Show me where I called subjective morality an error or delusion. I actually said quite the opposite ie
So either these Human Rights and laws are errors or delusions or they stand for something.
I was
So where have I said subjective morals are delusions or errors. You have read something into this thats not there. I was making a point that many skeptics make that because there is no objective morals peoples claims to objective moral are some sort of mistake or error in thinking. This is well know such as with Mackies "Error Theory"
ERROR THEORY OF ETHICS
Mackie believed that ordinary moral claims presuppose that there are objective moral values, but there are no such things. Hence, the practice of morality is founded upon a metaphysical error.
Error Theory of Ethics | Encyclopedia.com
The moral sceptic, however, thinks that his view is more ‘realistic’ than moral realism. He believes that although all meaningful moral ‘is’ claims are either true or false, the truth of the matter is that all moral claims are in fact false. A systematic ‘error’ occurs because the properties to which indicative moral propositions refer do not exist.
The Necessity of Moral Realism | Issue 6 | Philosophy Now
So you weren't talking about objective morality when you spoke of errors and delusions, you were talking about subjective morality...
So you were just going off topic then? Wasting our time?
But your the one who gave the example of rushing into a burning building to save lives. So I was only using your example.
So? I never made it out to be a black and white situation, did I? In fact, I very specifically stated how my own decisions would be different to another person's decisions. How in the world do you think that is black and white? Your statement here does not logically follow from the quote you posted.
Yeah don't murder, rape steal as it destroys lifes value. As far as the monetary value of life, the reason why they try to put some monetary value on life in the first place is because they value life in non-monetary terms.
No, that is not an objective value.
Is the life of an 80 year old man of a greater value than the life of a 5 year old girl? Answer me that.
And don't reduce it to a black and white situation by saying that both lives objectively have value, because that's not what I'm asking you to do.
Actually we are both right. I agree that under a neo-liberal capitalist system the most important individuals can gain more worth if they are able to be more productive. We see this with the class society.
And look at where that has gotten us. Poor people are treated like dirt because they are poor, and since they are poor, they have less value, and since they don't have much value, no one wants to actually fix the problem.
But evenso we all benefit as a species. You could say certain Nations have added value rather than individuals on the world stage. We look to the US and Britain with the industrial revolution and now different nations are adding more value and everyone is contributing and getting the benefits with how the standard of life has risen over the years.
Ah, and countries that don't add value, we don't care about? So the Notre Dam burns down, and people all over the world donate millions of dollars. But if there's some disaster in a country no one's heard of, say, Lesotho, and all of a sudden it's crickets.
And I have given that explanation many times and actually think these have been good analogies.
So I gave the example that math facts (laws) can be violated by getting even the obvious equations wrong ie 2+2=5. But there is still an objective Math fact (2+2=4). We can explain that 2 objects plus 2 objects amounts to 4 objects and we intutively know its correct. More complicated equations will also be violated more often because they are harder to work out. But that doesn't mean there is no objective Math.
So once again this applies well to Morality. We have the obvious equations like Rape = being wrong. We can show that Rape violates human life and devalues it because it damages a person and society. That is the basis we use now.
People can still get this wrong as they do in some cultures Rape = being right just like people do with Math where 2+2=5. But that doesn't mean there is no objective fact that Rape = being wrong (2+2=4). In fact we tell the cultures that think rape is ok that they are objectively wrong. That under their view rape is ok (2+2=5) is wrong and that rape = being wrong is a fact like 2+2=4.
Then we have the more complicated moral equations like string theory or relativity which are harder to work out for the average person. But that doesn't mean there is no objective Morals. It just means like Math we need to think about it more and we will eventually find the moral truth.
No, you have NEVER given any description of morality that uses the same kind of formalised language we see in maths or logic.
Yes but it holds no weight or truth beyond your personal opinion. It only applies to you in that sense. But when you complain about wrongs done to Indigenous peoples you are now moving outside your personal opinion because you are claiming it as a true wrong done in the world. You want some justice done in the world.
Because I use my EMPATHY to imagine that those people feel the way aboutthose wrongs that I would feel if those wrongs were done to me.
I then apply the "Don't push your beliefs onto others" idea and conclude thatthose peoples would consider it wrong to be forced to suffer that kind of treatment.
This is not a complex idea, and it does not require any kind of objective morality.
How do you know they are subjective and not two opposing positions on the same moral issue. As each party disagrees about something then maybe one party is right and the other is wrong. Certainly it is now law so those who disagree no longer have a right to apply their moral position.
Is this your argument now? "You can't show it isn't, so maybe it is?"
So an objective determination has been made that it is right to allow SSM and the other party is wrong.
That some determination was made is an objective fact.
You have not shown that the determination was objectively correct.
Big difference, and yet you seem to repeatedly confuse them.
If it was truely subjective then shouldn't all parties including any other view of marriage such as polgamy, group marriage, animal human marriage whatever view should also be equal and no single moral view be help above the other. Thats how it seems to work if we use the opinions about say food. No preference for a particular food takes precedence over another. All opinions of food are equal at the dinner table because none are wrong.
