Is there an absolute morality?

[stevevw]

And why is a planet with life more valuable than a planet with just rocks?

Ultimately, your decision on what constitutes "value" will come down to a subjective opinion.

Not really. There are some obvious differences about human life compared to rocks based on rationality rather than subjective thinking. For example we treat rocks as aggregate (crushed rock) which works out at about $65 a square mt. Measured in humans weight thats works out to about $6.00 a human. Estimates on the value of human life put it at around 10 million dollars.

There is kind of an official price tag on human life. We can tell you what it is. One human life is worth about US$10 million.
How Government Agencies Determine The Dollar Value Of Human Life

We also don't treat humans like rocks. We can reason that crushing a human which will more than likely kill them has greater repurcussions for the individual, family and the community and is a greater loss than crushing a rock. Rocks are just tossed aside and disregarded whereas humans are usually respected and protected from that sort of treatment. We would not protest about the mistreatment of rocks lol.

Humans give far more added value to the world as seen by the creation of tech and medicine ect than a rock could ever do. If we treat rocks as just building material how much more valuable are humans who can create something of greater worth from that rock.

These are rational reasons and not based subjective thinking.

 

[Kylie]

Not really. There are some obvious differences about human life compared to rocks based on rationality rather than subjective thinking. For example we treat rocks as aggregate (crushed rock) which works out at about $65 a square mt. Measured in humans weight thats works out to about $6.00 a human. Estimates on the value of human life put it at around 10 million dollars.

There is kind of an official price tag on human life. We can tell you what it is. One human life is worth about US$10 million.
How Government Agencies Determine The Dollar Value Of Human Life

Ah, so it's an objective conclusion reached based on someone else's subjective determination of how much a human life is worth.

We also don't treat humans like rocks. We can reason that crushing a human which will more than likely kill them has greater repurcussions for the individual, family and the community and is a greater loss than crushing a rock. Rocks are just tossed aside and disregarded whereas humans are usually respected and protected from that sort of treatment. We would not protest about the mistreatment of rocks lol.

So? How do you translate a vague quality like "respect" into an objective dollar value?

Humans give far more added value to the world as seen by the creation of tech and medicine ect than a rock could ever do. If we treat rocks as just building material how much more valuable are humans who can create something of greater worth from that rock.

So Humans have more value because they can help other Humans who also have value. That sounds circular to me.

These are rational reasons and not based subjective thinking.

Sure they are.

 

[stevevw]

Ah, so it's an objective conclusion reached based on someone else's subjective determination of how much a human life is worth.

No because I said it was based on a rational and not subjective thinking.

But lets say it is based on subjective determinations for a moment. So you are saying that human life value is determined by personal views and as we know personal views don't express any truth value in the world is that correct.

So? How do you translate a vague quality like "respect" into an objective dollar value?

The article I linked was talking about a financial value for humans when it comes to Covid 19 restrictions policy. So it doesn't go into particular values like respect. But the fact that we place such a value of humans shows and not rocks shows a respect for humans.

Human respect is not a vague quality when it comes to Human Rights.

Human rights are the ground rules for how we should treat one another: with dignity, respect, equality and fairness. Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person in the world, for no other reason than that they were born human.
https://humanrights.gov.au/about/covid19-and-human-rights/what-are-human-rights

States have obligations and duties under international law to respect, protect and fulfill human rights
* The obligation to respect means that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human rights.
* The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses.
OHCHR | What are Human Rights.

So Humans have more value because they can help other Humans who also have value. That sounds circular to me.

No that is a Red Herring. I never said anything about human value being based only on humans helping others. I gave you the rational for why we value humans as compared to rocks.

That rational is traced back to HR and other laws we make which are based on Humans being more valuable than something like a rock which does not have any Rights because it is deemed less valuable for good reasons already mentioned. We don't just subjectively choose to value something based on random and whimsical notions.

Sure they are.

So I just want to clarify are saying Human Rights and other laws we place on respecting and protecting humans are irrational.

 

[Kylie]

No because I said it was based on a rational and not subjective thinking.

You can SAY whatever you want. Doesn't mean it's true.

But lets say it is based on subjective determinations for a moment. So you are saying that human life value is determined by personal views and as we know personal views don't express any truth value in the world is that correct.

