morality, just the basis of political power.

 

[stevevw]

Actually, it is. You made a claim, you gave no reason to support that claim, you demanded that someone disprove your claim. Shifting the burden of proof.

There are no excuses for shifting the burden of proof.

Claiming our intuition of morality represents how morality works is the same thing as claiming that our intuition of the physical world represents how reality and the world works. In both cases our intuition is the starting point. That intuition represents our experience of the world and morality which we have already rationally processed.

We can then test that intuition in the world and find that our intuition is supported. We are then justified to believe that our intuition is a good representation of the world and morality. It allows us to venture into the world and know that we won't get sucked into some matrix or be mugged around the next corner. Its like a self evdience truth we have tested and found to be justified and live by.

So because our intuition is a justified belief and we are justified to go with this view/belief and its not just some arbitray unfounded position to take. Therefor it is the skeptic who claims that this is not the case who has to defeat that we are not justified to believe that our intuition is a good representation of morality.

They would have to come up with a defeat for morality as showing that our intuition was completely delussional and unjustified. Just like they would have to defeat our intuition of the physical world as being some computer simulation.

So the skeptic would have to show that our intuition that torturing a child for fun was horrible mistaken and we were deluded. Until then we are justified to go with our moral intuition as its served us well so far.

None of these failed arguments and bare assertions have anything to do with the claim you made.

I disagree they are failed or blind assertions thats the point. YOu have not shown they are.

You claimed that we know moral facts via reason.

No I said we know morality by our intuition and then we reason this to see if it stands up.

But you have no reasons for the moral "fact" you stated, so you didn't use reason.

Didn' t I just list reasons like "Life" being intrinsically valuable, human wellbeing, happiness, flousrishing, stability, ect. Arent they all reasons for why we should act morally good.

You've already demonstrated that reason is not part of your process when evaluating whether something is morally right or morally wrong.

I am a little confused here as to what you mean by reason. Are you talking about " reasons" why we do something or the act of reasoning. Because if its "reasoning" then you just made a contradictory claim when you said "reason is not part of your process when evaluating". Evaluating things is reasoning things. They are the same thing. So if I am evluation morality I am reasoning morality.

So what do you use to make such a determination now that we know it isn't reason? Is it just a feeling you get?

I think you have created a strawman here. If I claims we don't use reasoning for morality then how do you explain this. For example
#783
But reasoniong does require an objective base to reason from. Morality is a rational enterprise. We don't just feel or prefer morals. We need to reason them out to see if they stand up independent of subjects.
#780
But giving reasons that adds weight to an arguement require an objctive basis.
#886
The meaning of arbitrary is based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. No one decides such an important issue as torture by a whim. WE reason and find that it is wrong because it harms children. What do ...
#669
Humans reason that "Life" in itself has value as a self-evident truth.

I could go right back if you want. But in both this thread and the other one on morality I have maintained reasoning is an important part of morality and that morality is a rational enterprise.

 

[stevevw]

"Moral truth" is not the terminology a person who rejects moral absolutism would use. Cultures have moral standards or mores that may or may not be unique to them.

So the moral standards that a culture has that doesn't accord with say western nations how does that stand. Why do western nations condemn those moral standards when they are the relative moral standard that another culture has which cannot be wrong for them. Shouldn't western cultures be saying " Well that is your moral standard and we have our own different moral standard so let each live according to their moral standard".

Liberal democracy isn't dependent on everybody in the society agreeing about morality, just the basis of political power.

But if relative morality is how morality works then a State could be like a different culture and may allow slavery and bad treatment of women. As we have seen in the past or perhaps with drug legalization today. Under this system we would have to allow cultures with completely opposing moral views coexist and no one can really condemn another morally.

What I am saying is that this is an impossible moral system to work. Thats not how we live out morality. WE do condemn the immoral acts of other cultures making those acts wrong for all cultures.

 

[FireDragon76]

So the moral standards that a culture has that doesn't accord with say western nations how does that stand. Why do western nations condemn those moral standards when they are the relative moral standard that another culture has which cannot be wrong for them.

