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.
Christians really *cough* ought to stop talking like this if they wish to have rational conversations.GOD is absolute morality.
Peace be with all those in the Body of Christ.
No, thats just pointing out the fact that you are woefully undereducated and ignorant on the subject.Thats like an appeal to some special way of knowing that somehow dismisses all the objections.
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 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.
I don't know how you derived that conclusion. Where is the independent and objective evidence. I have given the arguement for how morality is linked back to the self-evident truth that human "Life" is intrinsically valuable and how this forms the basis for our obligation to uphold that value.Good. You agree I was right all along and morality is not objective.
So then how do you explain that philosophers support moral realism 2 to 1 anti-realist. Considering that philosophers are the experts in the field and should know the most about ethics. Just like the majority of biologists support evolution or we use the Heart Foundation for information about the Heart.No, thats just pointing out the fact that you are woefully undereducated and ignorant on the subject.
So then how do you explain that philosophers support moral realism 2 to 1 anti-realist. Considering that philosophers are the experts in the field and should know the most about ethics. Just like the majority of biologists support evolution or we use the Heart Foundation for information about the Heart.
How can so many philosophers support moral realism if it doesn't have some merit and is believed more out of all the moral positions. It seems contradictory to say that moral realism is false if the majority of philsophers believe its the most reasonable position to take.
Read it again. You asked if those were reasons we should be good, I said "no", you said "I agree". That's it. Game over.I don't know how you derived that conclusion.
Prove life is valuable. Don't point to a bunch of people doing things because they value life. That's irrelevant. Prove that they are correct to value life. Prove that life is the sort of thing we ought to value.I have given the arguement for how morality is linked back to the self-evident truth that human "Life" is intrinsically valuable and how this forms the basis for our obligation to uphold that value.
Do you understand the epistemic arguement for moral realism.I understand moral realism. I know and understand their arguments and pov, you dont.
As far as I read both surveys linked were of philodsophers from North America, Europe, and Australasia. So it seems a cross section of countries. But nevertheless if you are right it shows that there is no specific position philosophers take and certainly there is no evdience that there is a lack of support out there for moral realism.What school of philosophy that is in the majority is very dependent on what country and what university.
Thats why I mentioned that despite it being an appeal to popular view it does have some weight as we do rely on expert opinion to tell us what is the case or the most likely case ie psychologists for mental disoder disagnosis, theologians for religious belief, ect.You falling on a known fallacy (argumentum ad populum) to argue is a knock on your skills and do in fact weaken your position.
OK thats news to me as just about everything I have read mentions morality and ethics interchangably or that morality is a part of ethics. Even the dictionary and Wiki support this.Also, ethics is not the same as moral philosophy.
So then how do you explain that philosophers support moral realism 2 to 1 anti-realist. Considering that philosophers are the experts in the field and should know the most about ethics. Just like the majority of biologists support evolution or we use the Heart Foundation for information about the Heart.
How can so many philosophers support moral realism if it doesn't have some merit and is believed more out of all the moral positions. It seems contradictory to say that moral realism is false if the majority of philsophers believe its the most reasonable position to take.
Yes, do you?Do you understand the epistemic arguement for moral realism.
As far as I read both surveys linked were of philodsophers from North America, Europe, and Australasia. So it seems a cross section of countries. But nevertheless if you are right it shows that there is no specific position philosophers take and certainly there is no evdience that there is a lack of support out there for moral realism.
But I do agree that there is a lot of alternative positions and views to consider which I am grateful that you have pointed out that need to be understood to get a broad understanding of the subject. As well as the theories like cognitivism/non-cognitivism, descriptivism/non-descriptivism, foundationalism, instruementalism, intrinsicalism, error theory, correspondence theory, epistemics, semantics, moral language, truth theory, proper beliefs, ect. All relevant in understanding morality.
Thats why I mentioned that despite it being an appeal to popular view it does have some weight as we do rely on expert opinion to tell us what is the case or the most likely case ie psychologists for mental disoder disagnosis, theologians for religious belief, ect.
Thats because the consensus opinion is not based on blind ignorant popularity but a qualified knowledge of the subject and therefore is more credible to use as evdience. So philosophers will have covered all the moral and ethical theories and have better understanding. That they choose moral realism says something about it being a coinsidered choice.