Personal views do not hold any objective truth.

The article I linked was talking about a financial value for humans when it comes to Covid 19 restrictions policy. So it doesn't go into particular values like respect. But the fact that we place such a value of humans shows and not rocks shows a respect for humans.

Ah, so a person's value comes purely from what service they can provide.

No that is a Red Herring. I never said anything about human value being based only on humans helping others.

You gave two examples - a person can develop technology or medicine. Both of which help other Humans.

And of course, rocks never develop any technology or medicine.

I gave you the rational for why we value humans as compared to rocks.

And if your argument was true, then we should see that people never kill other people of rocks. And yet they do. From murdering a person to steal their gold or diamonds, to displacing indigenous people to mine the land they lived on.

That rational is traced back to HR and other laws we make which are based on Humans being more valuable than something like a rock which does not have any Rights because it is deemed less valuable for good reasons already mentioned. We don't just subjectively choose to value something based on random and whimsical notions.

Oh, and HR laws are always going to be objectively correct, aren't they?

So I just want to clarify are saying Human Rights and other laws we place on respecting and protecting humans are irrational.

I'm saying that such laws are based on SUBJECTIVE opinions.

That's why councils don't install traffic lights at the intersection that has lots of crashes until someone is actually killed. That's why companies didn't make it easy for people to work from home until Covid made it extremely difficult to do otherwise. That's why hospitals and lots of other institutions aren't interested in saving money, because they know that if they do, they'll just get their funding cut next year.

Because these laws are about doing the bare minimum in order to accomplish the goal. They have never been about respecting people.

 

[stevevw]

You can SAY whatever you want. Doesn't mean it's true.

So therefore I need to clarify. Are you saying there is no rational for valuing Human life. That its irrational.

Personal views do not hold any objective truth.

Ok so therefore let me ask you. Are you saying that there is no rational for Human Rights valusing life and its just a personal view.

Ah, so a person's value comes purely from what service they can provide.

No the article if you read it states its based on safety of humans and was rationalized against examples of unsafe situations that have been proven.

You gave two examples - a person can develop technology or medicine. Both of which help other Humans.

And of course, rocks never develop any technology or medicine.

So therefore we would have to ask the question does the fact that humans can create technology and medicine add to their value compared to rocks who cannot do such things.

And if your argument was true, then we should see that people never kill other people of rocks. And yet they do. From murdering a person to steal their gold or diamonds, to displacing indigenous people to mine the land they lived on.

That has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of humans. Just because there are moral truths doesn't mean people can't breach them. It only shows that if you want to claim robbing someone for gold or displacing Indigenous people that a wrong has been done. You are citing these examples because they are a wrong act.

If you are appealing to these wrong acts then you are saying something objective about them being wrong by the fact that you are using them as being objectively wrong and not maybe wrong. Otherwise why even cite them.

Oh, and HR laws are always going to be objectively correct, aren't they?

Based on the rational that Humans have value yes. They didn't just pick twhat should be Human Rights subjectively out of a hat. Not any Right can be a Human Right. Their truth value is reasoned.

Otherwise what are you claiming, that some HR are facts or none are facts about how we treat others. Shall we say there are no objective truths to HR. Then we would have to say there is no such thing as HR because there is no truth about them independent of humans.

I'm saying that such laws are based on SUBJECTIVE opinions.

OK so if thats the case and subject thinking has no rational then it would follow that Human Rights are irrational and we should not force subjective personal opinions on others like we do. We may as well say that genocide is just as valid a HR because personal opinions are never wrong. A culture who commits genocide is just acting out their relative moral opinion they were conditioned to do.

That's why councils don't install traffic lights at the intersection that has lots of crashes until someone is actually killed.

But then the rational for installing the traffic lights is because someone is killed. This shows that there is an objective basis (humans being killed is not good) and thats because we place value of human life as opposed to rocks. In fact we drive on rock everyday and no ones protesting to the government about installing measures to save roads made of rocks.

But then why even worry about humans being killed at traffic lights if there is no truth to humans being valuable. The fact that it matters that humans are being killed shows we value them.

That's why companies didn't make it easy for people to work from home until Covid made it extremely difficult to do otherwise.

