Is there an absolute morality?

[VirOptimus]

It is actually a theory.
Panpsychism holds that mind or a mind-like aspect is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. It is also described as a theory in which "the mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe".
Panpsychism - Wikipedia.

As I said, not a scientific theory, its a philosophical theory and shouldnt be mixed with science.

I don't think I have said anything wrong in saying that all interpretations of QM is counterintuitive ie

This research report provides the effects of the various interpretations of quantum mechanics on the broad philosophies of physics. The results are various and counter-intuitive set of interpretations that attempt to make quantum mechanics more logical.
(PDF) How the Different Interpretations in Quantum Mechanics Affect the Philosophy of Physics

I disagree. If there are non-physical influences or if at the fundelmental level there is consciousness then human consciousness is something that may affect reality and therefore affect morality. THis is something we cannot just dismiss until we understand quantum physics better.

As I said, you dont understand it and therefore want to insert god into it.

First why does authority matter in proving objective morality. Objective morality is simply about a moral law or truth existing independent of the human (subject). Its just a case of supporting an independent objective measure of morality.

Because without authority the "objective morality" is meaningless. It has to have authority to tell people how to act, dont you understand this? Its a very fundamental, basic part of moral philosophy.

But nevertheless as I have already mentioned there are different ways people justify moral motivation. We do it now with moral norms. We state that people should follow these norms. They are based on a common and reasoned basis about respecting and upholding human life as valuable. This is a justification for making these norms objective and like laws (no subjective view can deny them).

Justify is not the same as authorithy. And justification points to a non-objective morality.

Again, why do your "objective morality" have authority over every human being?

What is my agenda. If there was an agenda I am not doing a good job. I didn't even look at the source as it had a link to the original article from New Scientists which it was quoting ie
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-it-seems-impossible-until-you-do-the-maths/

Your agenda is to preach. You have earlier (badly) argued ID, irreducible complexity and other creationist propaganda. You are now arguing for objective morality with an obvious agenda to sneak in god as you have chosen the conclusion before understanding the premise.

And quoting from the discovery institute just show that. If you where any way a honest debater and interested in real science and real philosophy you would never ever even end up on one of their pages, much less quoting them.

 

[childeye 2]

Because without authority the "objective morality" is meaningless. It has to have authority to tell people how to act, dont you understand this? Its a very fundamental, basic part of moral philosophy.

Compassion/Love is an objective morality that is innate and therefore not a human construct.

 

[VirOptimus]

Compassion/Love is an objective morality that is innate and therefore not a human construct.

Assertions are meaningless. Try to support your arguments.

 

[childeye 2]

Assertions are meaningless. Try to support your arguments.

Respectfully, I'm just stating a fact. Compassion/Love is the impetus of morality and that is a reality, not a fantasy.

 

[VirOptimus]

Respectfully I'm just stating a fact. Compassion/Love is the impetus of morality and that is a reality, not a fantasy.

No, you are not.

You are just preaching.

 

[childeye 2]

No, you are not.

You are just preaching.

We're all preaching something. No matter how you wish to characterize it or mischaracterize it, it's still a factual reality, and not a fantasy, that compassion/Love is the impetus of morality in mankind.

 

[VirOptimus]

We're all preaching something. No matter how you wish to characterize it or mischaracterize it, it's still a factual reality, and not a fantasy, that compassion/Love is the impetus of morality in mankind.

Bye.

 

[stevevw]

When there is an objectively correct option, there is not a 66/33 split. It's more like 99.9/0.1 split.

But quite often there is only a 66/33 split on many scientific ideas. Take Quantum Physics where a survey of scientists on the question
"Do you believe that physical objects have their properties well defined prior to and independent of measurement?"
Physicists Disagree Over Meaning of Quantum Mechanics, Poll Shows
showed 52% said yes and 48% said no. What you have to consider is that all the examples you gave me once had 66/33 splits. Take climate change. If we go back 50, 30 even 20 years ago you will find more scientists disagreed with climate change. So the split would have even been 33/66. Gradually as the science came in more began to agree.

And the disagreement was settled by presenting the evidence in a clear and rigorously structured language. I have been asking you to do that for morality for ages, and you have refused every time.

