Is there an absolute morality?

[stevevw]

In what way can I be wrong about the fact that I like chocolate ice cream? Specifically.

Thats what I have been saying all along that subjective preferences and feelings are never wrong in any truthful and normative way beyond the subject. Yet you claim that you can determine norms in society by what you prefer. Isn't that forcing what you prefer onto others when they may actually prefer what you dislike.

 

[Moral Orel]

Thats what I have been saying all along that subjective preferences and feelings are never wrong in any truthful and normative way beyond the subject. Yet you claim that you can determine norms in society by what you prefer. Isn't that forcing what you prefer onto others when they may actually prefer what you dislike.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

 

[stevevw]

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

oops sorry, thats what happens when you jump into other peoples discussion.

 

[Chriliman]

You described a situation and then pulled the imperative out of thin air. You don't have enough facts to support your claim, is the point.

Can you think of a way to solve that problem in that scenario?

 

[durangodawood]

In what way can I be wrong about the fact that I like chocolate ice cream? Specifically.

How much you like it. Or what kind of chocolate ice cream. Just "I like it" is vague and leaves loads of wiggle room. And often when people like something they hate versions of the thing that dont get it quite right.

Its not that youre likely to be flat out wrong. Just that theres lot of room for you to be not clear with yourself about the question.

For sure tho, a basic food like is one of the interior states likely to be obscured by the least amount subjective bias. Other internal states can be much more clouded.

 

[Moral Orel]

How much you like it. Or what kind of chocolate ice cream. Just "I like it" is vague and leaves loads of wiggle room. And often when people like something they hate versions of the thing that dont get it quite right.

Its not that youre likely to be flat out wrong. Just that theres lot of room for you to be not clear with yourself about the question.

For sure tho, a basic food like is one of the interior states likely to be obscured by the least amount subjective bias. Other internal states can be much more clouded.

So nothing at all to do with being wrong, just that the question can be made more specific or more vague. I can and do know for a fact that I like chocolate ice cream.

 

[Moral Orel]

Can you think of a way to solve that problem in that scenario?

You claimed that you could demonstrate a moral fact. Is that not the case anymore?

 

[durangodawood]

So nothing at all to do with being wrong, just that the question can be made more specific or more vague. I can and do know for a fact that I like chocolate ice cream.

"Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions" describes the standard for calling something subjective. Not "wrong".

Also, sometimes a subjective report can be spot on right.

 

[Moral Orel]

"Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions" describes the standard for calling something subjective. Not "wrong".

What I like is a personal feeling, taste, or opinion. It can't be based on or influenced by itself, that's why there is a fact as to what my personal feelings, tastes, and opinions are. The fact that I like the taste of chocolate ice cream isn't based on or influenced by a personal taste, it is a personal taste. It is based on my personal biological/neurological configuration.

Also, sometimes a subjective report can be spot on right.

If it's right, then it's objectively true. If you're making objectively true statements, why would you call that a "subjective report"?

 

[LightLoveHope]

What I like is a personal feeling, taste, or opinion. It can't be based on or influenced by itself, that's why there is a fact as to what my personal feelings, tastes, and opinions are. The fact that I like the taste of chocolate ice cream isn't based on or influenced by a personal taste, it is a personal taste. It is based on my personal biological/neurological configuration.


If it's right, then it's objectively true. If you're making objectively true statements, why would you call that a "subjective report"?

What strikes me in this discussion is my interaction with flat earth believers. There are many real proofs that the earth is a globe, in everyday life, yet all these are pushed to one side and they are absolutely certain it is flat and I am deceived.

It brings to mind how I know I am probably right. I am prepared to investigate both sides of the argument and then balance them together and drawn a conclusion. I know that if I cannot do this, I must be wrong. I hate to use the term certainty, but this critical thinking appears to be the only way for us to have a subjective understanding of objective truth as far as we can grasp it.

If absolute objective truth was obvious and plain to all my proposition would be this very position would show itself to be absurd. Jesus talked about people being in darkness and lost. It struck me Nietzshe got caught by the idea evolution and biology defined our existence and God was dead. For him love of his family and humans was just a mirage, while in reality it gave him the excuse to reject his family and break with things that hurt him deeply. Without getting to a point of peace and love, I am not sure any person is capable of seeing the truth.

God bless you

 

[Chriliman]

You claimed that you could demonstrate a moral fact. Is that not the case anymore?

Ultimately, I don’t understand why you think the fact of a person asking you not to violate them isn’t enough justification to then say it would be factually/actually(whatever) wrong to violate them or vise versa, factually right to not violate them.