Not sure if this is anything to do with morality or the value of human life.

That's why hospitals and lots of other institutions aren't interested in saving money, because they know that if they do, they'll just get their funding cut next year.

And whats wrong with this. Why does it matter.

Because these laws are about doing the bare minimum in order to accomplish the goal. They have never been about respecting people.

So let me clarify are you saying Human Rights Laws have nothing to do with respecting and protesting human Life.

 

[Kylie]

So therefore I need to clarify. Are you saying there is no rational for valuing Human life. That its irrational.

There is no OBJECTIVE way to determine it.

I'm honestly confused at how you could not realise that this would be my position.

Ok so therefore let me ask you. Are you saying that there is no rational for Human Rights valusing life and its just a personal view.

Exactly.

If there was some emergency, say a building on fire, I naturally would be driven to make sure my daughter and husband were safe before acting to rescue others. Someone else would be likely to make sure their loved ones were safe first ahead of my loved ones. Is this surprising to you? Do you not see how this is people making decisions based on their own subjective feelings?

No the article if you read it states its based on safety of humans and was rationalized against examples of unsafe situations that have been proven.

You were the one talking about the financial value of humans. Is that supposed to suggest that I should be willing to give up my daughter's life if I was given a sufficient amount of money?

So therefore we would have to ask the question does the fact that humans can create technology and medicine add to their value compared to rocks who cannot do such things.

Why do you think that a person's value depends on their technological creativity?

Is my life worth less than a computer programmer's?

That has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of humans. Just because there are moral truths doesn't mean people can't breach them. It only shows that if you want to claim robbing someone for gold or displacing Indigenous people that a wrong has been done. You are citing these examples because they are a wrong act.

How can it be violated if it's an intrinsic part of the universe? We don't see objects falling faster than gravity allows them to. The fact that these "laws" can be violated shows that they are just subjective.

If you are appealing to these wrong acts then you are saying something objective about them being wrong by the fact that you are using them as being objectively wrong and not maybe wrong. Otherwise why even cite them.

Are you reduced to hiding behind wordplay again? Yes, I can say something objectively true about them. So what? I can also say that it is OBJECTIVELY true that my opinion that Star Trek is better than Star Wars is a subjective opinion. That doesn't mean my subjective opinion is objectively true.

Based on the rational that Humans have value yes. They didn't just pick twhat should be Human Rights subjectively out of a hat. Not any Right can be a Human Right. Their truth value is reasoned.

Otherwise what are you claiming, that some HR are facts or none are facts about how we treat others. Shall we say there are no objective truths to HR. Then we would have to say there is no such thing as HR because there is no truth about them independent of humans.

You are woefully misinformed about what a business's HR department is about.

HR is not there to protect the rights of the workers.

It is there to protect the company by making sure it doesn't treat the workers in an illegal way.

If a worker is being subject to any disciplinary action, then it is HR's job to make sure that the company doesn't do anything that could lead the worker to sue for wrongful dismissal, etc.

OK so if thats the case and subject thinking has no rational then it would follow that Human Rights are irrational and we should not force subjective personal opinions on others like we do. We may as well say that genocide is just as valid a HR because personal opinions are never wrong. A culture who commits genocide is just acting out their relative moral opinion they were conditioned to do.

Oh, for crying out loud...

How many times do I have to point out that holding that morality is subjective doesn't mean you actually have to agree with ALL different moral viewpoints?

Why do you continually resort to this ridiculous and weak argument?

But then the rational for installing the traffic lights is because someone is killed. This shows that there is an objective basis (humans being killed is not good) and thats because we place value of human life as opposed to rocks. In fact we drive on rock everyday and no ones protesting to the government about installing measures to save roads made of rocks.

But then why even worry about humans being killed at traffic lights if there is no truth to humans being valuable. The fact that it matters that humans are being killed shows we value them.

And once again you have missed the point.

If it was about actually caring for people, wouldn't they see the evidence (the increased number of car crashes) and put in the traffic lights BEFORE it becomes fatal in an effort to make sure fatalities never happen?

But this is not what happens. If they did put in the traffic lights and prevent the fatalities, we all know the government would say, "Those traffic lights were a waste of money. They were meant to prevent people from being killed, yet there have hardly even been injuries happening there since we put the traffic lights in!"

