Is there an absolute morality?

[childeye 2]

Thats not how it works.

Learn the basics.

There is no basics because there is no basis.

 

[Moral Orel]

I am using the same logic as you are using for if anti moralism is true.

No, you're not. See, my premises are true. Your first premise is false. So your argument couldn't possibly be sound. Using an unsound argument isn't "using the same logic" as me, lol.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well, how exactly can a moral non-realist evaluate something that they're claiming is not there? If you deny morality exists objectively, then you deny honesty exists objectively.

I'm not going to bother responding to a post full of straw like yours. I'll phrase my claims myself. You can respond to my claims as I've worded them, or you can continue talking to yourself.

 

[stevevw]

No, the "that way" I was referring to was the one I presented in post 1079, when I said, "Because when people treat their subjective opinions as objective fact, you get people who disagree with each other and insist that they are right and the other is wrong, and neither of them can provide any actual testable evidence to support their position."

You said it doesn't work that way in real life (post 1088), and I said it does indeed work that way.

And I asked then how do people and society work out what moral norms. How do they make some morals wrong even by law or by ethical codes. Surely they don't just say we cannot agree so lets just blindly make certain acts wrong and others OK.

I can't remember how many times I've pointed out to you that just because a person acts like their subjective opinion is objective, doesn't mean it IS objective.

So what happens when they not only act that way but actually make it that way in reality (real life). Are you saying they are being hypocritical and inconsistent with their subjective moral position.

I also can't remember how many times I've pointed out that people don't always preface their statements with language like that because it's just plain easier not to, in the same way when we talk of the sun setting, we aren't literally meaning that the sun is moving around a stationary Earth.

You seem to ignore these points constantly. Why? [/quote] Because moral language is different to descriptive language and is not normative and prescriptive so your comparison is wrong and irrelevant.

So what? I've seen Trek vs Wars debates that do the same thing.

Ok then show me how descriptive language can be normative. Give an example like with morality in how people can say that if someone likes Star Wars that they are objectively wrong to the point that we can say they need to be ostrasized and people will condemn them and cause them to lose their jobs.

In Victoria Australia, there is a law that says you are not allowed to change a lightbulb unless you are a qualified electrician. Does that mean the Melbournian who changes their own lightbulb is behaving in a way that is morally wrong?

Thats not a moral issue though. Its to do with workplace health and safety. You don't get a Google doctor to fix your health problems. Its to stop potential harm by unqualified people messing around with stuff that may need a qualified person .

In Turin, Italy, dog owners are required to walk their dogs three times a day. If a person walks their dog just twice a day, are they abusing the dog?

Once again someone has made an objective determination that Dogs need walking to be healthy. Sure they may be wrong but that will be because someone has shown that walking a dog 3 times a day does not make any difference. They didn't just come up with the 3 times a day by picking a number out of a hat or by asking someone if they prefer a particular number or by asking someone what number they feel is best.

Or maybe legal laws don't determine the objective nature of reality.

Most laws are based on some objective measure in reality. Primarily its about "Not harming humans or keeping society in law and order so that things don't get out of control. These are objective measures and not left to the whims of subjective thinking for which any subjective determination is just as relevant as the next. Not any laws will do but rather specific laws relating to reducing harm and chaos for which society has decided is an important basis for right and wrong.

So what?

That's little different than saying that everyone who joins the "Star Trek is best" club has to agree that Star Trek is best. There are plenty of cultures in the world that still consider women inferior to men. Why doesn't the UN step in and stop that?

Once again a logical fallacy that because someone has not stepped in it must not be a moral truth. The UN has stated its wrong through Human Rights that applies to all cultures. Nations like ours have made trade sanctions and other penalties for cultures that engage in these practcies. You cannot do that with subjective preferences for TV shows.

Your example is wrong. You are talking about a private club that all Star TRek fans belong to. BUt try and force that position on other clubs that like Star Wars. It cannot be done as its not wrong to like Star wars. I have shown many times that these examples are wrong and don't apply to morality. Why do continue to use them.

Nah, we don't just get to say things are objective because everyone agrees that they should be objective.

So are you saying these laws and Rights are irrational and there is no good basis for them.

So what? If it were proven that we lived in a simulation, how would your life change?

It would mean everything I thought was real is not and its just a computer program attempting to make things real. That there is some reality beyond us like the one that the super intelligent beings who created the simulation live in that we are missing out on. Nothing we do or say can be regarded as real or true as the programmers can make us think anything is real when its not.

