Is there an absolute morality?

[Tinker Grey]

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.

The judgement that the defendant is guilty is subjective. Maybe he/she did the action but the judgement that it rises to guilt is subjective.

 

[Chriliman]

The judgement that the defendant is guilty is subjective. Maybe he/she did the action but the judgement that it rises to guilt is subjective.

And that feeling of guilt is something that actually happens in objective reality, not just subjectively.

 

[stevevw]

And that feeling of guilt is something that actually happens in objective reality, not just subjectively.

I think Tinker Grey was referring to a guilty determination is subjective and not the feeling of guilt. The defendent can feel guilt as to whether they did the crime of not but the jury normally wouldn't unless they had something to hide.

But as far as I understand things the jury is basing their guilty/not guilty verdict on the facts of the case. So if we have a case where the defendents finger prints are on the weapon, DNA is at the crime scene and a witness who saw them kill the victim then we can say that the verdict is based on the facts and there is no room for subjective determinations. So we know that a truthful determination can be found by the process.

Just because we have more complex cases where its harder to determine the facts and truth doesn't mean there is no truth to be found. As you rightly mention someone has either been murdered or not murdered. But we could say that the fact is someone is deceased and there is a cause of death.
Determining that cause will also determine the truth of whether they were mudered or not. If its murder then its just a case of determining who.

But just because we cannot find the truth or only part of the truth doesn't mean there is no truth to be found about the case. Think about cold cases and how they found the truth after many years.

I would have thought that is what the court is trying to find, the "truth". Sure we have made a botch of that sometimes but I think you will find most of the time it works and when it doesn't its because there was lack of evidence or personal bias.

That's why I think saying jurers verdict is subjective doesn't make sense. One of the things they do to minmize jurers using subjective views is to screen them to see if they have integrity and have no personal association with the case. The process is designed to strip away the possibility of a subjective determination.

 

[Moral Orel]

The judgement that the defendant is guilty is subjective. Maybe he/she did the action but the judgement that it rises to guilt is subjective.

Okay, so maybe it's an objective fact that the defendant is guilty, but your judgement is subjective. It's your subjective opinion that their guilt is an objective fact.

Is that analogous to morality? Is it your subjective judgement that murder is objectively wrong? That isn't comparable to your other analogy of movie preferences. There is a fact that you are making a judgement about in a criminal trial. There is no fact as to whether Star Trek is better than Star Wars.

So which is morality like?

 

[stevevw]

Okay, so maybe it's an objective fact that the defendant is guilty, but your judgement is subjective. It's your subjective opinion that their guilt is an objective fact.

Is that analogous to morality? Is it your subjective judgement that murder is objectively wrong? That isn't comparable to your other analogy of movie preferences. There is a fact that you are making a judgement about in a criminal trial. There is no fact as to whether Star Trek is better than Star Wars.

So which is morality like?

That is why subjective preferences, opinions and feelings don't equate to how morality work.

 

[Moral Orel]

That is why subjective preferences, opinions and feelings don't equate to how morality work.

No, preferences and feelings are the basis for morality. His analogy isn't about preferences or feelings.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No, preferences and feelings are the basis for morality. His analogy isn't about preferences or feelings.

I agree.

 

[Chriliman]

Okay, so maybe it's an objective fact that the defendant is guilty, but your judgement is subjective. It's your subjective opinion that their guilt is an objective fact.

Is that analogous to morality? Is it your subjective judgement that murder is objectively wrong? That isn't comparable to your other analogy of movie preferences. There is a fact that you are making a judgement about in a criminal trial. There is no fact as to whether Star Trek is better than Star Wars.

So which is morality like?

Whether Star Trek is better than Star Wars is pretty trivial compared to whether someone is guilty of murder or not, so I think its pretty obvious morality is more concerned with the latter.

 

[stevevw]

No, preferences and feelings are the basis for morality. His analogy isn't about preferences or feelings.

I think we've been through this before. A preference for a TV show like Star Wars for example is not morally wrong. You cannot be sacked for liking Star Wars but you can be sack for breaching morals codes such as for descrimination or sexual harrassment. Subjective preferences, feelings or opinions are not normative.

 

[Moral Orel]

Whether Star Trek is better than Star Wars is pretty trivial compared to whether someone is guilty of murder or not, so I think its pretty obvious morality is more concerned with the latter.