Not sure if this is anything to do with morality or the value of human life.

Wait...

You honestly don't see how Covid is connected to Human life?

REALLY?

And whats wrong with this. Why does it matter.

because it shows that governments are more concerned with saving money than actually looking after people. They are willing to put people at risk if it will save money.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

So let me clarify are you saying Human Rights Laws have nothing to do with respecting and protesting human Life.

No. Once again, you have completely missed my point.

Human rights are based on subjective opinions. People have the opinion that everyone should be free to hold the religious faith that they wish, for example. But you can't show me an equation which proves that, because there is no such equation. The "People should have freedom of religion" idea is a SUBJECTIVE position, not an objective one.

However, they are based on the idea of respecting and protecting Human life.

However, the laws that are put into place are NOT aimed at fulfilling these goals. They are aimed at fulfilling these goals IN THE CHEAPEST WAY POSSIBLE.

For example, here in Australia, we have certain regulations for trains which govern how much clearance they need to have between the sides of the train and the walls of any tunnels they travel through. If there is not enough clearance, then there is (after all) the risk that the train could be damaged, and this could result in injury to people. The train, having hit the walls of the tunnel, could derail, for example.

Recently, in Sydney where I live, the government began testing new train carriages for use in longer distance trips, such as Sydney to the Blue Mountains to the west, or to the Central Coast to the north, or the south coast. These trains were made overseas, and when they arrived in Australia, it was found that they are a bit too wide to have the clearance required by the regulations. The solution the government came up with was to simply change the regulation. https://www.news.com.au/technology/...s/news-story/47bd2ee36f43cd3cdd2819078feb6011

So, when it comes to a conflict between the regulations that are there to protect people and money, very often it is the money that wins, even if it increases the risk to people.

 

[Chriliman]

There is no OBJECTIVE way to determine it.

I'm honestly confused at how you could not realise that this would be my position.



Exactly.

If there was some emergency, say a building on fire, I naturally would be driven to make sure my daughter and husband were safe before acting to rescue others. Someone else would be likely to make sure their loved ones were safe first ahead of my loved ones. Is this surprising to you? Do you not see how this is people making decisions based on their own subjective feelings?



You were the one talking about the financial value of humans. Is that supposed to suggest that I should be willing to give up my daughter's life if I was given a sufficient amount of money?



Why do you think that a person's value depends on their technological creativity?

Is my life worth less than a computer programmer's?



How can it be violated if it's an intrinsic part of the universe? We don't see objects falling faster than gravity allows them to. The fact that these "laws" can be violated shows that they are just subjective.



Are you reduced to hiding behind wordplay again? Yes, I can say something objectively true about them. So what? I can also say that it is OBJECTIVELY true that my opinion that Star Trek is better than Star Wars is a subjective opinion. That doesn't mean my subjective opinion is objectively true.



You are woefully misinformed about what a business's HR department is about.

HR is not there to protect the rights of the workers.

It is there to protect the company by making sure it doesn't treat the workers in an illegal way.

If a worker is being subject to any disciplinary action, then it is HR's job to make sure that the company doesn't do anything that could lead the worker to sue for wrongful dismissal, etc.



Oh, for crying out loud...

How many times do I have to point out that holding that morality is subjective doesn't mean you actually have to agree with ALL different moral viewpoints?

Why do you continually resort to this ridiculous and weak argument?



And once again you have missed the point.

If it was about actually caring for people, wouldn't they see the evidence (the increased number of car crashes) and put in the traffic lights BEFORE it becomes fatal in an effort to make sure fatalities never happen?

But this is not what happens. If they did put in the traffic lights and prevent the fatalities, we all know the government would say, "Those traffic lights were a waste of money. They were meant to prevent people from being killed, yet there have hardly even been injuries happening there since we put the traffic lights in!"



Wait...

You honestly don't see how Covid is connected to Human life?

REALLY?



because it shows that governments are more concerned with saving money than actually looking after people. They are willing to put people at risk if it will save money.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.



No. Once again, you have completely missed my point.

Human rights are based on subjective opinions. People have the opinion that everyone should be free to hold the religious faith that they wish, for example. But you can't show me an equation which proves that, because there is no such equation. The "People should have freedom of religion" idea is a SUBJECTIVE position, not an objective one.