But morality is not supported in the same way science facts are. It works in a similar way in that there is an objective and we gradually can come to know that with better understanding.

The North American human slave trade was based on black Africans being a sub species of humans like animals. But we came to understand that all humans are equal. Therefore we came to realize the truth or fact of the matter which enabled us to stop the wrong act.

If we look at Math for example if there was a complex Math equation on the blackboard the majority of people would not be able to work it out. Yet we know that there is a factual or truthful answer to be found. Yet Math is an abstract concept and there is no physical object we can see or test.

The same with morality. Slavery is wrong objectively. We know this is a truth like a law. Any culture who claims slavery is OK is mistaken.

Once again, I will tell you that widespread agreement doesn't mean it is objectively true.

Yes I agree and yet you just gave examples of how widespread agreement supports objective science facts and you have used the how people are conditioned and act like morality is relative/subjective to support your case, same thing.

See how we cannot help but use human experience as the evdience for how morality works. There is no other way to support moral truths than by the way people not only agree about moral truths but actually make then laws like the moral is unbreachable regardless of relative or subjective views.

I'm sorry, what parts of Quantum Mechanics and cosmology are considered fringe areas, and can you show that they are being presented as objective fact?

Yeah "fringe" area was probably not the best word as they are sciences. I meant as a science which has more speculation than other sciences like say physics. Nevertheless being a mainstream science shows that great disagreement can happen there as well.

Though QM is well supported as a theory there is a lot of disagreement about what the findings represent which is part of the theory. ie
Since its inception, the many counter-intuitive aspects and results of quantum mechanics have provoked strong philosophical debates and many interpretations. The arguments centre on the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, the difficulties with wavefunction collapse and the related measurement problem, and quantum nonlocality. Perhaps the only consensus that exists about these issues is that there is no consensus.
Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

Cosmology is the same. There are several different ideas about how our universe came to be and there is a lot of disagreement even about the Big Bang even today. But go back 30, 40, 50 or 100 years and you will find continula disagreement until some facts are determined. Sometimes there are wrong assumptions which are found years later like how scientist thought that the universe was eternal. They may have wrong assumptions today.

How the Big Bang Theory Works

Funnily enough, it seems that morality is the only situation where something that you are presenting as "objective fact" needs this alternate way of knowing.

So this tells me you want the same sort of evidence as science has. Well thats not going to happen at least at the moment. Morality is not the only abstract thing that is said to have objective fact or truth about it.

Math is not a physical thing we can test. Yet there are Math Facts. Its a fact that we have consciousness. But something like qualia is not a physical thing we can test. Yet it is real. There is a colour "Red" yet its something we cannot explain or test. We experience music and love as real things yet we cannot pick up and test them. We have justified beliefs which can act as a truth that affects our life. There are other ways to measure fcats and truths.

It's almost like the way we have that we KNOW works doesn't work for showing morality is objective because morality is not objective.

I disagree. We can step back as rational humans and understand there are certain ethical standards we need to have as rules or laws that help us live and get along. Stop the horrible stuff happening. Most nations hold these truths and they could not live without them.

We as humans understand that it is right and best to live as we would be negating our own moral disposotion. So we make these ethical standards like laws using human "LIfe" as intrinsically valuable as the basis.

This is our common agreed basis not because its a matter of agreement alone but because it is what rational and moral humans should do. Anyone who disagrees is mistaken and would be ostrasized.

 

[stevevw]

As I said, not a scientific theory, its a philosophical theory and shouldnt be mixed with science.

Yet as I mentioned this idea has crept into science and there are a growing number of scientific research and theories. For example conscious realism is a scientific theory based on panpsychism.

Conscious realism is a theory proposed by Donald Hoffman, a cognitive scientist specialising in perception. He has written numerous papers on the topic[52]
Conscious realism builds upon Hoffman's former User-Interface Theory. In combination they argue that (1) consensus reality and spacetime are illusory, and are merely a "species specific evolved user interface"; (2) Reality is made of a complex, dimensionless, and timeless network of "conscious agents".[53]

It is a natural and near-universal assumption that the world has the properties and causal structures that we perceive it to have; to paraphrase Einstein's famous remark, we naturally assume that the moon is there whether anyone looks or not. Both theoretical and empirical considerations, however, increasingly indicate that this is not correct.
— Donald Hoffman, Conscious agent networks: Formal analysis and applications to cognition, p. 2

As I said, you dont understand it and therefore want to insert god into it.

