Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Whether you believe it or not has no effect on whether it is true or not. You're free to believe false things if you wish.
Is what you just said an objective fact? If you don't think it is then why is your reasoning based on it?
If you do think it's an objective fact then it's self-defeating because that implies I should accept what you're saying as true or fact. I said the same to Moral Orel before, but to little effect, but maybe I'm missing something.
Well you've decided harm is what makes an act "wrong". What reason do you have for that decision?
What he said is mostly true. You can't get an "ought" from an "is". You need to understand what that means, though. Take a look at this sample argument:I know that. I'm trying to determine if what he said is actually true or actually false, if it's false and he values reason based on truth, then he'll stop believing it.
So then it does boil down to preferences as I've said. You've agreed with me quite explicitly.Harm is the term we use to describe a negative experience. One that we'd prefer not to have. One that we'd actively try to avoid. So purposely commiting an act that results in harm is comitting an act that results in an experience that someone would prefer not to have.
Perhaps, "We'll know it when we see it" really means "I'll know it when I see it". If so then morality is both relative and subjective.
So then it does boil down to preferences as I've said. You've agreed with me quite explicitly.
Our personal feelings and those of others are also facts to consider in any given circumstance, so why look any further than the facts of the circumstance and base our reasoning on those objective facts?
So when it comes to stealing we can say it’s always wrong to take someone else’s property for the sole reason of personal(selfish) gain with no intention of returning it and knowing they wouldn’t want you to steal it. There’s a lot of conditions there, but it’s important to have those to make the point that it’s objectively wrong given those specific conditions.
What he said is mostly true. You can't get an "ought" from an "is". You need to understand what that means, though. Take a look at this sample argument:
P1 A is B
P2 B is C
C A is C
This is a valid argument. A and C are both contained in the premises, so it's possible to derive a conclusion about their relation. Now consider this argument:
P1 A is X
P2 B is X
C C is X
This is an invalid argument. There is no C in the premises, so the conclusion does not derive from the premises because you essentially introduced it out of thin air.
Back to your claim that we know what is wrong looking merely at the facts of the circumstances, you are making an invalid argument like the second form I presented. That the act is "wrong" is your claim, your conclusion. Nowhere is there a premise that connects "wrongness" to your conclusion.
Nowhere in this demonstration have I either explicitly or implicitly stated that you "ought" to believe this. That is where your argument falters. These things are true with no regard to what you believe.
That you "should" do something has not entered this. I have stated a fact that is true. Period.But if I want to believe true things and I should do what I want, then I should believe you, no?
This confirms what I've been saying. Something in itself cannot be absolutely wrong. We need to know the conditions. As you have just illustrated. And we are talking about absolute morality. Did you mean 'it's objectively wrong' or 'it's absolutely wrong' in that last sentence?
That you "should" do something has not entered this. I have stated a fact that is true. Period.
When you state "I value" and "I prefer" you are evaluating your feelings about a thing, not some property of the thing itself. Harm is not a property of an act, it is an experience you have as a result of you interacting with some thing. It is your experience of a thing that you judge, not the thing itself.I don't think I've disagreed with you in that respect. As @Eight Foot Manchild said, it's down to value. We prefer that which we value. I value my health. I prefer to maintain it. I value my car. I'd l'd prefer if no-one stole it. If someone did, I'd class that as being wrong. Harm has been done. Therefore it was immoral to steal it.
Im saying we need to know the conditions to determine if it’s objectively wrong. Not sure how you see objective being different from absolute. Can you elaborate on that?
When you state "I value" and "I prefer" you are evaluating your feelings about a thing, not some property of the thing itself. Harm is not a property of an act, it is an experience you have as a result of you interacting with some thing. It is your experience of a thing that you judge, not the thing itself.
Not relative, subjective.No argument there. We use terms like harm so that we can agree on certain matters. You and I would agree that having your car stolen is causing harm to you. What is rightfully yours, that for which you have worked to pay for, has been taken. It's most definitely a feeling that you have when it's stolen (anger, frustration, a sense of loss etc) and I can empathise with that so we can agree it's 'wrong'.
So yes, harm is not the property of an act. It's sometimes the result of an act. And it has to be shown to exist for the act to be classed as immoral. And the same act may be considered harmful or harmless in different circumstances. Swearing in front of my friends would cause no harm. Swearing in front of my grandmother would. It's all relative...
Your determination that harm be the deciding factor in morality is in itself a preference. Most people share that preference, true. But that doesn't make it anything other than a preference.
I'm surprised that you're asking this far into the discussion.
Facts are objective. It doesn't matter what you think about my car, the fact that it is red has nothing at all to do with how you feel about it. As opposed to subjective. 'Vanilla is better than chocolate' is a subjective statement. It's your subjective opinion (and don't confuse that the fact that you prefer vanilla is an objective fact but the statement itself is relative).
An absolute statement has no qualifiers. No conditions. So 'I love my wife' is an absolute statement. It's not conditional. Which it would be if I said 'I love my wife if...' or 'I love my wife when...'. They'd be relative statements. My feelings would be relative to something she does.
Morality has no absolute statements. As we have seen, an absolute statement such as 'stealing is wrong' doesn't stand alone. It needs some objective facts to allow us to determine if it's morally right or not.
Semantics aside, stealing my car just because you wanted it (we've qualified the act) would be wrong. Stealing my gun to prevent me shooting someone (we've again qualified the act) would be ok.
And to be able to define something as being wrong, harm must either be done or be intended.
But I would argue there is an objective basis for why you like vanilla better than chocolate. It's based on your bodies biological makeup, which is objective.
Why? I prefer my ice cream to have chocolate. Feel free to offer an alternative.Feel free to offer an alternative.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?