Is there an absolute morality?

[Kylie]

Do you have objective evdience for this

I'm just saying I see no valid reason to think that morality is objective, and what I do see of morality seems to me to fit much better into the idea that it's subjective.

 

[Halbhh]

God murdered children when he order a few genocides and dashed skulks and great floods etc.

By that standard of a person dying being because God made them to die....well....

We are all made to be mortal, so....(I think you can see the implication) --> all human death would be 'murders' by the same standard....

Every last one.

...at least if those that died had indeed truly died (in a real, final way, a true death).

But the basic knowledge about God is that God reverses all death. Makes death like an illusion, not actual. Instead, only a temporary "sleep".

So... Consider: if you heard from Fred that Jane and her daughter where murdered, but then you learned later that Jane and her daughter are alive and living in New Zealand...

...well, Fred must have not really known what was happening.

 

[stevevw]

I'm just saying I see no valid reason to think that morality is objective, and what I do see of morality seems to me to fit much better into the idea that it's subjective.

I cannot see how you can come to this conclusion. I have already shown that subjective morality is illogical and impossible to live out. If you are basing your determination on logic and rationality then we should go with objective morality. For example

Murder is wrong. This is not just a matter of subjective personal preference, it’s an objective fact. That means if it’s true for me, then it’s true for you and for everyone else too. And if someone claims that murder is OK, then they’re mistaken.

Thats seems logical and makes sense doesnt it.
Its like a self-evident truth because the alternative is absurd.

But under subjective morlaity the alternative is a subjetcive view that is just as valid a view as anyone elses by the fact there is no truth to the matter..

You say that you have no objective support for why you think subjective morlaity is the only alternative and say there is no valid reason for objetcive morlaity. That implies a valid reason for subjective morality. So you base your position on reasoning or that things just seems to fit better (make sense).

Yet when I use the same logic for arguements for objective morlaity you discount them. What this does show is that when it comes to morality there are certain truths we can reason about and that morality determining whats right and wrong can be reasoned as truths/facts.

Its just that the reasoning for subjective morality doesn't doesn't stand up.

 

[Moral Orel]

well as I was trying to say it would be something like

P1 humans typically value life as a natural feature of the species.
P2 this makes valuing life a part of being human
C therefore humans ought to value life.

If valuing X is part of being human, then anyone who does not value X is not human.

Its quite simple. As I mentioned all the national and world bodies make life intrinsically valuable.

If something is intrinsic, then nobody makes it intrinsic.

They give humans inalienable rights to certain qualities that value life.

If the rights are inalienable, then those bodies have no choice but to recognize those rights, they don't give them.

That makes these values and rights stand despite peoples and governments subjective views.

You just got done saying that life is intrinsically valuable as a result of the actions of people, and now you say that they stand without the views of people.

 

[Moral Orel]

P3 Human life is intrinsically valuable
P4 if human life is not intrinsically valued then humans don't exist
C Therefore human Life is the sort of thing we ought to value

P1 If humans typically value life subjectively then humans will continue to exist
P2 Humans exist
C Humans typically value life subjectively

 

[stevevw]

If valuing X is part of being human, then anyone who does not value X is not human.

That doesnt follow. Its just stating a truth like eating food is part of being human.

If something is intrinsic, then nobody makes it intrinsic.

If that was the case we could have no intrinsic things. Yet all ethical theories include intrinsic values.

Humans can recognise intrinsic value. It just has to be an independent value that is not determined by human subjetcive thinking. Like we can recognise the intrinsic value of water. It has certain qualities that make it a value in itself like supporting ecosystems.

If the rights are inalienable, then those bodies have no choice but to recognize those rights, they don't give them.

Only after reasoning and recognising their inalienability. Alos the fact that the alternative is absurd. I guess that was part of the reasoning.

You just got done saying that life is intrinsically valuable as a result of the actions of people, and now you say that they stand without the views of people.

I never said because of the actions pf people rather the reasoning of people.

 

[stevevw]

P1 If humans typically value life subjectively then humans will continue to exist
P2 Humans exist
C Humans typically value life subjectively

The 1st premise can be quickly shown as false. valuing life subjectively can mean anything. Thats why it has to be intrinsically valuable independent of subjective views.

 

[Moral Orel]

valuing life subjectively can mean anything

No, it can't. Valuing life is valuing life. You think you value life for objective reasons, I know that we value life for subjective reasons. Value = desire.

