Is there an absolute morality?

[stevevw]

Yes, morality is debated.

This strongly suggests thats its not objective.

Thats a logical fallacy. You saying that morality is not objective simply because people debate morality. It doesn't follow.

Rather debating something implies some basis for determining who is correct. If people disagree about what is moral or not then what are they disagreeing about. What premise are they using to support their side of the arguement. Even when people end up agreeing there is some common basis for that agreement.

 

[childeye 2]

It seems youve done the opposite. You claimed God is whatever thing that any person thinks is most real.

I never claimed God is whatever thing that any person thinks is most real. I claimed the term God must imply the source of the energy that formed all things. Otherwise it's a god, a false imagery of Thee God. I then claimed that there are differing imageries of God/gods imagined by people, which is why there are different religions, including atheism, the counter narrative.

From the record:
To a theist the term God is axiomatic. It's like asking "what if there were no universe, would you still think killing your neighbor is wrong?"...

See, now I would have said it's not that they picture the world with no God, they just have different images of god/God/gods/religions including, atheists' god/gods/superstition/religions.

God is axiomatic in that the term God is to be considered as the source of the energy that formed us and everything that is reality. There is no imagery added, that's just what it has to imply when we say it, or we're not reasoning on it correctly.

That there is just indeterminate fluff and the furthest thing from the God of the Bible.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "there is just indeterminate fluff". But I would venture to guess that you may be referring to false images of God.

The bible clearly claims that the term God means the source of the energy that formed all things including us, and that we cannot logically create or change God according to our imagery. And I wish to add, at this stage in our discourse, that as a temporal being, I don't see how it's possible anyone temporal could prove something as existing eternal.

 

[stevevw]

Okay, now put it all together:

If moral non-realism is true, then any statement of the form "People should..." is not true. This conclusion is also correct. Agreed?

Yes just like "If moral realism is true then any statement of the form "People should..." is true. Or at least sometimes true.

 

[childeye 2]

Yes just like "If moral realism is true then any statement of the form "People should..." is true. Or at least sometimes true.

In scripture, positive prejudice is moral and negative prejudice is immoral. The pure of heart therefore project their purity onto others and it's called Grace. The defiled project their corruption onto others and it's called wickedness. Obviously, you understand this.

 

[Moral Orel]

If moral non-realism is true, then any statement of the form "People should..." is not true.

Yes

Great! Now pay close attention to the new placement of the quotation marks. So we know that any statement of the form "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." is always false.

What comes after the "then" will always be false, but the statement claims it is true, so the whole statement is false. Always.

 

[Moral Orel]

It does follow in that eating ones children is not a Maternal instinct. Maternal instinct exists objectively as moral.

We're talking about a statement where moral non-realism is assumed to be true within the confines of that statement. You're trying to prove moral realism. Your comments do not follow.

Because according to such a reasoning you would not know what a lie is.

If I don't assume that you personally are telling me the truth, then I don't know the definition of the word "lie"? That's nonsense.

 

[childeye 2]

We're talking about a statement where moral non-realism is assumed to be true within the confines of that statement. You're trying to prove moral realism. Your comments do not follow.

It's a semantical construct that changes positives into negatives or visa versa. "If moral non-realism is true, then people should eat their children". This is a true statement because it supposes that Maternal instinct should have no meaning if what was morally true was false. I added a negative to a negative and made the statement a positive through supposition. That's how propaganda is formed.

Outside of the moral/immoral paradigm, it's the same as, "If nothing is true then cats should be herding universes". It supposes instead of proposes that since cats shouldn't be herding universes then that's not the reality. Fundamentally it's the same as if nothing were true then that would be the truth.

If I don't assume that you personally are telling me the truth, then I don't know the definition of the word "lie"? That's nonsense.

I'm the believer not the unbeliever in God's Word. I asked how I could believe a person that doesn't believe in honesty as a virtue. Not believe, that's a negative about a positive, a virtue. Then you asked me how could you believe me. I said because I hold honesty in my heart to be a virtue (not dishonesty as a virtue). Then, you said how do I know you're not lying about that. I then said because you don't know what a lie is because it's a lie that dishonesty is a virtue.