However, they are based on the idea of respecting and protecting Human life.

However, the laws that are put into place are NOT aimed at fulfilling these goals. They are aimed at fulfilling these goals IN THE CHEAPEST WAY POSSIBLE.

For example, here in Australia, we have certain regulations for trains which govern how much clearance they need to have between the sides of the train and the walls of any tunnels they travel through. If there is not enough clearance, then there is (after all) the risk that the train could be damaged, and this could result in injury to people. The train, having hit the walls of the tunnel, could derail, for example.

Recently, in Sydney where I live, the government began testing new train carriages for use in longer distance trips, such as Sydney to the Blue Mountains to the west, or to the Central Coast to the north, or the south coast. These trains were made overseas, and when they arrived in Australia, it was found that they are a bit too wide to have the clearance required by the regulations. The solution the government came up with was to simply change the regulation. NSW’s $2bn new train fleet is too wide for the tunnels

So, when it comes to a conflict between the regulations that are there to protect people and money, very often it is the money that wins, even if it increases the risk to people.

You’re the defeater of illogic, curious what you think of this argument for objective morality:

P1 Minds exist in objective reality.

P2 Minds can comprehend whats true and determine a moral course of action.

C Therefore, a moral course of action can exist in objective reality(objective morality).

 

[Kylie]

You’re the defeater of illogic, curious what you think of this argument for objective morality:

P1 Minds exist in objective reality.

P2 Minds can comprehend whats true and determine a moral course of action.

C Therefore, a moral course of action can exist in objective reality(objective morality).

I don't see how P2 shows that a mind can comprehend what is OBJECTIVELY true and determine a moral course of action that is objectively correct.

In fact, we've seen that even when presented with the same situation, different minds determine very different moral courses of action.

 

[Chriliman]

I don't see how P2 shows that a mind can comprehend what is OBJECTIVELY true and determine a moral course of action that is objectively correct.

In fact, we've seen that even when presented with the same situation, different minds determine very different moral courses of action.

That logical proof was only meant to demonstrate that morality is objective. Determining a best moral course of action would depend on any given situation and those involved, though it can be very complex and hard to determine, but still possible.

I think it’s self evident that we can comprehend what’s actually true and correct and we can know it when it happens, but we’re also able to doubt and question it for as long as we want.

Also important to keep in mind that just because something is subjective, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist in objective reality.

I think the idea that what subjectively is going in in our heads isn’t also happening in objective reality is a critical error in thought and understanding of reality.

 

[childeye 2]

I think it’s self evident that we can comprehend what’s actually true and correct and we can know it when it happens, but we’re also able to doubt and question it for as long as we want.

This line above makes perfect sense.

I think there's a distinction to be made in a moral/immoral response, to when one is witnessing objectively a real tragic event happening to others. And it's that the understanding of something bad that is happening in reality to another person, is comprehended in the heart and realized according to human sympathy.

The subjective mind can subjectively question the heart, simply by thinking "None of my business".

 

[Kylie]

That logical proof was only meant to demonstrate that morality is objective. Determining a best moral course of action would depend on any given situation and those involved, though it can be very complex and hard to determine, but still possible.

I think it’s self evident that we can comprehend what’s actually true and correct and we can know it when it happens, but we’re also able to doubt and question it for as long as we want.

Except it didn't prove that, since you can't show that the premises are correct.

I have said many times in this thread that people can think that something is objective fact when it's really just their subjective opinion. Nothing that you have said disproves that, and nothing you have said shows that it does not apply when it comes to morality.

Also important to keep in mind that just because something is subjective, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist in objective reality.

True, such as opinions about things.

It is an objective fact that I have an opinion about Star Trek.

But that doesn't mean that the opinion I have is an objective fact.

It's an important difference, and needs to be remembered.

I think the idea that what subjectively is going in in our heads isn’t also happening in objective reality is a critical error in thought and understanding of reality.

But morality is not one of those things.

While it is an objective fact that people have moral viewpoints, it does not mean that those moral viewpoints are objectively correct or incorrect.

 

[Chriliman]

Except it didn't prove that, since you can't show that the premises are correct.