 

[Moral Orel]

That doesnt follow.

It does. If Y lacks a part of what defines X, then Y =/= X

P1 Hydrogen is part of water (H2O)
P2 Salt contains no hydrogen (NaCl)
C Salt is not water

P1 Valuing X is part of being human
P2 Buster does not value X
C Buster is not human

Valid, but unsound because P1 is false. Valuing life is typical of humans. That's it.

If that was the case we could have no intrinsic things.

There ya go.

Yet all ethical theories include intrinsic values.

People believing there are intrinsic values does not prove there are intrinsic values.

I never said because of the actions pf people rather the reasoning of people.

You said we "make" things intrinsically valuable and we "give" rights. "Make" and "give" are verbs, i.e. actions.

 

[Larniavc]

So... Consider: if you heard from Fred that Jane and her daughter where murdered, but then you learned later that Jane and her daughter are alive and living in New Zealand...

That has never happened though, has it? You can’t say “yeah Gary died in agony but he’s still alive in Glory Land” and expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

[stevevw]

No, it can't. Valuing life is valuing life. You think you value life for objective reasons, I know that we value life for subjective reasons. Value = desire.

If valuaing life is subjective and based on desire then if someone feels life is not valuable then they cannot be objectively wrong because there is no objective way dispute them.

We have to be able to define what valuing life means. Saying valuing life is valuing life leaves things open to fill in the blank of what value means. That could mean anything.

 

[stevevw]

It does. If Y lacks a part of what defines X, then Y =/= X

P1 Hydrogen is part of water (H2O)
P2 Salt contains no hydrogen (NaCl)
C Salt is not water

P1 Valuing X is part of being human
P2 Buster does not value X
C Buster is not human

Valid, but unsound because P1 is false. Valuing life is typical of humans. That's it.

There ya go.

You should change (C) to "Buster is not living like a human should". Valuing life is part of being human means it is the optimum state humans can take to flourish and if they don't then they will suffer and die. So Buster in not valuing life is not living up to what a human should be like. That doesnt mean hes not human. It just means he is not living to what is considered the best way to be human.

People believing there are intrinsic values does not prove there are intrinsic values.

Its a justified belief so it is supported by reasoning which makes it a fact/truth similar in Math.

You said we "make" things intrinsically valuable and we "give" rights. "Make" and "give" are verbs, i.e. actions.

Just like scientists make theories. That doesnt mean the things they are making are not representative of objective facts. We give rights based on the truth that humans have inalienable rights.

We cannot make the truths but we can protect them but making rights. We cannot make intrinsic value it has to be valuable in itself. But we can make certain values/qulaities natural born rights based on that truth of intrinsic value. Thats exactly what has happened with most of the world bodies with treaties, conventions abd laws protecting that values and rights. .

 

[Kylie]

I cannot see how you can come to this conclusion. I have already shown that subjective morality is illogical and impossible to live out. If you are basing your determination on logic and rationality then we should go with objective morality. For example

Murder is wrong. This is not just a matter of subjective personal preference, it’s an objective fact. That means if it’s true for me, then it’s true for you and for everyone else too. And if someone claims that murder is OK, then they’re mistaken.

Thats seems logical and makes sense doesnt it.
Its like a self-evident truth because the alternative is absurd.

But under subjective morlaity the alternative is a subjetcive view that is just as valid a view as anyone elses by the fact there is no truth to the matter..

You say that you have no objective support for why you think subjective morlaity is the only alternative and say there is no valid reason for objetcive morlaity. That implies a valid reason for subjective morality. So you base your position on reasoning or that things just seems to fit better (make sense).

Yet when I use the same logic for arguements for objective morlaity you discount them. What this does show is that when it comes to morality there are certain truths we can reason about and that morality determining whats right and wrong can be reasoned as truths/facts.

Its just that the reasoning for subjective morality doesn't doesn't stand up.

I thought you'd know by now that I won't find that argument convincing unless you can do it for ALL moral positions, not just the extreme ones.

I've already explained so many times that I've lost count that our shared view that murder is bad stems from the fact that we are social creatures, and the moral viewpoints that are common among members of our society stem from the fact that those are viewpoints that we needed in order to keep that society going. Why do you keep making me explain it again and again?

 

[Moral Orel]

We have to be able to define what valuing life means.

To value life is to desire to live. That's what it means whether morality is objective or not. To value wealth is to desire wealth. To value a cheeseburger is to desire a cheeseburger. To value love is to desire love.