In moral terminology The Truth is a Virtue. It proves itself through its negative in the reality of it, and that's why scripture calls it the Word of God.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's a semantical construct that changes positives into negatives or visa versa. "If moral non-realism is true, then people should eat their children". This is a true statement because it supposes that Maternal instinct should have no meaning if what was morally true was false.

Wrong.

If moral non-realism is true, then there are no moral statements that are true, so...
"If moral non-realism is true, then people should eat their children" is a false statement.
"If moral non-realism is true, then people should not eat their children" is a false statement.

You need to know what moral non-realism claims before you try to argue against it.

I then said because you don't know what a lie is because it's a lie that dishonesty is a virtue.

Yes, that's the nonsense bit. I know the definition of the word "lie" and that has nothing to do with whether you are or are not a liar.

 

[childeye 2]

[

 

[Kylie]

First under the science method things are accepted as objective without clear evdience or having a clear and precise way to explain it. The Big Bang is an example.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no clear evidence for the Big Bang and that there is no way to clearly and precisely describe it?

Second as I have demonstrated objective morality is clear and precise. "Rape is wrong" is a clear moral statement. It states that "rape" is either right or wrong to do. Its a clear and precise choise. Even if we applied the way some of the so called objective facts of science are accepted then moral statements like this are far more clear and precise say compared to the "Big Bang theory".

Okay then, tell me this...

WHY is rape wrong?

Well from what you are saying then yes. They are presented as facts. I am not sure what you mean by "indisputable fact". A fact is a fact so a "Fact" is regarded as indisputable.

So you are tellin g me that the ideas presented to explain away issues in these fields are just being presented as facts.

String theory, for example? Is that being presented as a fact?

Can you tell me ANYTHING that is being presented as a fact without having the evidence to support it being factual?

No its actually "Science". The disputes about the so called fact of the Big Bang is scientifically based so therefore its a "fact" that the so called fact of the Big Bang are under dispute and theerfore the Big Bang is not really a fact after all. The same with evolution. The so called claim that evolution is a fact is being disputed by science and not personal opinion.

You do realise that people can have subjective opinions about scientific facts, right?

Maybe it was your insistence of proving objective morality by the science method that gave me that impression. That you were a materialist and that there were no non-material facts/truth.

No, I just have the position that the scientific method is the only way we have to find things that are factual.

OK so you acknowledge that there can be non-material facts/truths. If thats the case then you cannot just dismiss objective morality because it doesn't fit methological naturalism. Therefore you need to be open to other ways of deetrmining truth/facts about reality.

I will be happy to accept any method of determining objective truths about reality - once that method has proven itself to be reliable. But this can not be shown unless we have some of checking the results. I could, after all claim that trees are insects that are made out of liquid, and present a method which confirms that result. You, of course, would say that my conclusion is wrong, but the only way you could do that is to show that a different method gives a different result. If my method was the only way of studying trees, then you would not be able to disagree, since you would have no method which could disagree.

Likewise, we need to use more than one method to study morality. You have presented a method, but that method must be checked against another method in order to determine how accurate it is. So far, the only other method I have seen is the scientific method, and that does not agree with your claims.

You have misunderstood moral language then. Its the fact that moral language demands an objective answer that destinguishes it from other descriptive statements. Your example demands an objective answer "the death penalty"is either right or wrong to do and each option is an objective determination. There is no room for relative/subjective views. Either one side is right and one side is wrong.

And which side is right and which side is wrong?

That is why I said that relative morality is impossible to impliment as a system. Because if we follow it through to its logical conclusion then there are no longer a "right or wrong" moral position to take but rather it opens the door for there to be many truths about human behaviour. That undermines being able to take a position that an act is either "right or wrong". We have to accept that there is no objective deetrmination and all views are equally relevant within that system.

And where's the problem there? We already have that with what movies we like.

The moment one culture claims that an act is wrong not only for themselves but for other cultures as has been happening then that culture is claiming that there is only an objective determination to be made and that is the determination they have made. All other cultures are wrong. Yet the culture that is said to be wrong will also claim that their moral view is right not just for them but for all cultures.

Yes, that's what happens when people act like their subjective opinion is an objective fact. I've said this many times.

We end up with a messy and complicated system and no way of really claiming that an act is really right or wrong in a universal or truthful way in the overall scheme of things.