Except for the fact that marriage involves another person/life form. If that person doesn't want to be involved, then why should they be forced to? Marriage requires CONSENT. When I got married to my huisband, I needed to consent to being married to him.
So tell me, if 5 people all decide that they want to be married to the other four, is that morally wrong? Why or why not? Show me your OBJECTIVE reasoning.
If a person wants to marry their pet, I would say it is morally wrong because their pet can't consent to the marriage. And yes, that is my SUBJECTIVE opinion, don't start telli ng me that my conclusion here shows there's some sort of objective source to morality.
And if a person decides they want to marry their car, then who's to say that's morally wrong? The car, since it is not a living thing, doesn't need to provide consent.
Except empathy is a poor basis for morality as it can aslo promote hatred and descrimination against certain people who are not part of the in group. Because its a feeling it is arbitrary and unpredictable and can be skewed by unconscious bias and hatred.
empathy is not a component, a necessary cause, a reliable epistemic guide, a foundation for justification, or the motivating force behind our moral judgments. In fact, empathy is prone to biases that render it potentially harmful.
Error - Cookies Turned Off
So what? Morality has long been used to justify cruelty. Stealing the children of indigenous people to give them a better life. Just look at a few years ago when families coming to America were separated, children taken from their parents.
To say that a company doesn't care about Human Rights undervalues most organisations genuine concern for their staff. It paints a cynical and pessimistic picture and under estimates their humanity.
Most organisations don't just have ethical codes to abide by laws. They genuinely want a good culture based on human rights. Thats why I say there are good objective reasons for Human Rights because it actually creates a better organisation and world.
That's hilarious.
I don't know of a single company that would replace ALL its staff with robots tomorrow if it were possible. perhaps you can show me one?
Yeah so!. So you are happy with the idea that someone who may think Rape is ok has just as much a valid view of morality as anyone else. Any system like that would collaspe in no time. Thats why relative morality is impossible to implement as a system as we would have to tolerate horrible injustices like genocide as being just a different taste of morality. JUst like food tastes no one is wrong to think genocide or rape is ok to do.
Are you really going to make me explain AGAIN why this is ridiculous?
Rape causes harm to society. As people living in a society, we generally want the society to function well. So we are going to act to stop things that prevent the functioning of society. That's why we invented things like refrigerators, because access to preserved food helps society function well. That's why we have infrastructure like roads and hospitals, because the ability to travel throughout the society and the ability to remain healthy help the society to function well. And that's why we have laws against rape, because preventing rapes helps the society to function well.
You see this all throughout the animal kingdom. Any social animal will work to reject anything that prevents their society from functioning well. And if something does NOT prevent the society from functioning, then it's generally accepted. That's why a lioness will mate with the males that have just killed the cubs she had with another male. Because not producing more cubs will harm the lion's society.
I have explained this to you many times now. The fact that you keep bringing up the same points I have repeatedly refuted shows me that you just ignore what I am saying.
But that doesn't help in determining what is the best possible moral way to behave. You are telling your oponent that they are wrong for no other reason than it doesn't match your moral opinion. But you both could be wrong who knows as theres no way to tell.
And that would be true IF AND ONLY IF there was some objective morality to show us which is "best".
There is no BEST when it comes to morality.
So what happens when the other person says "why should I believe that your opinion is correct". What do you tell them then remembering that you are both trying to work our the best way to act morally in an important moral issue that can have consequences for others.
I would ask them how they would feel in the situation, try to get them to use empathy.
Kylie: Hey, it's wrong to steal that person's wallet.
Other person: Why should I believe that?
Kylie: How would you feel if your wallet was stolen? You'd feel pretty bad, wouldn't you? Without your license, you wouldn't be able to drive your car, and you'd have to go through the hassle of getting all your credit cards cancelled, and then all of your cards replaced. Not to mention the loss of money. You'd feel pretty bad, wouldn't you? And you'd feel angry.
Other person: Yes I would.
Kylie: Wouldn't this person also feel that way if you stole his wallet? If you don't want to feel that way and have all those hassles, why would you inflict them on someone else?
Now, at this point, the person could just decide that they don't care about the person they're about to rob, in which case they obviously lack empathy, and that lack of empathy is what leads to them behaving immorally.
So, like I've said, empathy is a big part of where our morality comes from.
Now, let me ask you...
How would you use your objective morality idea to convince them your moral views were the correct ones?
What happens if your personal experience biases your view, how do you tell whether what you feel is really equates to something being wrong. What is a person with the opposite view ro you that likes torturing people uses the same subjective thinking where they think that people really enjoy torture because his view has been skewed by his past experiences of being abused.
If I was debating a moral issue with you I would be asking why should I trust your feelings about something when its all about you and theres nothing concrete to show that what your saying is true. I would be asking you why you take that position besides feelings or preferences as its not enough for me to believe your right and that I should accept your moral position.
It seems like your argument here is, "If morality wasn't objective, then it wouldn't be objective, and I can't conceive of how morality couldn't be objective."
Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.