I have said many times in this thread that people can think that something is objective fact when it's really just their subjective opinion. Nothing that you have said disproves that, and nothing you have said shows that it does not apply when it comes to morality.

Yet it is possible to convey objective facts to one another, is it not? Thats what P2 covers. We can analyze objective facts regarding any given situation and people involved and determine a best course of action.

True, such as opinions about things.

It is an objective fact that I have an opinion about Star Trek.

But that doesn't mean that the opinion I have is an objective fact.

It's an important difference, and needs to be remembered.

You're right, I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is more along the lines of lets say your opinion about Star Trek is that it sucks. Based on that fact should I get you the Star Trek series on dvd for your birthday or not? Well, from a moral stand point, based on the facts it would be objectively mean for me to do that since I know you don't like it. Or vise versa, if you love Start Trek it would objectively nice for me to get it for your birthday. It all depends on the facts of the situation and how you actually feel about it.

But morality is not one of those things.

While it is an objective fact that people have moral viewpoints, it does not mean that those moral viewpoints are objectively correct or incorrect.

If your morals are based on facts then they can be objective as I described above.

Do you know of a logical proof that attempts to demonstrate how morality is not objective?

 

[Kylie]

Yet it is possible to convey objective facts to one another, is it not? Thats what P2 covers. We can analyze objective facts regarding any given situation and people involved and determine a best course of action.

That is true. However, it does not follow that morality is objective. In any given moral situation, what one person concludes is the best course of action may not be the same as what another person concludes, and each person will base their conclusion on what they consider to be most important - a subjective determination, not an objective one.

You're right, I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is more along the lines of lets say your opinion about Star Trek is that it sucks. Based on that fact should I get you the Star Trek series on dvd for your birthday or not? Well, from a moral stand point, based on the facts it would be objectively mean for me to do that since I know you don't like it. Or vise versa, if you love Start Trek it would objectively nice for me to get it for your birthday, again, it all depends on the facts of the situation and how you actually feel about it.

True. (I love Star Trek, by the way, I'm a huge fan.)

But that is based on your subjective opinion about my subjective opinion. You might decide that getting Star Trek dvds for someone who doesn't like it is a good idea since it will give them a chance to see how good it actually is. Not that I personally would do such a thing, but we can understand a person's reasons for doing something even if we don't agree with those reasons.

But we can't ever say that Star Trek DVDs are an objectively good gift for someone, since it depends on each person's opinions about Star Trek.

In the same way, morality depends on the personal subjective views of those who hold the particular moral views. Some people may hold different moral views, and most of the time we can understand why they hold those views, even if we don't agree with them. For example, I can understand why vegans think it is immoral to use animal products, even if I don't share their views.

If your morals are based on facts then they can be objective as I described above.

I think you are getting to the point where you are doing what I cautioned against earlier. It can be a fact that we have moral views, but that does not mean that those views are objectively true.

And very often, what we decide is moral or not is based on subjective views anyway, not objective views. If I am going out with a friend, and I think the dress she is wearing is really ugly, is it moral for me to tell her to save her from potential embarrassment, or is it moral to let her wear the dress she likes, even if I don't share her opinion of it?

Do you know of a logical proof that attempts to demonstrate how morality is not objective?

I don't see how this is relevant. You might as well ask for a logical proof that Star Trek is better than Star Wars. It can't be done. You can't get a logical proof for something that is subjective.

 

[Chriliman]

That is true. However, it does not follow that morality is objective. In any given moral situation, what one person concludes is the best course of action may not be the same as what another person concludes, and each person will base their conclusion on what they consider to be most important - a subjective determination, not an objective one.

I get that, but if we have differing conclusions it may be that one of us wrong and the other is right and the only way to determine that is to base our conclusions on the facts as best we can(be objective).

True. (I love Star Trek, by the way, I'm a huge fan.)

I like it too!

But that is based on your subjective opinion about my subjective opinion.

Is it just my opinion if I know that you love Star Trek?

You might decide that getting Star Trek dvds for someone who doesn't like it is a good idea since it will give them a chance to see how good it actually is. Not that I personally would do such a thing, but we can understand a person's reasons for doing something even if we don't agree with those reasons.

