Is there an absolute morality?

[Moral Orel]

But as far as I understand it absolute is best understood through its opposite relative morality.

Wrong. To disprove Absolute Morality I need to prove that morality is relative. I do not need to make a case for Relative Morality.

Just like how morality is objective if Moral Realism is true, but Moral Objectivity entails extra claims.

 

[Ken-1122]

Its a weird question as I don't think we all know our moral positions completely. They may not have all been tested. I can safely say that the core set of moral truths align with my views of morality. As for the rest thats up for debate. But I don't get why you are asking.

It’s important because unless you are gonna claim that you are the first and only person ever to have all of their personal moral beliefs align perfectly with objective morality, that you are the only one who knows the difference between what is objectively moral vs objectively immoral, you should be able to point to an objective moral issue that goes against your personal beliefs. Or….. you can recognize that your moral beliefs are completely subjective which would be the first step in recognizing everybody else’s is as well.

 

[Bradskii]

It’s important because unless you are gonna claim that you are the first and only person ever to have all of their personal moral beliefs align perfectly with objective morality...

Steve would actually be the second person to do that. We already have a winner.

 

[stevevw]

It’s important because unless you are gonna claim that you are the first and only person ever to have all of their personal moral beliefs align perfectly with objective morality, that you are the only one who knows the difference between what is objectively moral vs objectively immoral, you should be able to point to an objective moral issue that goes against your personal beliefs. Or….. you can recognize that your moral beliefs are completely subjective which would be the first step in recognizing everybody else’s is as well.

then how come the majority of philophers who know this area think object moarality is rational position.

 

[stevevw]

Wrong. To disprove Absolute Morality I need to prove that morality is relative. I do not need to make a case for Relative Morality.

Just like how morality is objective if Moral Realism is true, but Moral Objectivity entails extra claims.

I get you now. But proving morality is relative is impossible.

 

[stevevw]

Yeah, those can't both be true.

what do you mean.

 

[Ken-1122]

then how come the majority of philophers who know this area think object moarality is rational position.

The same reason the majority of philosophers of 150 years ago who knew this area disagree with philosophers of today, and the majority of philosophers today will disagree with philosophers 150 years from now. Human morality is in a constant state of change, it's all subjective.

 

[Moral Orel]

I get you now. But proving morality is relative is impossible.

Proving morality is relative is trivial. For morality to be absolute it would have to be worthlessly vague. Every time you add detail to a moral statement, you add circumstances that moral statement is relative to. A purely 100% absolute morality would have to be, "One ought to act". That's basically the only way to write a prescriptive moral that applies to all people in all situations.

The way I see it, "Absolute" and "Relative" are two ends of a spectrum. The more you move towards either end the more arbitrary any rules become.

For an example of a relative moral, look at "One ought not steal", but think about what does "steal" mean? We're saying "One ought not take things that don't belong to you when you don't have permission". So the rule "One ought not take things" is relative to who you are (owner vs. not owner) and the circumstances (permission vs. no permission).

You can't escape relativity, but it doesn't matter, because if morality could be objective, it could still be relative. Trouble is, it literally can't be objective. See post #1821 in the other thread for "why".

 

[Bradskii]

then how come the majority of philophers who know this area think object moarality is rational position.

I could have sworn I answered this. But maybe it didn't send...

Anyway, you do realise that the percentage of philosophers who are atheist run into the high 70s? I'm not sure that this is a path that you want to take.

 

[stevevw]

The same reason the majority of philosophers of 150 years ago who knew this area disagree with philosophers of today, and the majority of philosophers today will disagree with philosophers 150 years from now. Human morality is in a constant state of change, it's all subjective.

THe point is the majority think objective morality is true not subjective.

 

[stevevw]

I could have sworn I answered this. But maybe it didn't send...

Anyway, you do realise that the percentage of philosophers who are atheist run into the high 70s? I'm not sure that this is a path that you want to take.

Some of the philosophers who are atheists must support objective morality because 2 to 1 phisplosophers support objective morality. In fact nearly all philosophers think there is a good case and reasons to support objective morality.``
Even philosophers who are committed to moral anti-realism think that there are some good reasons to be a moral realist. They don’t think that proponents of objective morality are just confused, rhetorically sneaky, or crypto-theists.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhiloso..._there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/

 

[stevevw]

It’s important because unless you are gonna claim that you are the first and only person ever to have all of their personal moral beliefs align perfectly with objective morality, that you are the only one who knows the difference between what is objectively moral vs objectively immoral, you should be able to point to an objective moral issue that goes against your personal beliefs. Or….. you can recognize that your moral beliefs are completely subjective which would be the first step in recognizing everybody else’s is as well.

These are all logical fallacies. None of this disproves objective morality or supports subjective morality.

 

[Bradskii]

Some of the philosophers who are atheists must support objective morality because 2 to 1 phisplosophers support objective morality. In fact nearly all philosophers think there is a good case and reasons to support objective morality.``
Even philosophers who are committed to moral anti-realism think that there are some good reasons to be a moral realist. They don’t think that proponents of objective morality are just confused, rhetorically sneaky, or crypto-theists.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhiloso..._there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/

Then you must agree that there is a good case for atheism. In any case, you haven't answered tbe question that has been asked a few times. Are there any acts which you say are absolutely wrong that you consider to be right. Or vice versa.