And the problem is that you are assuming that that there actually is a universal right or wrong. There is not.

 

[childeye 2]

Wrong.

1) If moral non-realism is true, then there are no moral statements that are true, so...

I appreciate what you're saying about this statement. However, this is not the statement I said. I used only the first half. I didn't argue against it, I made a semantical construct out of it to indicate that if there were no morality then there would be no maternal instinct in reality.

Yes, that's the nonsense bit. I know the definition of the word "lie" and that has nothing to do with whether you are or are not a liar.

Instead of "you don't know what a lie is", I should have said, "You should know I'm saying the truth when I say that honesty is a moral virtue, because it's a quality that is admired by a good people". I wasn't defending my opinion; I was defending the objective Truth.

 

[stevevw]

Great! Now pay close attention to the new placement of the quotation marks. So we know that any statement of the form "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." is always false.

What comes after the "then" will always be false, but the statement claims it is true, so the whole statement is false. Always.

Yet I already knew this. As I explained I wasn't talking about a moral action. I was talking about the moral system ie "If moral non-realism is true then people "should" be acting like there are no moral truths".. Its a contingent claim and not a moral claim. Just like if people support Liberals the they "should" be acting like Liberals and not Democrats.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yet I already knew this. As I explained I wasn't talking about a moral action. I was talking about the moral system ie "If moral non-realism is true then people "should" be acting like there are no moral truths".. Its a contingent claim and not a moral claim. Just like if people support Liberals the they "should" be acting like Liberals and not Democrats.

Can you reword these statements for me without using "should" or "ought" so that I can better understand your meaning?

 

[Moral Orel]

I appreciate what you're saying about this statement. However, this is not the statement I said. I used only the first half. I didn't argue against it, I made a semantical construct out of it to indicate that if there were no morality then there would be no maternal instinct in reality.

You used the first part, "If moral non-realism is true" and then you made a moral statement, "then people should eat their children". If moral non-realism is true then that statement is false because all moral statements are false. Your claim, "If moral non-realism is true then people should eat their children" is false.

Instead of "you don't know what a lie is", I should have said, "You should know I'm saying the truth when I say that honesty is a moral virtue, because it's a quality that is admired by a good people".

When people lie, they claim to value the truth. They aren't going to tell you they're lying, now are they?

 

[stevevw]

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no clear evidence for the Big Bang and that there is no way to clearly and precisely describe it?

I am saying the evidence some scientists think confirms the Big Bang doesnt confirm the Big Bang and in fact the evidence contradicts it happening.

The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang
Despite the continuing popularity of the theory, essentially every prediction of the Big Bang theory has been increasingly contradicted by better and better data, as shown by many teams of researchers.
The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang

The Big Bang Never Happened: A Conclusive Argument
This paper provides both logical proof and corroborating scientific evidence that the universe could not have begun from a singularity
The Big Bang Never Happened: A Conclusive Argument

Okay then, tell me this... WHY is rape wrong?

Thats a given, I could ask why do we treat rape as a crime. Why is it condemned by the UN Human Rights and most countries in the world. Why do we say to those cultures that think rape is OK that they are wrong as crimes against humanity. Its obvious "rape" harms humans and denies and disrespects "Life" as being intrinsically valuable.

So you are telling me that the ideas presented to explain away issues in these fields are just being presented as facts.

Its all about the evidence fitting the observations and because current theories are not doing that alternative ideas are presented some of which fit the evdience better and yet scientists choose to stick with the current ideas because they think that this is fact. Like the CBMR is suppose to prove the Big Bang but it doesn't.

String theory, for example? Is that being presented as a fact?

Many scientists think its the best theory to address the many anonomalies in cosmology. The point here is that by scientists coming up with these ideas they are more or less saying the current ideas are not good enough to explain things.

Can you tell me ANYTHING that is being presented as a fact without having the evidence to support it being factual?

Well yes once again ideas like Evolution,
Ernst Mayr observed, "The basic theory of evolution has been confirmed so completely that most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact.
Similarly, biologist Richard Lenski says, "Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory.
Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia
Yet evolution is being disputed as fact.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? | Nature

You do realise that people can have subjective opinions about scientific facts, right?