That doesn't reflect what I have been posting. Havn't mentioned God once and have reasoned and used independent support which all are the opposite of proposing God as the answer as this is not based on evdience.

Because without authority the "objective morality" is meaningless. It has to have authority to tell people how to act, dont you understand this? Its a very fundamental, basic part of moral philosophy.

Yes I do. This is "Humes Law". As I said people have come up with ways of getting around the "Is and ought" problem.

Justify is not the same as authorithy. And justification points to a non-objective morality.

I don't mean "Justify" motivation itself but justify our belief in the basis such as "LIfe" being intrinsically valuable. It is from this assumption and justified belief (self-evident truth) that we base morality and our motivation comes. There are epistemic duties about what we know and how we come to know and this leads to an obligation to uphold "Life". This is our motivation and reason.

By the way "Justification" implies theres an objective to measure whether something is justified or not. I this case justified "Proper belief". Otherwise why even worry about justification.

Again, why do your "objective morality" have authority over every human being?

Because this is a self evident truth that humans cannot dispute and is not subject to subjective views. These moral laws have authority over us similar to how the legal law has authority over us.

Your agenda is to preach. You have earlier (badly) argued ID, irreducible complexity and other creationist propaganda. You are now arguing for objective morality with an obvious agenda to sneak in god as you have chosen the conclusion before understanding the premise.

That is not my agenda here. Those other comments were relevant to the topics debated. God is not relevant here and even if He was no arguement can be made as we cannot verify God. So its a useless arguement.

And quoting from the discovery institute just show that. If you where any way a honest debater and interested in real science and real philosophy you would never ever even end up on one of their pages, much less quoting them.

I did not realize what site it was assuming that I knew the evdience was out there. Like I said the original article was linked. I can show you other sites that say the same thing. Its common knowledge that consciousness has become a mainstream area of research and that many of the ideas stemming form this are counter intuitive.

What your doing is creating a logical fallacy that if a person or claim is linked to any religious source then everything they have said is disqualified. That would make many scientists unable to comment.

Actually I just saw a similar comment to another poster and thought so what if someone preaches on this topic. Afterall morality is closest related to religion. I am sure we are able to acommodate this while also determining the facts/truth of the matter.

So I guess your objection is unfair in that there is no rule saying someone cannot preach on this topic especially on a Christian Forum. Just like there is no rule that you can say that the preaching is not relevant so long as each party can debate whether thats the case.

 

[Kylie]

But quite often there is only a 66/33 split on many scientific ideas. Take Quantum Physics where a survey of scientists on the question
"Do you believe that physical objects have their properties well defined prior to and independent of measurement?"
Physicists Disagree Over Meaning of Quantum Mechanics, Poll Shows
showed 52% said yes and 48% said no. What you have to consider is that all the examples you gave me once had 66/33 splits. Take climate change. If we go back 50, 30 even 20 years ago you will find more scientists disagreed with climate change. So the split would have even been 33/66. Gradually as the science came in more began to agree.

The poll was given to physicists, philosophers and mathematicians, according to the article.

Why would a philosopher's opinion on quantum physics be at all relevant?

You might as well say that in a survey of doctors, politicians and scientists, they found an almost even split about whether humans were causing climate change.

But morality is not supported in the same way science facts are. It works in a similar way in that there is an objective and we gradually can come to know that with better understanding.

The North American human slave trade was based on black Africans being a sub species of humans like animals. But we came to understand that all humans are equal. Therefore we came to realize the truth or fact of the matter which enabled us to stop the wrong act.

If we look at Math for example if there was a complex Math equation on the blackboard the majority of people would not be able to work it out. Yet we know that there is a factual or truthful answer to be found. Yet Math is an abstract concept and there is no physical object we can see or test.