Often times it's just political posturing. When somebody says they are doing something for some noble purpose, you always have the right to question their motives, after all.

Shouldn't western cultures be saying " Well that is your moral standard and we have our own different moral standard so let each live according to their moral standard".

Sometimes they do.

But if relative morality is how morality works then a State could be like a different culture and may allow slavery and bad treatment of women. As we have seen in the past or perhaps with drug legalization today. Under this system we would have to allow cultures with completely opposing moral views coexist and no one can really condemn another morally.

What I am saying is that this is an impossible moral system to work. Thats not how we live out morality. WE do condemn the immoral acts of other cultures making those acts wrong for all cultures.

Not everybody does that.

 

[stevevw]

Just because there are no objective morality does not hinder making moral judgement on others.

You really dont understand the issues.

I think its really quite simple and straight forward but people want to complicate and obscure the truth. You say that we can say that a moral act is wrong without meaning its really wrong. I don't get this. LIke I have asked before as its a practcial example and will allow us to see how morality actually works.

If there were 2 cultures disagreeing about a moral issue how do they determine what is the better or best way to behave morally if morality is relative. How do 2 people disagreeing about a moral issue determine what is the better or best way to behave morally if morality is subjective.

There is no way to determine this without some objective anchor. I cannot see a way around this for relative or subjective morality. As soon as the 2 opposing parties attempt to justifiy their moral view using anything they are appealing to some objective outside their culture or personal view/feeling.

But nevertheless tell me how the parties can determine things without appealing to any objectives.

 

[Moral Orel]

Claiming our intuition of morality represents how morality works is the same thing as claiming that our intuition of the physical world represents how reality works.

Not the same thing at all. In physical reality we can measure things, count things, touch/feel/smell/taste/ hear things... We can't do any of those things for moral statements.

In both cases our intuition is the starting point. That intuition represents our experience of the world and morality. We test that intuition in the world and find that our intuition is supported. We are then justified to believe that our intuition is a good representation of the world and morality. Like a self evdience truth we have tested and found to be justified.

So because our intuition is a justified belief and we are justified to go with that it therefore means the skeptic who claims that this is not the case has to defeat that we are not justified to believe that our intuition is a good representation of morality. They would have to come up with a defeat for morality as showing that our intuition of reality was not as we see it.

The same for our intuition of morality. That is why I gave the example of our intuition that torturing a child for fun or even mugging someone in the street is a good representation of moral reality and that it was wrong.

So the skeptic would have to show that our intuition that torturing a child for fun was horrible mistaken and we were deluded. Until then we are justified to go with our moral intuition as its served us well so far.

Except you don't test your intuitions. You just assume they're correct. You don't use reason, you uncritically accept whatever your intuitions (aka feelings) tell you.

I disagree they are failed or blind assertions thats the point. YOu have not shown they are.

I have shown that they are. There's hundreds of pages in several threads of people shredding all of your arguments and claims to bits.

No I said we know morality by our intuition and then we reason this to see if it stands up.

Except you don't use any reasoning. You assume your intuition is correct.

Didn' t I just list reasons like "Life" being intrinsically valuable, human wellbeing, happiness, flousrishing, stability, ect. Arent they all reasons for why we should act morally good.

No. Why should we be stable? Why should we flourish? Why should we be happy? Why should we be well? Why should we live?

I am a little confused here as to what you mean by reason. Are you talking about " reasons" why we do something or the act of reasoning. Because if its "reasoning" then you just made a contradictory claim when you said "reason is not part of your process when evaluating". Evaluating things is reasoning things. They are the same thing. So if I am evluation morality I am reasoning morality.

Ugh... Reasoning literally means to find/show reasons that things are true through logic. If you don't have reasons for your beliefs, you didn't use reason to get them. In an argument, the premises are reasons that the conclusion is true. If you have no reasons to work with, then you aren't reasoning.