Though not evdience of objective morality by itself rather it is part of a case to be made for objective morality. When you consider that even philosophers who were anti realists or other still thought those who took the realist position were not deluded or trying to fake their postion it augers well for moral realism at least being a comon sense and reasonable position to take. I think a lot of people get moral realism wrong and that causes them to be skeptical.
OK thats news to me as just about everything I have read mentions morality and ethics interchangably or that morality is a part of ethics. Even the dictionary and Wiki support this.
Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that "involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior".
Ethics - Wikipedia
At its simplest, ethics is a system of moral principles.
BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Ethics: a general introduction
Hi Kylie, good to see you back. I smiled when I saw your post. I think the pattern can be made a couple of ways. First we could say that what you have shown is that expert knowledge that morality is objective is consistent with expert opinion about other objective facts. The pattern shows that what the experts usually side with is the correct option.You do know that this divide is much closer than we have with anything that is actually objective, right? What's the divide among scientists in relevant fields regarding evolution? Almost all such scientists accept evolution. The number who reject evolution is miniscule compared to those who accept it. The same thing with other objective things. Heliocentric solar system, climate change, moon landing... The number of scientists in relevant fields who reject these claims are orders of magnitude smaller than those who accept them. There's a clearly established pattern here. So why do we not see that same pattern when it comes to morality?
-snip-
But that doesn't mean there is an objective fact to find. It just takes a different way to know these facts. In fact it seems that morality and consciouness and even QM are interelated. These aspects are about conscious experience and even many in mainstream sciences are turning to ideas where our experiences may be fundelment and before the physical world we see. So maybe there is another level of knowing and fact or truth yet to fully understand.
If absolute morality is along the lines of Kantian ethics then I would also agree that there is no absolute morality. I cannot imagine if the Nazi came to my door with hiding Jews in my basement that I am forced to tell the truth and never lie.I think there's more than one way of approaching morality. Three I can think of, off hand, are scientifically, culturally, and religiously, and the means of understanding each one are completely seperate.
To have an orderly discussion, I would need to know which one, specifically, we're talking about.
...But if by "absolute morality" we mean something that encompasses all aspects, then I would say no, There is no Absolute Morality.
Fair enough thats your opinion. Others disagree. So I guess you don't think much of something like Panpsychism. I think the materialist v the immaterialist is at the heart of morality. If you are not open to the non-physical aspects of reality then its hard to accept abstract ideas that may be real and have influence on reality.The above, thats just unscientific crap.
-snip-
But its only a theory -snip-
Hi Kylie, good to see you back. I smiled when I saw your post. I think the pattern can be made a couple of ways. First we could say that what you have shown is that expert knowledge that morality is objective is consistent with expert opinion about other objective facts. The pattern shows that what the experts usually side with is the correct option.
I agree that the topics you mentioned the vast majority of scientists side with what has been objectively verified. Thats sort of a given. But as I mentioned to you before that what we see today is the end result of a lot of disagreement. So there was a porocess of trying to understand topic and people had limited knowledge so they had misinformed ideas of reality.
What you named are the obvious ones which are now settled (like you would say with extreme obvious moral examples).
But many fringe areas like QM, cosmology and consciousness have great disagreements where there may be more like the 2 to 1 differences like moral realism.
So there are areas that we still don't understand yet like morality and consciousness where the evdience is not like the classical sciences where we can use a telescope and now space ships to observe the planets orbiting the sun.
But that doesn't mean there is an objective fact to find. It just takes a different way to know these facts. In fact it seems that morality and consciouness and even QM are interelated. These aspects are about conscious experience and even many in mainstream sciences are turning to ideas where our experiences may be fundelment and before the physical world we see. So maybe there is another level of knowing and fact or truth yet to fully understand.
It is actually a theory.Its not a scientific theory.
I don't think I have said anything wrong in saying that all interpretations of QM is counterintuitive ieAnd its obvious you dont understand even the fundamental basics about quantum physics.
I disagree. If there are non-physical influences or if at the fundelmental level there is consciousness then human consciousness is something that may affect reality and therefore affect morality. THis is something we cannot just dismiss until we understand quantum physics better.But this is an (irrelevant) tangent.
First why does authority matter in proving objective morality. Objective morality is simply about a moral law or truth existing independent of the human (subject). Its just a case of supporting an independent objective measure of morality.Instead, try again to answer why your objective morality has any authority.
What is my agenda. If there was an agenda I am not doing a good job. I didn't even look at the source as it had a link to the original article from New Scientists which it was quoting ieAnd an article from discovery institute? Really? Your agenda is showing.
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?