The same with morality. Slavery is wrong objectively. We know this is a truth like a law. Any culture who claims slavery is OK is mistaken.

Again, you make the claim that morality is different, but you can't explain WHY. It seems to be nothing more than you saying objective morality MUST have some alternate method of verifying it simply because you can't verify it in the way that we already have. So you need to invent a different way in order to hold onto your preconceived conclusion.

Yes I agree and yet you just gave examples of how widespread agreement supports objective science facts and you have used the how people are conditioned and act like morality is relative/subjective to support your case, same thing.

I have never claimed that widespread agreement is the support that science has. Science is supported by evidence that can be described in a clear and well structured way. Morality can NOT.

See how we cannot help but use human experience as the evdience for how morality works. There is no other way to support moral truths than by the way people not only agree about moral truths but actually make then laws like the moral is unbreachable regardless of relative or subjective views.

Human experience is subjective. Subjective sources can not be used to prove anything objectively.

Yeah "fringe" area was probably not the best word as they are sciences. I meant as a science which has more speculation than other sciences like say physics. Nevertheless being a mainstream science shows that great disagreement can happen there as well.

Though QM is well supported as a theory there is a lot of disagreement about what the findings represent which is part of the theory. ie
Since its inception, the many counter-intuitive aspects and results of quantum mechanics have provoked strong philosophical debates and many interpretations. The arguments centre on the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, the difficulties with wavefunction collapse and the related measurement problem, and quantum nonlocality. Perhaps the only consensus that exists about these issues is that there is no consensus.
Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

Cosmology is the same. There are several different ideas about how our universe came to be and there is a lot of disagreement even about the Big Bang even today. But go back 30, 40, 50 or 100 years and you will find continula disagreement until some facts are determined. Sometimes there are wrong assumptions which are found years later like how scientist thought that the universe was eternal. They may have wrong assumptions today.

How the Big Bang Theory Works

However, there is virtually no disagreement about the fact that quantum mechanics is a real thing.

If morality had the same issue, then it would be more akin to people disagreeing where the objective laws come from, whether they are built into the fabric of the universe, or laid down by God, etc. What we see is not analogous to the disagreement regarding QM.

And how many scientists in relevant fields disagree that there was a Big Bang?

So this tells me you want the same sort of evidence as science has. Well thats not going to happen at least at the moment. Morality is not the only abstract thing that is said to have objective fact or truth about it.

Math is not a physical thing we can test. Yet there are Math Facts. Its a fact that we have consciousness. But something like qualia is not a physical thing we can test. Yet it is real. There is a colour "Red" yet its something we cannot explain or test. We experience music and love as real things yet we cannot pick up and test them. We have justified beliefs which can act as a truth that affects our life. There are other ways to measure fcats and truths.

I find this a very weak argument. Mathematics has a well struictured language with clear and precise rules, and that is how we can verify things with it. Since you can't get close to that with morality, you can't make the same claim for morality.

And I disagree with you about red. All we can say about red is that light of a certain wavelength is perceived by us as red. For some creature that can see a different part of the spectrum, they might see the red object as some other colour entirely.

I disagree. We can step back as rational humans and understand there are certain ethical standards we need to have as rules or laws that help us live and get along. Stop the horrible stuff happening. Most nations hold these truths and they could not live without them.

We as humans understand that it is right and best to live as we would be negating our own moral disposotion. So we make these ethical standards like laws using human "LIfe" as intrinsically valuable as the basis.

This is our common agreed basis not because its a matter of agreement alone but because it is what rational and moral humans should do. Anyone who disagrees is mistaken and would be ostrasized.

This is what I was saying about morality being a result of the society we live in. It does NOT make it objectively true.

 

[childeye 2]

This is our common agreed basis not because its a matter of agreement alone but because it is what rational and moral humans should do. Anyone who disagrees is mistaken and would be ostrasized.

This is what I was saying about morality being a result of the society we live in. It does NOT make it objectively true.

In the moral/immoral paradigm, it can be observed that any immoral line of reasoning ends in hypocrisy, wherein we end up disagreeing with our own self. Therefore, morality is an objective fact of a shared reality, that is authoritative.