I think you have created a strawman here. If I claims we don't use reasoning for morality then how do you explain this. For example
#783
But reasoniong does require an objective base to reason from. Morality is a rational enterprise. We don't just feel or prefer morals. We need to reason them out to see if they stand up independent of subjects.
#780
But giving reasons that adds weight to an arguement require an objctive basis.
#886
The meaning of arbitrary is based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. No one decides such an important issue as torture by a whim. WE reason and find that it is wrong because it harms children. What do ...
#669
Humans reason that "Life" in itself has value as a self-evident truth.

I could go right back if you want. But in both this thread and the other one on morality I have maintained reasoning is an important part of morality and that morality is a rational enterprise.

I know you claim to use reason, but you demonstrated that you do not. When asked for reasons that a given moral fact is true, you have none. You proved your own claim to be false.

 

[ChristServant]

Are acts wrong in themselves? Or does it depend on the context?

GOD is absolute morality.

Peace be with all those in the Body of Christ.

 

[stevevw]

Often times it's just political posturing. When somebody says they are doing something for some noble purpose, you always have the right to question their motives, after all.

But its not postering. They actually condemn the acts of other cultures as morally wrong. That the other culture should stop that act in their own cultural setting as well. That its morally wrong for all cultures to do. Examples abound like female gentital circumcisions (or as the west calls genital mutilation). Child prostition is another, or polgamy, even cultures living in the west are denied their own cultural morals.

The point is it appears that morals cross cultural lines and its hard to define what a culture is. If relativisim is how morality works then cultures should be tolerant of the opposing morals others have even in their own backyard. Otherwise they are contradicting their own moral position and perhaps this is inevitable because its an impossible system to work.

Sometimes they do.

Humm this seems a bit arbitrary. I would have though each culture had a case that it doesnt matter what thye other culture thinks because this is how we do morality and its our business. Let each to their own. I mean western nations have already messed things up enough let alone be dictating morality. But this is what happens when we make things relative. Its the most powerful in the end who get to dictate what is.

Not everybody does that.

Not sure what part of my reply this was aimed at. BUt if its that not everyone condemns other s for for wrongs, Not only does one culture condemn another but people within the same culture condemn each other.

And not just for obvious moral wrongs. They attack and condemn for even saying or believing the wrong thing morally and they want you sacked and ruined. Thats the level of moral outrage out there today. I mean even 16 year old girls are standing before the world condemn it for causing climate change. Its quite funny actually if it wasnt such a serious problem.

The thing is under relative morality western nations should not even condemn obvious immoral acts like child prostition as this is relative to the poor Asian culture who may have to do this to survive. Or gental mutilation of you girls in some African tribe as this is a sacred ritual that the tribe practcies for years and it wards off demons.

Yet they do condemn these practcies and even take action to stop it. This shows that there are some common moral truths known by all and we live like they are truths that apply to every culture.

 

[stevevw]

Not the same thing at all. In physical reality we can measure things, count things, touch/feel/smell/taste/ hear things... We can't do any of those things for moral statements.

Then you have not understood the analogy. For all we know some computer simulation has programmed us to think our senses are real and what we touch and measure is real. When in fact its all unreal and only created to seem that way. We can never directly know if we were not living in such a similation as we wpould have to step outside that similation to see it or find a glitch in the matrix so to speak.

So therefore all we have is our iuntuition of the real world to go on and we live justifiably according to that intuition and our testing it. Experience happens enough times we begin to think " Yeah this is for real, this is how things really are".

The same with morality. Happens enough times and we get the same result we can begin to be justified to believe " yeah thats real and a true representation of whats happening morally". Thats our starting point assumption and its been verified by rationality and logic.

Except you don't test your intuitions. You just assume they're correct. You don't use reason, you uncritically accept whatever your intuitions (aka feelings) tell you.

Where have I said I don't test intuitions. I have actually said the opposite many times over. ie this is from a post about 600 pages ago #388
I have not said intuition is some knee jerk reaction. Quite the opposite. Its the end result of analytic thinking about moral experiences and how they pan out in real life. That gives us an instant recognition of what is morlaly right and wrong.