Well then that changes the situation and therefore changes the facts, but that doesn't mean you can't make different moral decisions based on those different facts.

But we can't ever say that Star Trek DVDs are an objectively good gift for someone, since it depends on each person's opinions about Star Trek.

True, it does depend on each person, but if I know you like something and I get it as a gift for you, that's an objectively good moral action, since it's based on the fact that you like it.

In the same way, morality depends on the personal subjective views of those who hold the particular moral views. Some people may hold different moral views, and most of the time we can understand why they hold those views, even if we don't agree with them. For example, I can understand why vegans think it is immoral to use animal products, even if I don't share their views.

True, morality is not as clear when you start including animals, since we can't as easily know what extent they're able to comprehend whats going on in any given situation.

I think you are getting to the point where you are doing what I cautioned against earlier. It can be a fact that we have moral views, but that does not mean that those views are objectively true.

It can mean those views are objective if and only if the views are based on knowledge of facts.

And very often, what we decide is moral or not is based on subjective views anyway, not objective views. If I am going out with a friend, and I think the dress she is wearing is really ugly, is it moral for me to tell her to save her from potential embarrassment, or is it moral to let her wear the dress she likes, even if I don't share her opinion of it?

I think if you know her well enough you'll be able to make the right call based on that knowledge.

I don't see how this is relevant. You might as well ask for a logical proof that Star Trek is better than Star Wars. It can't be done. You can't get a logical proof for something that is subjective.

It's interesting because this shows your view on the subject can't be based on logical reasoning.

 

[Kylie]

I get that, but if we have differing conclusions it may be that one of us wrong and the other is right and the only way to determine that is to base our conclusions on the facts as best we can(be objective).

However, looking at the facts doesn't guarantee us of reaching an objective truth if we include any subjective opinions in our deliberations. And in any consideration of moral situations, we must include our subjective opinions.

Is it just my opinion if I know that you love Star Trek?

Assuming I have been truthful, your knowledge that I think Star Trek is the best franchise is an objective fact.

However, that doesn't mean that it's an objective fact that Star Trek is the best franchise.

As I warned, this is an easy mistake to make. There's a big difference between "Kylie thinks Star Trek is the best," and "Star Trek is the best."

Well then that changes the situation and therefore changes the facts, but that doesn't mean you can't make different moral decisions based on those different facts.

How so? In both cases, we are dealing with a person who says they do not like Star Trek. It could well be the case that the person would find they enjoy it if they actually watched it, but does that mean that it's objectively moral to show someone something that they say they don't like?

True, it does depend on each person, but if I know you like something and I get it as a gift for you, that's an objectively good moral action, since it's based on the fact that you like it.

Maybe, maybe not.

Someone may like a particular thing, yet avoid it because of an unpleasant association. For example, someone may love touring the country in a motorhome, yet they don't do it anymore because they used to travel with their spouse who has died, and now touring in a motorhome just reminds them how lonely they are.

True, morality is not as clear when you start including animals, since we can't as easily know what extent they're able to comprehend whats going on in any given situation.

Irrelevant, since the same reasoning applies to non-animal things.

Some people love watching documentaries about disasters, but I don't. However, I can understand why they would like such documentaries.

I love classical music, but my husband doesn't, but he can understand why I like it.

It can mean those views are objective if and only if the views are based on knowledge of facts.

If we are to say they are objective because we include objective facts in our determination, then why can't we also say that they are subjective if we include subjective opinion in our determination?

And I certainly can't think of any moral determination that does not include something that is subjective.

I think if you know her well enough you'll be able to make the right call based on that knowledge.

And if someone who knows her even better decides to make the opposite call, does that mean I am objectively wrong?

It's interesting because this shows your view on the subject can't be based on logical reasoning.

Same with morality.

 

[Chriliman]

However, looking at the facts doesn't guarantee us of reaching an objective truth if we include any subjective opinions in our deliberations. And in any consideration of moral situations, we must include our subjective opinions.

Are you saying it's impossible to reach an objective truth because we can't help but have subjective opinions somewhere in our conclusion? Yet we know it is possible to comprehend objective truth, at least when it comes to math, so why not at least think it's possible to reach objective truths when it comes to more intricate and complex things like morality?