I have been telling you that since we started debating. Remember the Flat earth example. Despite the earth being a sphere some subjectively think its flat. My point back then was just because people may have subjective views doesn't mean there is no facts about the physical world. Just like if people have subjetcive views about morality doesn't mean there are no moral truths.

You have continually used the fact that morality is not objective but rather relative/subjective because people disagree about morality. You also claimed that science is clear and concise and yet we find with many ideas its not and there is much disagreement even when there are obvious physical support.

So therefore morality can act the same where people agree about obvious moral truths like "don't murder and rape" but may argue and disagree about more complicated moral issues like in science.

No, I just have the position that the scientific method is the only way we have to find things that are factual.

Then I was correct. You think that the only reality is material reality. But you just acknowledged that there can be non-material and verifiable facts/truths with ideas like colours, Math, beauty, happiness, ect.

I will be happy to accept any method of determining objective truths about reality - once that method has proven itself to be reliable. But this can not be shown unless we have some of checking the results. I could, after all claim that trees are insects that are made out of liquid, and present a method which confirms that result. You, of course, would say that my conclusion is wrong, but the only way you could do that is to show that a different method gives a different result. If my method was the only way of studying trees, then you would not be able to disagree, since you would have no method which could disagree.

Likewise, we need to use more than one method to study morality. You have presented a method, but that method must be checked against another method in order to determine how accurate it is. So far, the only other method I have seen is the scientific method, and that does not agree with your claims.

It sounds like your still taking the materialist position and that at the end of the day only the scientific method can verify something. Yet it is widely acknowledged that science cannot answer questions like morality. So the alternative way to support morality is not through science.

That is why I have been pointing out that human experience, assumptions justified by proper beliefs and rationality are how we determine morality. We use this same method for other non-physical facts/truths like in Math, and psychology for example but also in everyday life in how we experience colours, beauty ect are real entities. But even some aspects of science are not verifiable and yet we still accept them.

And which side is right and which side is wrong?

It doesn't matter because either answer is an objective determination. Thats the nature of morality, its either "right or wrong" and doesn't have room for subjective views. Whether a culture says its right or wrong, they are not going to make that determination on a whim. They will have used some objective basis for their determination.

If they happen to conflict and disagree then someone is right and someone is wrong. It doesn't matter who is truely right because either way its objective. We may not be able to work out who is right and who is wrong for some issues. But that doesn't negate that an objective determination is needed.

And where's the problem there? We already have that with what movies we like.

See you keep reverting back to subjective thinking when I clearly explained that preferences, feelings and opinions of the subject are descriptive and not normative like morality. You cannot be wrong for liking a TV show but you can be wrong for raping someone under a normative system.

Yes, that's what happens when people act like their subjective opinion is an objective fact. I've said this many times.

But how do you know this. You are once again appealing to something that you say has no evidence to support it. You are doing the exact same thing you accuse me of doing when trying to support objective morals.

If there was really only subjective morality then first we could say that evryone is acting in contradiction to the subjective system. That in itself is a poor reflection on subjective morlaity. Second as I have said many times now "people don't just act like morality is objective they make it a reality in this world. If morality can only be determined by what we assume and justifiably believe then acting like morality is objective is how morality really is.

Third if people express morals as being a case of getting at something true in the world then it follows that sometimes these expressions are actually true.

And the problem is that you are assuming that that there actually is a universal right or wrong. There is not.

And as you ask me what evidence do you have for this. You have just made a truth claim. See how it works both ways. It seems to me that people cannot help but make morality a case of being objective by the way they act. You may say that what people express is not really how things are but that also undermines any claims you make about morality as well.

If there are no moral absolutes then why does the UN impose moral absolutes in their Human Rights. Why do some cultures condemn other cultures that their moral view is wrong when there is no absolutes. Claiming that another culture is wrong implies that there must be some moral truth that applies to all cultures.

They not only condemn other cultures but take action with things like sanctions and appeals to UN as crimes against humanity. If thats the case then they are acting in contradiction to relative morality which means that each culture is not wrong in any universal way.

 

[stevevw]

Can you reword these statements for me without using "should" or "ought" so that I can better understand your meaning?