To value = to desire = to want. They're all the same thing.

 

[Moral Orel]

You should change (C) to "Buster is not living like a human should".

Then the argument would be invalid.

If Y lacks a part of what defines X, then Y =/= X

P1 Hydrogen is part of water (H2O)
P2 Salt contains no hydrogen (NaCl)
C Salt is not water

Valuing life is part of being human means it is the optimum state humans can take to flourish and if they don't then they will suffer and die.

That's not what "is a part of being" means.

Its a justified belief so it is supported by reasoning which makes it a fact/truth similar in Math.

It isn't justified by the fact that people believe its true.

 

[Moral Orel]

I thought you'd know by now that I won't find that argument convincing unless you can do it for ALL moral positions, not just the extreme ones.

If morality is subjective, then it doesn't matter how extreme his examples are.

Subjective morality = "There are no moral facts"
Objective morality = "There are some moral facts"

If there is an example so extreme that it is a fact, then he wins.

 

[Kylie]

If morality is subjective, then it doesn't matter how extreme his examples are.

Subjective morality = "There are no moral facts"
Objective morality = "There are some moral facts"

If there is an example so extreme that it is a fact, then he wins.

Something doesn't become an objective fact just because lots of people agree with it.

 

[Halbhh]

That has never happened though, has it? You can’t say “yeah Gary died in agony but he’s still alive in Glory Land” and expect anyone to take you seriously.

That someone thought murdered had turned out alive? Of course that has happened. About your theory about the afterlife though, you do realize it's only a guess you are making, yes? You understand we cannot here typically see people that are in the afterlife? I can't say "I'll chat with mom at 3p." (Or at least most of us cannot). So that's similar to any unknown, such as "dark matter" in astrophysics.

 

[Moral Orel]

Something doesn't become an objective fact just because lots of people agree with it.

I never said it did. Why does it matter how extreme an example he chooses, then?

 

[stevevw]

I thought you'd know by now that I won't find that argument convincing unless you can do it for ALL moral positions, not just the extreme ones.

It doesnt matter whether something is extreme or not to prove objective morlaity. The fact that you acknowledge that there is at least one moral situation where we can say that murder is objectively wrong is enough to support the argument that there are objective morals.

Remember I am making the positive claim and you are making the negative (skeptical) claim. So it is you who has to show that there is not a moral truth in every situation and not me. I only have to show that morality is objective in one example to support my case.

I've already explained so many times that I've lost count that our shared view that murder is bad stems from the fact that we are social creatures, and the moral viewpoints that are common among members of our society stem from the fact that those are viewpoints that we needed in order to keep that society going. Why do you keep making me explain it again and again?

I have also explained to you a number of times that the idea that the "social conditioning arguement"has a number of problems (logical fallacy and incoherence). As this seems to be an issue that you cannot acknowledge I will spell the objections out clearly so you can address them 1 by 1.

1) Its a logical fallacy. It doesnt follow that our common moral values is because of living in the same society and therefore morals are subjective and not objective. I gave you independent evdience that this is a well known fallacy. This alone should refute your arguement based on being faulty logic.

2) It is also widely accepted that we all (regadles of society or culture) agree on a core set of morals. So this negates that morals are the result of social condition.

3) I have shown you research evidence which shows we are born with knowledge of certain moral truths. Babies and infants know common moral values before they can be encultured or socialized by their society or family. Also these common moral values are consistent regardless of that culture or families beliefs or values.

4) Social conditioning does explain moral disagreement and moral progress.

How can social conditioning be the reason for why a society has common morals when there is no way to reach moral agreement under subjective morality in the first place? Any social reforms or civil rights changes are usually made by non-conformists who object to the common socially conditioned values.

So they are seen as outsiders disrupting the so called common socially conditioned agreed morals. That cannot happen under a subjective system because there are no moral right and wrong. There can be no real disagreement about what is right and wrong. The non-conformist would actually be seen as a trouble maker who is not going along with the agreed values.

Nor can morality progress under a subjective system. If morality is just opinions and nothing is really right or wrong morally and there is no objective basis to measure moral progress then moral progress cannot happen.

Andrew Fisher explains this that if there was progress this seems to imply that we are somehow moving closer to the truth of how the world actually ought to be. But if moral realism is false then it seems that there could be no standard or benchmark and it is hard to see why we would think moral progress was possible at all.