Assuming I have been truthful, your knowledge that I think Star Trek is the best franchise is an objective fact.

If knowledge can be considered objective fact then why can't morality thats based on that knowledge be considered objective? Assuming no subjective opinions are included.

If we are to say they are objective because we include objective facts in our determination, then why can't we also say that they are subjective if we include subjective opinion in our determination?

I think we can say that. In addition, I think even our subjective opinions are based on objective facts about our body's/brain's unique and extremely complex chemical make up, but I also thing those chemical makeups can cause us to be confused or not fully understand sometimes.

And if someone who knows her even better decides to make the opposite call, does that mean I am objectively wrong?

It would mean that, yes, or at least it would mean your call was objectively not as good.

Same with morality.

I think instead of just assuming no one can reach objective conclusions about morality, we should leave room for the possibility of understanding the extreme complexities of whats actually going on that drives our behaviors, though it's hard and takes time, I think its possible.

Thanks for your time, objectively good talk

 

[Tinker Grey]

Are you saying it's impossible to reach an objective truth because we can't help but have subjective opinions somewhere in our conclusion? Yet we know it is possible to comprehend objective truth, at least when it comes to math, so why not at least think it's possible to reach objective truths when it comes to more intricate and complex things like morality?



If knowledge can be considered objective fact then why can't morality thats based on that knowledge be considered objective? Assuming no subjective opinions are included.



I think we can say that. In addition, I think even our subjective opinions are based on objective facts about our body's/brain's unique and extremely complex chemical make up, but I also thing those chemical makeups can cause us to be confused or not fully understand sometimes.



It would mean that, yes, or at least it would mean your call was objectively not as good.



I think instead of just assuming no one can reach objective conclusions about morality, we should leave room for the possibility of understanding the extreme complexities of whats actually going on that drives our behaviors, though it's hard and takes time, I think its possible.

Thanks for your time, objectively good talk

I think part of the problem is that people use the word objective in different ways. I think that may be part of the confusion.

I can say that one should be objective about something. When I say that, I mean that my interlocutor should attempt to analyze the subject without allowing emotions to interfere. (Think of the word "dispassionate" in the place of "objective".)

But when we talk about objective facts we're talking about things that are true statements about reality that anyone can discover. So, if I tell you there is a rock in my front yard I'm telling you something that anyone, in principle, could discover is true.

It is objectively true that @Kylie has said that she thinks Star Trek is the best SF franchise. But, is it objectively the case that Star Trek IS the best SF franchise? No. It's an opinion. It isn't a thing that can be discovered by anyone.

If I were to judge a murder trial, I would try to be objective (dispassionate). I would be as objective (dispassionate) as possible when considering the facts of the case. Nevertheless, whatever judgement I make, it will be my opinion. It will be subjective no matter how objective I was.

This is the issue with morals. I can be dispassionate in considering and analyzing them. But, there is no "fact of the matter". Whatever I conclude will be my opinion. It will be subjective. Very much NOT like the rock in my yard.

 

[childeye 2]

I think part of the problem is that people use the word objective in different ways. I think that may be part of the confusion.

I can say that one should be objective about something. When I say that, I mean that my interlocutor should attempt to analyze the subject without allowing emotions to interfere. (Think of the word "dispassionate" in the place of "objective".)

Our own personal emotions can subjectively be bias. But we can't deny that "factual caring for others" happens in reality, as pertains to morality/immorality, and then label the denial of that reality as being objective.

 

[Estrid]

Our own personal emotions can subjectively be bias. But we can't deny that "factual caring for others" happens in reality, as pertains to morality/immorality, and then label the denial of that reality as being objective.

Hard to argue with that onaccounta Ive no idea what that means

 

[Moral Orel]

If I were to judge a murder trial, I would try to be objective (dispassionate). I would be as objective (dispassionate) as possible when considering the facts of the case. Nevertheless, whatever judgement I make, it will be my opinion. It will be subjective no matter how objective I was.

This is the issue with morals. I can be dispassionate in considering and analyzing them. But, there is no "fact of the matter".

That's a bad analogy. There is a fact of the matter. Either the defendant is guilty, or the defendant is innocent. Maybe your "opinion" is correct, and maybe your "opinion" is incorrect.