Why when "should" is a commonly used word that doesnt always have moral meaning. But nevertheless

"If moral non-realism is true then people "will" be acting like there are no moral truths" just like
"If people support Liberals then they "will" be acting like Liberals and not Democrats.

You could also say "if you want to get healthy then you "ought" to eat well and exercise. When its goal directed we can use "should" or "ought" in relation to that goal.

Some link contingent goal directed behaviour to moral behaviour to overcome the "Is and ought" gap. The goal directed behaviour establishes the facts in relation to that goal and then moral behaviour is measured against those contingent facts.

 

[Moral Orel]

You could also say "if you want to get healthy then you "ought" to eat well and exercise. When its goal directed we can use "should" or "ought" in relation to that goal.

Nope, I was right to begin with. Any statement of the form "People ought to X" is a moral statement, just like we agreed:

"People should..." is a moral statement.

The ... is there so that you can fill in whatever you want. "People should love one another" "People should not murder". For whatever act you put in place of the ... that statement is a moral statement. True or false?

True

Every time you have said some form of "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." you were making a false claim. You're making this statement:

If X is true, then Y is true.

However, as we've established, in reality:

If X is true, then Y is false.

No matter what moral statement you put in for Y.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am saying the evidence some scientists think confirms the Big Bang doesnt confirm the Big Bang and in fact the evidence contradicts it happening.

The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang
Despite the continuing popularity of the theory, essentially every prediction of the Big Bang theory has been increasingly contradicted by better and better data, as shown by many teams of researchers.
The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang

The Big Bang Never Happened: A Conclusive Argument
This paper provides both logical proof and corroborating scientific evidence that the universe could not have begun from a singularity
The Big Bang Never Happened: A Conclusive Argument

Thats a given, I could ask why do we treat rape as a crime. Why is it condemned by the UN Human Rights and most countries in the world. Why do we say to those cultures that think rape is OK that they are wrong as crimes against humanity. Its obvious "rape" harms humans and denies and disrespects "Life" as being intrinsically valuable.

Its all about the evidence fitting the observations and because current theories are not doing that alternative ideas are presented some of which fit the evdience better and yet scientists choose to stick with the current ideas because they think that this is fact. Like the CBMR is suppose to prove the Big Bang but it doesn't.

Many scientists think its the best theory to address the many anonomalies in cosmology. The point here is that by scientists coming up with these ideas they are more or less saying the current ideas are not good enough to explain things.

Well yes once again ideas like Evolution,
Ernst Mayr observed, "The basic theory of evolution has been confirmed so completely that most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact.
Similarly, biologist Richard Lenski says, "Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory.
Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia
Yet evolution is being disputed as fact.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? | Nature

I have been telling you that since we started debating. Remember the Flat earth example. Despite the earth being a sphere some subjectively think its flat. My point back then was just because people may have subjective views doesn't mean there is no facts about the physical world. Just like if people have subjetcive views about morality doesn't mean there are no moral truths.

You have continually used the fact that morality is not objective but rather relative/subjective because people disagree about morality. You also claimed that science is clear and concise and yet we find with many ideas its not and there is much disagreement even when there are obvious physical support.

So therefore morality can act the same where people agree about obvious moral truths like "don't murder and rape" but may argue and disagree about more complicated moral issues like in science.

Then I was correct. You think that the only reality is material reality. But you just acknowledged that there can be non-material and verifiable facts/truths with ideas like colours, Math, beauty, happiness, ect.

It sounds like your still taking the materialist position and that at the end of the day only the scientific method can verify something. Yet it is widely acknowledged that science cannot answer questions like morality. So the alternative way to support morality is not through science.

That is why I have been pointing out that human experience, assumptions justified by proper beliefs and rationality are how we determine morality. We use this same method for other non-physical facts/truths like in Math, and psychology for example but also in everyday life in how we experience colours, beauty ect are real entities. But even some aspects of science are not verifiable and yet we still accept them.

It doesn't matter because either answer is an objective determination. Thats the nature of morality, its either "right or wrong" and doesn't have room for subjective views. Whether a culture says its right or wrong, they are not going to make that determination on a whim. They will have used some objective basis for their determination.