I don't get your point. Whether Star Trek is better than Star Wars is much more important compared to someone stealing a penny, and yet morality is about the latter.

 

[Moral Orel]

Subjective preferences, feelings or opinions are not normative.

Of course not. You prefer that people don't murder other people, so you write a normative statement to promote your preferences.

 

[Moral Orel]

I agree.

Huh?
Feelings and preferences are the basis for morality.
Your analogy isn't about feelings and preferences.
Something that has nothing to do with feelings and preferences is a good analogy for something that is based on feelings and preferences?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Huh?
Feelings and preferences are the basis for morality.
Your analogy isn't about feelings and preferences.
Something that has nothing to do with feelings and preferences is a good analogy for something that is based on feelings and preferences?

The point of my post to @Chriliman is that he was confusing different uses of the word objective. No, my analogy wasn't about feelings and preferences. It was about the use of the word objective.

 

[stevevw]

Of course not. You prefer that people don't murder other people, so you write a normative statement to promote your preferences.

So if we see how norms are applied in society they still dont equate to preferences. You cannot be sacked for preferring a TV show. It does not translate so its not the same to begin with.

Preferences is non commitmental to what is actually deemed wrong morally just like opinions and feelings Ie I prefer, feel or have an opinion about a situation but then I may be wrong. Its just an expression of a personal state of the subject and a personal state of the subject has no weight in the real world regarding what is right and wrong behaviour.

As we see in society norms hold weight to the point that we can take action against people who breach those norms like sacking them, placing sanctions on them ect. Or how we see people protesting in the streets or protesting against corrupt governments even bringing entire governments or corporations down as a result fo their wrong moral behaviour.

 

[stevevw]

I don't get your point. Whether Star Trek is better than Star Wars is much more important compared to someone stealing a penny, and yet morality is about the latter.

Thats not true. There are many examples of petty theft that matters. Steal a 1 cent lolly from a shop and you still get done for shop lifting, Little jonny who takes his friends cheap toy will still be in trouble when his mum finds out. Stealing is stealing.

Yet expressing your preference for a TV show doesn't get you arrested, it doesn't get little Jonny in trouble when he expresses that preference to his friends. You can minimize the seriousness of stealing by reducing it down to being petty but it doesn't work as the same petty crime of stealing a penny is the same crime as stealing a pound.

 

[Moral Orel]

So if we see how norms are applied in society they still dont equate to preferences.

Norms don't equate to preferences. I just said that. You prefer that people don't do some thing, so you write a normalizing statement to prevent it. You prefer that people do some thing, so you write a normalizing statement to promote it.

Some things we only prefer for ourselves. Some things we prefer other folk to do / not do. Those latter things we call "morality".

 

[Moral Orel]

The point of my post to @Chriliman is that he was confusing different uses of the word objective. No, my analogy wasn't about feelings and preferences. It was about the use of the word objective.

I think you're mixing in "opinion" as if all opinions are purely subjective. Evaluating evidence for a fact that isn't directly observable doesn't make it subjective.

 

[Moral Orel]

Thats not true.

Depends on the person. That's why it's all subjective.

 

[stevevw]

Norms don't equate to preferences. I just said that. You prefer that people don't do some thing, so you write a normalizing statement to prevent it. You prefer that people do some thing, so you write a normalizing statement to promote it.

Some things we only prefer for ourselves. Some things we prefer other folk to do / not do. Those latter things we call "morality".

This still doesn't make sense. Norms are like rules that forbid certain behaviours even to the point of forcing others to conform or else fact consequences.

So we cannot write norms for our preferences even if they are preferences for other people as there is no rule or forbidden behaviour when it comes to preferences. They are just about the subject which carries no weight beyond the subject.

 

[stevevw]

Depends on the person. That's why it's all subjective.

No it doesn't depend on the person. We all know that stealing is wrong. The fact that people will pretend that this is not the case and rationalize that its OK ie "oh well it was only a small thing and thats not really stealing" doesn't equate to stealing being OK to do. Its either right or its wrong. That is what societal norms are based on.

The intention of stealing a penny by concealing your actions and decieving others to try and get away with it is the same sort of intention to decieve as stealing $100 or $1,000. The fact that you use an example of petty theft "stealing a penny" shows that there must be an objective measure outside of peoples preferences to show what petty theft is compared to more serious theft.