So the only thing we have at the moment that causes us to think that what we see is a true representation of reality and that there is no other reality beyond what we can know is our tested assumption that reality is that way. We can only test that assumption by the way we experience the physical world. So there is no direct evdience that our reality is what it is apaprt from our justified belief and yet we regard that as a fact. Just like with morality.

I would count it as evidence if what we saw actually matched what we would see if morality was indeed objective.

Everyone reaching the same conclusion about a particular moral situation, for example. But we don't see that.

Another logical fallacy. If we apply this to science then every person should agree that the Big Bang is fact. Any disagreement means its not fact. But any disagreement doen't lead to there being no facts as I pointed out earlier. So under that logic because everyone agrees that our physical world is what it is then there can be no simulation. Yet that is a fallacy as there could be a simulation. Its faulty reasoning.

Yet if the real world is just a simulation, then our intuition about the real world is WRONG. So don't tell me that intuition about morality being objective counts as evidence that morality is objective when your own example of intuition shows that it can be mistaken.

When it comes to proving something that is beyond our ability to prove we have to make some assumptions. We can then test those assumptions by experience. We experience the world as thought its the only reality. We don't see glitches in the matrix or have any evdience that its a similation even though the evdience would be impossible to show. So we are justified through experience to believe that reality is what we experience through our senses.

The same with morality. There is no direct evdience so we have to make assumptions based on our intuition that there are moral truths. We then test that by experience. We intuit that when somone is "raped" we know that its wrong factually in the world (reality) and that there is no alternative reality. That is what we go with and its the only way we can live morality.

 

[stevevw]

No, you're not. See, my premises are true. Your first premise is false. So your argument couldn't possibly be sound. Using an unsound argument isn't "using the same logic" as me, lol.

You premise is not true you are only assuming your first premise is true just like I am assuming moral realism is true. The premise of your arguement is "If" anti realism is true. "If" and only "if" its true. Therefore I can do the same by taking out the "non"part of your arguement.

If moral realism is true, then then all moral statements are true.
Any form of "People should..." is a moral statement.
Any form of "If moral realism is true, then people should..." is always true..

But as I aslo said your arguement fails for another reason based on premise 2. Not all statements that contain "Should" are moral statements and I have provided support for this which you have not addressed.

 

[VirOptimus]

There is no basics because there is no basis.

You (again) are in error.

 

[childeye 2]

I'm not going to bother responding to a post full of straw like yours. I'll phrase my claims myself. You can respond to my claims as I've worded them, or you can continue talking to yourself.

This is a circular reasoning:

If moral non-realism is true, then people should (no matter what you put here as a moral statement is false).

It simply states, If objective morality is false then there are no moral statements.

 

[childeye 2]

You (again) are in error.

I'm in error because I know honesty is a moral virtue, a good quality in mankind?

 

[Neogaia777]

How can morality be 100% completely objective/absolute if it is situational/circumstantial, etc...?

See my other posts just now, etc...

The argument centers around the word "objective", etc, and you guys are getting bogged-down in "semantics", etc...

Morality can be said to be "objective" by some within a certain "context", etc, or in or under a certain set of situations or circumstances, etc, but others will disagree with that due to what they think "objective" is or means also, etc...

Who's right and who's wrong depends on what you think objective is, etc...

But extreme objectivism would mean that there is nothing objective or absolute morally, etc...

And even that there are very, very few objective facts even also, etc....

God Bless!

 

[childeye 2]

How can morality be 100% completely objective/absolute if it is situational/circumstantial, etc...?

The term absolute when applied to morality/immorality is seen as binary. Morality/immorality is like Light/dark. The degrees are between sacrificing oneself to save all others, and sacrificing all others to save oneself.

Objective simply means existing as a fact of reality. Compassion is an absolute morality in that it's never immoral. And it is experienced and observed happening in reality, because it is an action taken in response to the suffering of others, so as to relieve their suffering.

 

[Neogaia777]

The term absolute when applied to morality/immorality is seen as binary. Morality/immorality is like Light/dark. The degrees are between sacrificing oneself to save all others and sacrificing all others to save oneself.

Objective simply means existing as a factual reality. Compassion is an absolute morality in that it's never immoral. And it is observed happening in reality because it is an action taken in response to the suffering of others so as to give comfort and aid.

Just a few points/comments real quick, as I find your comments nonsensical and irrational and do not wish to debate or argue with you, etc...

First one is: Morality is not like light/dark, and as far as it applies to humans is human construct that has been learned or has grown over time and with advancement, etc...

Second one is: That's is not what objective means... Look it up...

And the third one is: Acting on compassion sometimes can be wrong and/or immoral, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

The second morality is based on or is decided by how a person or a group of people "feels", or "thinks because of how it feels", etc, it is no longer objective and never was, etc...