If they happen to conflict and disagree then someone is right and someone is wrong. It doesn't matter who is truely right because either way its objective. We may not be able to work out who is right and who is wrong for some issues. But that doesn't negate that an objective determination is needed.

See you keep reverting back to subjective thinking when I clearly explained that preferences, feelings and opinions of the subject are descriptive and not normative like morality. You cannot be wrong for liking a TV show but you can be wrong for raping someone under a normative system.

But how do you know this. You are once again appealing to something that you say has no evidence to support it. You are doing the exact same thing you accuse me of doing when trying to support objective morals.

If there was really only subjective morality then first we could say that evryone is acting in contradiction to the subjective system. That in itself is a poor reflection on subjective morlaity. Second as I have said many times now "people don't just act like morality is objective they make it a reality in this world. If morality can only be determined by what we assume and justifiably believe then acting like morality is objective is how morality really is.

Third if people express morals as being a case of getting at something true in the world then it follows that sometimes these expressions are actually true.

And as you ask me what evidence do you have for this. You have just made a truth claim. See how it works both ways. It seems to me that people cannot help but make morality a case of being objective by the way they act. You may say that what people express is not really how things are but that also undermines any claims you make about morality as well.

If there are no moral absolutes then why does the UN impose moral absolutes in their Human Rights. Why do some cultures condemn other cultures that their moral view is wrong when there is no absolutes. Claiming that another culture is wrong implies that there must be some moral truth that applies to all cultures.

They not only condemn other cultures but take action with things like sanctions and appeals to UN as crimes against humanity. If thats the case then they are acting in contradiction to relative morality which means that each culture is not wrong in any universal way.

So many errors.

 

[Kylie]

I am saying the evidence some scientists think confirms the Big Bang doesnt confirm the Big Bang and in fact the evidence contradicts it happening.

The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang
Despite the continuing popularity of the theory, essentially every prediction of the Big Bang theory has been increasingly contradicted by better and better data, as shown by many teams of researchers.
The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang

Given that the article here has no attribution whatsoever, I don't see why I should consider any of the arguments it presents as valid.

And anyway, a quick search through the arguments showed that there are proposed solutions for them.

For example, here are some of the proposed solutions for the first: Cosmological lithium problem - Wikipedia

And for the second. Baryon asymmetry - Wikipedia

I mean, even a quick check on Wikipedia shows that these problems are not death knells for the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang Never Happened: A Conclusive Argument

This paper provides both logical proof and corroborating scientific evidence that the universe could not have begun from a singularity
The Big Bang Never Happened: A Conclusive Argument

An article written by this guy: https://ca.linkedin.com/in/david-rowland

Somehow, given the number of wildly different fields he is into, I doubt that he is well versed in any of them.

Thats a given, I could ask why do we treat rape as a crime. Why is it condemned by the UN Human Rights and most countries in the world. Why do we say to those cultures that think rape is OK that they are wrong as crimes against humanity. Its obvious "rape" harms humans and denies and disrespects "Life" as being intrinsically valuable.

Really?

The best answer you've got is, "It just is"?

Its all about the evidence fitting the observations and because current theories are not doing that alternative ideas are presented some of which fit the evdience better and yet scientists choose to stick with the current ideas because they think that this is fact. Like the CBMR is suppose to prove the Big Bang but it doesn't.

Of course, any alternative would have to explain EVERYTHING that the current theories do, as well as or even better than the current theories.

Well yes once again ideas like Evolution,
Ernst Mayr observed, "The basic theory of evolution has been confirmed so completely that most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact.
Similarly, biologist Richard Lenski says, "Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory.
Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia
Yet evolution is being disputed as fact.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? | Nature

Can you show me any reputable scientist in a relevant field who claims that evolution is not the correct explanation for the variety of life? I think you'll find that if there are any, the split between the scientists in relevant fields who accept evolution and those who dispute it is extremely one-sided.

I have been telling you that since we started debating. Remember the Flat earth example. Despite the earth being a sphere some subjectively think its flat. My point back then was just because people may have subjective views doesn't mean there is no facts about the physical world. Just like if people have subjetcive views about morality doesn't mean there are no moral truths.