 

[childeye 2]

The topic of whether or not there is an absolute morality is just as much about defining reality as it is about defining morality. It's a circular reasoning to conclude that morality by definition must be subjective simply because it does not meet a subjective criterion for what constitutes reality. Particularly when it's of the highest value to the wellbeing of a society. In other words, it's nonsense to say that horrific things are not happening in reality because horror is all in your head.

I'm not suggesting anyone is intentionally saying that the underlying sentiments of what morality and immorality represent are not observable in reality. I'm saying that since, subjectively speaking, for lack of perfect sight, we cannot perfectly comprehend and therefore perfectly articulate what an absolute objective morality is, then it's unreasonable and presumptive to conclude due to this circumstance that morality and therefore immorality are subjective. Because all that mumbo jumbo really means is that sometimes we disagree on what is objectively right and wrong.

I'm not here to argue the semantics of whether people can agree perfectly. To me, that's politics. The issue to me is first and foremost, what is morality? We must agree on this so as to proceed to reason together as to whether it's absolute or not.

If morality qualifies as the impetus to the energy that performs righteousness unto one another, then why wouldn't compassion/Love qualify as a reality and absolutely moral in its purest sense? And on the contrary, it's clearly more questionable whether a subjective morality, and subsequently a subjective immorality, would even qualify as morality. Because ultimately such a subjective morality/immorality becomes the vanity of my morality is better than your morality.

After all what is cynicism, if not the projecting of the negative prejudice that everyone's intentions are self-serving? But we don't wonder if there's an absolute cynicism. If we did, I think we would find we are declaring what is absolutely moral through the unbelief that cynicism is.

 

[Kylie]

In the moral/immoral paradigm, it can be observed that any immoral line of reasoning ends in hypocrisy, wherein we end up disagreeing with our own self. Therefore, morality is an objective fact of a shared reality, that is authoritative.

And what does this mean in English?

 

[childeye 2]

And what does this mean in English?

I am saying that hypocrisy is immoral and never moral. Hypocrisy is therefore an example of an absolute immorality. So since hypocrisy is immoral and never moral, then morality is not subjective, it is objective.

I'm also saying that morality is reasonable, and immorality is never reasonable, and therefore morality is authoritative, and not subjective. When we reason upon what is moral and immoral, we have to have two absolutes as positive/negative. Since morality is never immorality in any sound reasoning, there has to be an absolute morality when we reason, otherwise it's not sound reasoning, and it will manifest hypocrisy.

Ultimately, I don't see morality as a human construct or the product of any persons' reasoning. I see that a person first has to care about how their actions affect others before they care to reason right from wrong in any faithful manner. I'm alluding to compassion/Love as the impetus of morality, which in its purest sense is something that's always moral and is therefore absolute.

 

[stevevw]

The poll was given to physicists, philosophers and mathematicians, according to the article.

Why would a philosopher's opinion on quantum physics be at all relevant?

You might as well say that in a survey of doctors, politicians and scientists, they found an almost even split about whether humans were causing climate change.

Actually philosophers will be more relevant because of QM counter intuitive nature. Philosophers are in a better position to consider its implications for science. They all know that QM is a well support theory in explaining the sub atomic world. It’s more a case of what interpretation we should take in uniting relativity and QM.

Nevertheless the paper mentions that they tested for any correlations so it looks like they had checks for any imbalanced correlations with age, field, etc. It seems it is a general disagreement spread across all fields. Like I said it’s a common view that there is large disagreement in QM. Regardless you’re still missing the point. For every example you give me now that has a strong agreement in most cases there was also once a weak agreement.

Again, you make the claim that morality is different, but you can't explain WHY.

What do you mean by WHY?

It seems to be nothing more than you saying objective morality MUST have some alternate method of verifying it simply because you can't verify it in the way that we already have. So you need to invent a different way in order to hold onto your preconceived conclusion.

Not sure what you mean by MUST have some alternative method. The method is the same as what we use now which is usually our moral norms we use as a society. The only difference is that you claim that morality must be relative because society conditions us to be that way.