Because that is part of the definition of objective and is part of what it means, etc...

The other part of it is about "opinions", etc...

God Bless!

 

[stevevw]

You (again) are in error.

This is classed "Error theory" mainly proposed by John L. Mackie. But this has been argued against. It makes something we live our lives by as a sham and error in our thinking and yet we use that type of thinking for making moral norms as though there is no error and morality is not a sham. Once again reality speaks for itself.

Responses to the error theory have taken several forms on the grounds that, even if ethical opinions differ fundamentally, this does not prevent one from being right and the others wrong, and the latter mainly on the grounds that Mackie suffered from an oversimple, "scientistic" conception of the kind of thing a moral fact would have to be.

Perhaps more fundamentally, it is not clear what clean, error-free practice the error theorist would wish to substitute for old, error-prone ethics. That is, assuming that people living together have a need for shared practical norms, then some way of expressing and discussing those norms seems to be needed, and this is all that ethics requires.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/humani...nacs-transcripts-and-maps/error-theory-ethics

But I guess you relate to error theory as its close to Nilhilism.

 

[childeye 2]

First one is: Morality is not like light/dark, and as far as it applies to humans is human construct that has been learned or has grown over time and with advancement, etc...

Morality is not a human construct because
1 John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Second one is: That's is not what objective means... Look it up...

philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world objective reality

And the third one is: Acting on compassion sometimes can be wrong and/or immoral, etc...

Compassion is an action that is observed in reality, it's never immoral in its intention and goal.

 

[Neogaia777]

1 John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Love is supposed to be wise and not blind, etc...

Morality is not a human construct because

It is because at one time it probably did not exist, and required humans with their own personal opinions and/or "feelings" to decide it or cause it to grow into becoming what it is now today, etc...

philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world objective reality.

Not philosophy: 1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing (objective) (and in this case moral) facts.

Compassion is an action that is observed in reality, it's never immoral in its intention and goal.

You obviously don't know enough or that much yet, etc...

You do not truly help someone sometimes by doing your best to help them, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I'm not saying that deciding morality is "wrong", but just only that it's not 100% completely objective, and never is/was, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

@childeye 2

Changing or altering your post and adding scripture to it that has nothing at all to do with the subject does not make you any more morally superior and/or right, but just shows your desperation in trying to prove you are, etc...

God Bless!

 

[stevevw]

I'm not saying that deciding morality is "wrong", but just only that it's not 100% completely objective, and never is/was, etc...

God Bless!

I thought objective morality is always 100% determination. Its ether right or its wrong. Even saying something is not objectively wrong is an objective claim. Like in Math where there is only an objective determination either 2+2=4 or it doesn't. Either the earth is flat or its a sphere ect.

Just because we cannot work out the objective fact of the matter doesn't mean that there is no objective fact or that objectives are not 100%. It may be like in science that we just havn't been able to work out the facts, we need more information and understanding.

Slavery is a good example. We ended slavery when we came to understand that all humans are equal and there is no sub-human species. We intuitively knew it anyway but it took a movement to stand on the fact that all people deserve to be treated equally and respectfully regardles of race.

It is the nature of moral language rather that makes it categorical imperative. If it uses the type of language that only requires a right or wrong answer about what we should or should'nt do then either way its objective and there are no room for subjective thinking that may produce alternative options like I feel 2+2=4.25 or in my opinion the earth is flat or an egg shape.

Which according to a relative moral system are all valid and alternative options for why an act is right or wrong because afterall the subjective or culture cannot be wrong, its just their view of the world.

 

[childeye 2]

The second morality is based on or is decided by how a person or a group of people "feels", or "thinks because of how it feels", etc, it is no longer objective and never was, etc...

Morality is about caring about how our actions affect others. One can't reason right from wrong in any faithful manor without that.

Because that is part of the definition of objective and is part of what it means, etc...

An objective view of reality is what you're talking about, as in no one can see all of reality. No one can disagree with that.

 

[Neogaia777]

Bottom line: If you or me or mine or anyone else's feelings are involved in deciding it, it's not and is no longer objective and never was, etc...

God Bless!

 

[childeye 2]

@childeye 2

Changing or altering your post and adding scripture to it that has nothing at all to do with the subject does not make you any more morally superior and/or right, but just shows your desperation in trying to prove you are, etc...

I'm here defending the Word of God as the light of mankind. Morality is the same as godliness. Either I know God is love or I don't know Him. And that goes for every Christian on this forum. I don't take credit for His existing in me, or at least I try not to.