Any at all?

 

[stevevw]

Then you must agree that there is a good case for atheism.

Why would that be the case.

In any case, you haven't answered tbe question that has been asked a few times. Are there any acts which you say are absolutely wrong that you consider to be right. Or vice versa.

Any at all?

I thought I have answered this. Its just you don't like the answer. I cannot think of any. You have to remember that objective moral values are comon sxesne moral values so its not as if people disagree with them. I think most peoples morals align with moral realism.

 

[Bradskii]

Why would that be the case.

Obviously because you are using the fact that a larger precentage of philosophers support objective morality. And so you must think that the huge percentage that are atheists would grant that position greater credibility.

I cannot think of any.

So the answers to all objective moral problems are the answers to which you'd agree. But...that's o_mlly's position as well.

If you disagree with him, how do we tell who is right?

 

[Moral Orel]

Then you must agree that there is a good case for atheism.

Why would that be the case.

A compromise, fellas. By Steve's criteria, atheism is the most reasonable position. Philosophers are the experts on the logic and reasoning that supports the existence of God, and most of them find it faulty.

Of special note, philosophers find the Argument from Objective Morality faulty when used to prove the existence of God.

 

[Bradskii]

A compromise, fellas. By Steve's criteria, atheism is the most reasonable position. Philosophers are the experts on the logic and reasoning that supports the existence of God, and most of them find it faulty.

Of special note, philosophers find the Argument from Objective Morality faulty when used to prove the existence of God.

Too true. And most people on this forum base their belief in objective morality on the existence of God (most people are Christians). Which, I will gladly accede, would be the only option.

If you are a Christian (or a member of any monotheistic religion) then morality must be objective. But if you believe that morality is objective, then you can be a believer or not. Which makes it a tough call for any given Christian who wants to argue from a secular viewpoint. It's extremely hard to argue a viewpoint that you have already accepted is true only on faith.

 

[stevevw]

Obviously because you are using the fact that a larger precentage of philosophers support objective morality. And so you must think that the huge percentage that are atheists would grant that position greater credibility.

And they do. Those opposed to moral realism (objective morality) still thought it was a rational position and that objectivists were not horrible confused.

But even philosophers who are committed to moral anti-realism think that there are some good reasons to be a moral realist. They don’t think that proponents of objective morality are just confused, rhetorically sneaky, or crypto-theists.
The moral skeptic will certainly be able to find philosophers who agree with him that there aren’t any objective moral facts. However, he won’t be able to find many philosophers who agree with him that moral realists are all horribly confused. He might not be able to find any.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhiloso..._there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/

So at the very least we can say the real experts seem to disagree with you that my position is irrational and really says something about which is the real rational position objectivist.

So the answers to all objective moral problems are the answers to which you'd agree. But...that's o_mlly's position as well.

Look at it this way our position isnt about our personal subejctive views but about moral truths/facts which are not derived by personal opinions but reasoned facts. Moral truths are also practcial, they help humans be humans.

If you disagree with him, how do we tell who is right?

If I agreed with him then we would have the same objective morals. But we all agree with o_mlly and my morality anyway as they are truths. All humans have acknowledged those truths (core morals) and say that they cannot be changed subjective or are not open for subjective determination.

 

[VirOptimus]

And they do. Those opposed to moral realism (objective morality) still thought it was a rational position and that objectivists were not horrible confused.

But even philosophers who are committed to moral anti-realism think that there are some good reasons to be a moral realist. They don’t think that proponents of objective morality are just confused, rhetorically sneaky, or crypto-theists.
The moral skeptic will certainly be able to find philosophers who agree with him that there aren’t any objective moral facts. However, he won’t be able to find many philosophers who agree with him that moral realists are all horribly confused. He might not be able to find any.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhiloso..._there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/

And? Do you think not accepting objecive morality is a rational position?

So at the very least we can say the real experts seem to disagree with you that my position is irrational and really says something about which is the real rational position objectivist.
Look at it this way our position isnt about our personal subejctive views but about moral truths/facts which are not derived by personal opinions but reasoned facts. Moral truths are also practcial, they help humans be humans.

If moral "facs" have something to do with humans being humans (whatever that would mean) then its not objective, as its then dependent on subjects.

If I agreed with him then we would have the same objective morals. But we all agree with o_mlly and my morality anyway as they are truths. All humans have acknowledged those truths (core morals) and say that they cannot be changed subjective or are not open for subjective determination.

Not all humans accept your "core morals" just look around the world. You think ISIS shares your "moral truths"? Or Iranians? Or the remote people in amazonas? Or we here in secular Sweden?

 

[Ken-1122]

THe point is the majority think objective morality is true not subjective.

No, people who know the difference between objective vs subjective know morality is not objective.

These are all logical fallacies. None of this disproves objective morality or supports subjective morality.

No, because if you gonna make the claim that morality changes over time because mankind has failed to get it right, but can't point to a time you've gotten it wrong, you are basically saying objective morality only aligns with your moral views, and anybody who disagrees with you is objectively wrong. If that is your position, (as absurd as it sounds) go ahead and say it