Whereas I am saying that when it comes to morality a “determination” needs to be made as to whether something is “right or wrong”. The fact that most people act and converse like morality needs a right or wrong determination even to the point of making morals normative like laws that we must comply with seems to be consistent with that.

The fact that we cannot apply relative morality shows it’s an impossible system to implement. So if we were going off Occam’s razor then evidence for morality coming down to being how humans make morality real of truthful then moral realism is the best fit.

None of this is a knock down hit for moral realism but until someone can convince us that our moral intuition is wrong then we are justified to believe on the assumption that our lived moral experience is a true and best representation of how morality works. Just like our intuition of the physical world is a justified assumption of how things really are.

Human experience is subjective. Subjective sources can not be used to prove anything objectively.

This may be why you cannot appreciate that human experience can mean something about reality. This is discounting the person themselves as a source and procurer of facts/truths in the world including moral facts/truths. Human experience can also determine what’s real or not.

For example most people do not understand the Math equation of gravity that this would be enough for them to believe and say it’s a fact. But when they experience gravity that’s when they really know and this allows them to venture into the world knowing they won’t get sucked out of the earth by some anti-gravity vortex.

 

[Astrid]

I agree, and we have to be open to all possibilities. There are many views on morality and I am learning some. Its a big topic. I understand your (relative/subjective) position. I just happen to believe that they are not the only way we can know morality.

Like I said I am in the majority position on this so I have thought about things and agree with the majority. But that doesn't mean I should not get to know other moral positions like Nilhilism. Understanding moral realism entails understanding opposing views as a big part of supporting a position is to refute opposing views. But I wonder if you really know about moral realism. I believe once understood it is a common sense and reasonable position to take.

In fact I'm in a position where I can say that there are subjectivea and relative views on morality. But I can also say that there are objective morals as well. This is something a relativist/subjectivists cannot declare. So I am really more open to different moral positions than the relativist who is in the difficult position of having to declare their relative position as a truth and yet not really a truth at the same time.

The question is why do people take different and opposing positions on morality. Morality doesn't occupy the materialistic world of physics which is held up as the best and often declared only way to understand reality. Yet all through history we have appealed to this moral truth or "The Good" like its part of the real world.

As we have seen in recent years especially in QM and consciousness science is limited and more people are turning to ideas that make consciousness a fundemental part of reality. If thats the case then its not such a crazy idea that there is some moral law existing as part of reality.

Humans (the observer) play a part in what makes reality. So maybe the only way we can measure and know moral truths is by how we intuit them and reason them to become like unwritten Laws similar to Math or other abstract ideas.

You do, at great and exhausting length, announce that there is objective
morality but like all others in your majority who base this
assumption / assertion on the assumption / assertion of a
morality - giver, on further a / a that the seer who reports
on the God is legit, and.....? Like all of them you cannot
give any real examples, they are all full of holes and require
subjective application. No logic, nothing but words words words
words words.

"We know by how 'we' intuit" is about as far from objective
as you can get.

 

[stevevw]

However, there is virtually no disagreement about the fact that quantum mechanics is a real thing.

But there were disagreements over quantum physics 50 or 100 years ago that had a 66/33 split. What we know and agree on today is the result of much disagreement in the past. Apart from some obvious objectives most of science has been about disagreement from 1/100% to 99/100% disagreement and everything in-between.

If morality had the same issue, then it would be more akin to people disagreeing where the objective laws come from, whether they are built into the fabric of the universe, or laid down by God, etc. What we see is not analogous to the disagreement regarding QM.

First QM being laid down by God is not one of the scientific interpretations for QM at least not for verification. But you are right we do need to ask philosophical questions about what QM represents in the overall scheme of things.

But it’s also a scientific one as QM needs to fit with the current assumption about reality (relativity). This is where the speculation is coming from as QM is counter intuitive to classical physics and explanations can creep beyond how reality is assumed to be becuase the findings demand ideas along those lines. There's not much room to manovour. Either our assumptions about reality are wrong or we theres some counterintuitive aspect to reality.

And how many scientists in relevant fields disagree that there was a Big Bang?

