- Oct 10, 2011
- 24,701
- 5,556
- 46
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Thank you...No worries goodnight. God Bless and sleep tight. Don't let the bed bugs bite lol. I had to say it.
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
Maybe some day you will allow for the possinilityIts 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/
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.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.
Yes I agree, morality needs philosophy more than science.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.
And that, my friend, is a textbook example of the Shifting the Burden of proof fallacy.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.
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.And that, my friend, is a textbook example of the Shifting the Burden of proof fallacy.
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.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, 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.Actually it is not shifting the burdon of proof.
There are no excuses for 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.
None of these failed arguments and bare assertions have anything to do with the claim you made.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.
Just because there are no objective morality does not hinder making moral judgement on others.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
I disagree they are failed or blind assertions thats the point. YOu have not shown they are.None of these failed arguments and bare assertions have anything to do with the claim you made.
No I said we know morality by our intuition and then we reason this to see if it stands up.You claimed that we know moral facts via 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.But you have no reasons for the moral "fact" you stated, so you didn't use reason.
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.You've already demonstrated that reason is not part of your process when evaluating whether something is morally right or morally wrong.
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 exampleSo what do you use to make such a determination now that we know it isn't reason? Is it just a feeling you get?
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"."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.
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.Liberal democracy isn't dependent on everybody in the society agreeing about morality, just the basis of political power.
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".
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.
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.Just because there are no objective morality does not hinder making moral judgement on others.
You really dont understand the issues.
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.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.
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.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.
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.I disagree they are failed or blind assertions thats the point. YOu have not shown they are.
Except you don't use any reasoning. You assume your intuition is correct.No I said we know morality by our intuition and then we reason this to see if it stands up.
No. Why should we be stable? Why should we flourish? Why should we be happy? Why should we be well? Why should we live?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.
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 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.
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.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.
Are acts wrong in themselves? Or does it depend on the context?
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.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.
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.Sometimes they do.
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.Not everybody does that.
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.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.
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 #388Except 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.
There was one you have not refuted hereI have shown that they are. There's hundreds of pages in several threads of people shredding all of your arguments and claims to bits.
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.Except you don't use any reasoning. You assume your intuition is correct.
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.No. Why should we be stable? Why should we flourish? Why should we be happy? Why should we be well? Why should we live?
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.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.
You should study the basics and look at how the world works.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?