Yeah we could be wrong about our intuition but that will only be after we have reasoned that it is wrong. Until then we are justified to believe our intuition is a true representation of how morality works. Just like our intuition of the physical world is a true representation of how it works.

or hear even earlier #283

But it can't because what is a moral truth is determined by our intuitions and then is rationally and logicaly determined.

I have shown that they are. There's hundreds of pages in several threads of people shredding all of your arguments and claims to bits.

There was one you have not refuted here

Epistemic Argument
1. If epistemic realism is true, then moral realism is true.
2. Epistemic realism is true.
C: Therefore, moral realism is true.

As morality is harder to argue directly due to its (hard to pin down nature) the Epistemic Argument for moral realism avoids this by linking epistemic values and facts with moral values and facts. As we acknowledge there are epistemic values and facts then sometimes our epistemic values and obligations are entangled with our morals. Thus if epistemic realism is true then it follows that moral realism is also true.

Except you don't use any reasoning. You assume your intuition is correct.

You cannot reason an intuition itself. It is a recognition of previous reasoning so it doesnt need to be reasoned. So intuitions are not some arbitrary sense. It could be likened to common sense. Its our recognition of past experiences that have already been processed.

We can then test that assumption like they do in science to see if it stands up. So our intuition is the initial sense about something being wrong. We then reason out the moral situation to see why it is wrong to find the moral truth. This allows us to eliminate personal biases through subjective feelings or views.

No. Why should we be stable? Why should we flourish? Why should we be happy? Why should we be well? Why should we live?

I agree but thats not the point. These are all attempts to make morality objective. Lets call them "synthetic objectives" as people still convince themselves that they are objectives and they work as an objective for the purposes they have been designed for.

The point is we appeal to objectives even if they are not because we know that morality needs objectives. Otherwise why even appeal to anything, just say " Its the right thing to do because it feels right" end of story. BUt that doesnt happen. We come up with all these pretend objectives to premise why we should do this and that.

Even feelings cannot overcome an appeal to some objective. As soon as you say to someone I feel that this is wrong the other person is going to say "why". You can'y just say " well I feel angry and its wrong". The other person is going to ask " Why". You can't keep appealing to emotions. The other persons wants to know " why".

Sooner or later you are going to have to use some basis like " well I feel it denies womens their right" or "It makes me angry because its not fair". Why isnt it fair ect and people begin to appeal to some basis outside themselves like " Its not fair because everyone should be treated the same". But "why" well because " its a natural born right". It always has to go back to some premise which is held up as a basis why someone thinks moral acts are right or wrong..

Ugh... Reasoning literally means to find/show reasons that things are true through logic. If you don't have reasons for your beliefs, you didn't use reason to get them. In an argument, the premises are reasons that the conclusion is true. If you have no reasons to work with, then you aren't reasoning.

I know you claim to use reason, but you demonstrated that you do not. When asked for reasons that a given moral fact is true, you have none. You proved your own claim to be false.

OK so like I said I am not good at that. BUt that doesn't mean greater people than I who have studied ethics and how to argue cannot provide such an arguement as with the Epistemic arguement.

 

[VirOptimus]

I think its really quite simple and straight forward but people want to complicate and obscure the truth. You say that we can say that a moral act is wrong without meaning its really wrong. I don't get this. LIke I have asked before as its a practcial example and will allow us to see how morality actually works.

If there were 2 cultures disagreeing about a moral issue how do they determine what is the better or best way to behave morally if morality is relative. How do 2 people disagreeing about a moral issue determine what is the better or best way to behave morally if morality is subjective.

There is no way to determine this without some objective anchor. I cannot see a way around this for relative or subjective morality. As soon as the 2 opposing parties attempt to justifiy their moral view using anything they are appealing to some objective outside their culture or personal view/feeling.

But nevertheless tell me how the parties can determine things without appealing to any objectives.

You should study the basics and look at how the world works.