Actually up until around the turn of the century most scientists disagreed. Then it wasnt until the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964 that there was some agreement. Even so there are there are still disagreements as the theory doesn't fit well with with our assumption of reality. It requires the existence of mysterious material called dark matter and dark energy. Now it appears the Big Bang idea is falling out of favour a bit.

I find this a very weak argument. Mathematics has a well struictured language with clear and precise rules, and that is how we can verify things with it. Since you can't get close to that with morality, you can't make the same claim for morality.

That’s not the point. The point is regardless of whether morality is not exactly the same as Math they are both abstract ideas that have no physical thing to test. The fact that you claim Math formulas (language) is clearer and better understood doesn’t change the fact that Math is regarded as fact when there is nothing physical about it. This is an example of an abstract fact/truth.

We do have similar language with morality. We do say that torturing an innocent child, rape, sexual harassment, racism, mugging people taking things from others for personal gain, is morally wrong in clear language just like 2+2=4. They are based on similar logic, there is only one answer that can be right, any alternate answer can be said to be objectively wrong i.e. 2+2 cannot be five and racism cannot equal being morally good.

And I disagree with you about red. All we can say about red is that light of a certain wavelength is perceived by us as red. For some creature that can see a different part of the spectrum, they might see the red object as some other colour entirely.

The point is there is no such thing as colours. Our brain makes them up. There is no technical explanation for the colour red. WE cannot relate colours to brain activity. Yet colours are a real experience.

The first thing to remember is that colour does not actually exist… at least not in any literal sense. Apples and fire engines are not red, the sky and sea are not blue, and no person is objectively "black" or "white".0

The first thing to remember is that colour does not actually exist… at least not in any literal sense. Apples and fire engines are not red, the sky and sea are not blue, and no person is objectively "black" or "white". ... Because one light can take on any colour… in our mind.
Do you see what I see?

This is what I was saying about morality being a result of the society we live in. It does NOT make it objectively true.

But in one breath you have just contradicted your own objection to my argument being a logical fallacy with the same logical fallacy. You objected to the idea that just because we act like morality is objective doesn’t mean its objective but then claim that morality is relative/subjective because as you claim people are conditioned to act like that. They just happen to match what we think is morally right.

So they don’t act like that because it’s the right thing to do but rather only because they have been conditioned. So a culture that is conditioned to act in ways we think are immoral is only acting that way because they are conditioned and not because there is any truth in the acts being the right thing to do.

But wouldn’t it make much more sense to say that we actually act like certain acts are moral truths because they actually are. Our behaviour like morality is a fact isn’t because of some random and lucky coincident that lined up with what is moral truths but they line up because they are moral truths.

Otherwise we would have to say that the social conditioning that causes other cultures to act differently to our morals is also good morals because we are what our social conditioning makes us and that cannot be right or wrong but rather just a reflection of our culture and nothing to do with what is morally better or best ways to behave. .

 

[stevevw]

You do, at great and exhausting length, announce that there is objective
morality but like all others in your majority who base this
assumption / assertion on the assumption / assertion of a
morality - giver, on further a / a that the seer who reports
on the God is legit, and.....? Like all of them you cannot
give any real examples, they are all full of holes and require
subjective application. No logic, nothing but words words words
words words.

"We know by how 'we' intuit" is about as far from objective
as you can get.

Let me ask you, "is what we experience with our senses about the physical world a good representation of how the physical world really is"

 

[Tinker Grey]

Let me ask you, Do you believe that the physical world is a true representation of how the world really is.

What does this question mean?

Is it, does physical reality represent itself? Is it, is what's real really really real?

How does a thing represent itself? A thing IS itself.

If you are meaning one of those metaphysical questions, then ask it. E.g., Do you believe that the material world is all there is or might there be more?

 

[stevevw]

What does this question mean?

Is it, does physical reality represent itself? Is it, is what's real really really real?

How does a thing represent itself? A thing IS itself.

If you are meaning one of those metaphysical questions, then ask it. E.g., Do you believe that the material world is all there is or might there be more?

No that was not what I was asking. I was asking " is what we experience with our senses about the physical world a good representation of how the physical world really is". Sorry my grammar is not that good.