It makes sense to me and honestly when I try to understand how you view it, I just get confused. Though, I do tend to agree with a lot of what you say, so it’s perplexing to me.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ultimately, I don’t understand why you think the fact of a person asking you not to violate them isn’t enough justification to then say it would be factually/actually(whatever) wrong to violate them or vise versa, factually right to not violate them.

It makes sense to me and honestly when I try to understand how you view it, I just get confused. Though, I do tend to agree with a lot of what you say, so it’s perplexing to me.

Why should their desires matter more than mine? If I want to screw with them, and they don't want to be screwed with, why should they win?

 

[Chriliman]

Why should their desires matter more than mine? If I want to screw with them, and they don't want to be screwed with, why should they win?

Because your desire would cause greater harm to them than any harm(if any) caused to you for resisting your desire.

Trying to look at it objectively and not just rely on the golden rule, though, I do think the golden rule is based on objective observations.

 

[Moral Orel]

Because your desire would cause greater harm to them than any harm(if any) caused to you for resisting your desire.

So what? Playing Devil's Advocate here, I want to cause them harm, why shouldn't I?

Trying to look at it objectively and not just rely on the golden rule, though, I do think the golden rule is based on objective observations.

Why should I follow the golden rule?

 

[Chriliman]

So what? Playing Devil's Advocate here, I want to cause them harm, why shouldn't I?

Why should I follow the golden rule?

Because selfishness and desire to cause harm generally only puts a person in a worse state of existence due to outside forces they can’t control. Take criminals who go to prison for example.

 

[Moral Orel]

Because selfishness and desire to cause harm generally only puts a person in a worse state of existence due to outside forces they can’t control. Take criminals who go to prison for example.

I'm going to tell you a true story. When I was a kid, I used to shoplift a lot. Like, a lot a lot. There was a local Ace Hardware and a Walgreens a few blocks from me that I would shoplift candy from. I stole more candy than I could eat, even. I did it so that I could go to school and sell it. I was never caught. No one even almost caught me. I was so good at it, I had every reasonable expectation that I would never be caught. It would actually be irrational to think I would. So given the fact that no punishment would be forthcoming, why should I have stopped?

If I can get something for nothing without any real risk, why shouldn't I?

 

[Chriliman]

I'm going to tell you a true story. When I was a kid, I used to shoplift a lot. Like, a lot a lot. There was a local Ace Hardware and a Walgreens a few blocks from me that I would shoplift candy from. I stole more candy than I could eat, even. I did it so that I could go to school and sell it. I was never caught. No one even almost caught me. I was so good at it, I had every reasonable expectation that I would never be caught. It would actually be irrational to think I would. So given the fact that no punishment would be forthcoming, why should I have stopped?

If I can get something for nothing without any real risk, why shouldn't I?

Well, if you have never felt guilty about doing that then I’m not really sure. But sometimes natural guilt is enough to cause people to stop behaviors that they know others wouldn’t approve of if they found out.

There’s also the idea of an afterlife that exposes all the good and bad that you’ve done. I doubt you believe in that, but it is at least a solution to the problem of immoral behavior that no one in this lifetime ever knows about. Just wait till that store owner gets you then

 

[Moral Orel]

Well, if you have never felt guilty about doing that then I’m not really sure. But sometimes natural guilt is enough to cause people to stop behaviors that they know others wouldn’t approve of if they found out.

There’s also the idea of an afterlife that exposes all the good and bad that you’ve done. I doubt you believe in that, but it is at least a solution to the problem of immoral behavior that no one in this lifetime ever knows about. Just wait till that store owner gets you then

All of your reasoning seems to stem from me looking out for myself anyways. I wouldn't like feeling guilty, I wouldn't like being punished, etc. You're essentially telling me I shouldn't be selfish because I should be selfish.

 

[Chriliman]

All of your reasoning seems to stem from me looking out for myself anyways. I wouldn't like feeling guilty, I wouldn't like being punished, etc. You're essentially telling me I shouldn't be selfish because I should be selfish.

No, because you wouldn’t feel guilty if you didn’t care about others. Someone who’s completely selfish probably never feels guilty b/c they don’t care if what they’re doing is right or wrong, they only care if it gains them something, regardless of others.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, because you wouldn’t feel guilty if you didn’t care about others. Someone who’s completely selfish probably never feels guilty b/c they don’t care if what they’re doing is right or wrong, they only care if it gains them something, regardless of others.

But you're supposed to be telling me why these things are wrong. Are things only wrong because there might be consequences?