You have continually used the fact that morality is not objective but rather relative/subjective because people disagree about morality. You also claimed that science is clear and concise and yet we find with many ideas its not and there is much disagreement even when there are obvious physical support.

So therefore morality can act the same where people agree about obvious moral truths like "don't murder and rape" but may argue and disagree about more complicated moral issues like in science.

So if you understand that people can think that something is objectively true when it isn't, why do you refuse to consider that morality may not be objectively true?

Then I was correct. You think that the only reality is material reality. But you just acknowledged that there can be non-material and verifiable facts/truths with ideas like colours, Math, beauty, happiness, ect.

Math is objective, it can be described in the kind of language I've been asking you to provide for morality for ages.

But of course, beauty and happiness are subjective, aren't they? What one person finds beautiful, another may find repulsive.

It sounds like your still taking the materialist position and that at the end of the day only the scientific method can verify something. Yet it is widely acknowledged that science cannot answer questions like morality. So the alternative way to support morality is not through science.

That is why I have been pointing out that human experience, assumptions justified by proper beliefs and rationality are how we determine morality. We use this same method for other non-physical facts/truths like in Math, and psychology for example but also in everyday life in how we experience colours, beauty ect are real entities. But even some aspects of science are not verifiable and yet we still accept them.

But the human experience and assumptions you have been using to claim morality is objective, they're all SUBJECTIVE things.

It doesn't matter because either answer is an objective determination. Thats the nature of morality, its either "right or wrong" and doesn't have room for subjective views. Whether a culture says its right or wrong, they are not going to make that determination on a whim. They will have used some objective basis for their determination.

If they happen to conflict and disagree then someone is right and someone is wrong. It doesn't matter who is truely right because either way its objective. We may not be able to work out who is right and who is wrong for some issues. But that doesn't negate that an objective determination is needed.

Stop avoiding the question.

If morality is really objective, then you should be able to answer the question of whether executing criminals for certain crimes is objectively morally good or objectively morally bad in just the same way that you can say if two plus two is objectively four or objectively five.

Your refusal to answer the question shows that you can't do it - which should not be the case if morality is truly objective as you claim.

See you keep reverting back to subjective thinking when I clearly explained that preferences, feelings and opinions of the subject are descriptive and not normative like morality. You cannot be wrong for liking a TV show but you can be wrong for raping someone under a normative system.

So, in a system where you ought not rape people, raping people is something you ought not do.

That seems rather circular to me.

But how do you know this.

Because when people treat their subjective opinions as objective fact, you get people who disagree with each other and insist that they are right and the other is wrong, and neither of them can provide any actual testable evidence to support their position.

You are once again appealing to something that you say has no evidence to support it. You are doing the exact same thing you accuse me of doing when trying to support objective morals.

Except my explanation fits in better with what we see in reality.

If there was really only subjective morality then first we could say that evryone is acting in contradiction to the subjective system. That in itself is a poor reflection on subjective morlaity.

Do you mean that people acting as though their opinions are objective contradicts the fact that their opinions are subjective?

Well, sure, but there's nothing that says such irrational behaviour is impossible.

Second as I have said many times now "people don't just act like morality is objective they make it a reality in this world. If morality can only be determined by what we assume and justifiably believe then acting like morality is objective is how morality really is.

People can not make a subjective opinion into an objective fact just by wanting it to be objective really hard.

Third if people express morals as being a case of getting at something true in the world then it follows that sometimes these expressions are actually true.

People believing a thing does not mean that thing is real.

And as you ask me what evidence do you have for this. You have just made a truth claim. See how it works both ways.

So what? I was not making a moral statement, was I?

You can't claim that just because some things are objective that morality is also objective.

It seems to me that people cannot help but make morality a case of being objective by the way they act. You may say that what people express is not really how things are but that also undermines any claims you make about morality as well.

How many times do I need to point out that people acting as though their morality is objective doesn't mean it IS objective?

If there are no moral absolutes then why does the UN impose moral absolutes in their Human Rights.

Because we live in a society where such moral views are widely agreed on. I've been saying this for ages.

Why do some cultures condemn other cultures that their moral view is wrong when there is no absolutes.

Because they are acting as though their morality is the objective morality by which all other moral views should be judged. Again, as I've said for ages, this is yet another example of people acting like their subjective opinions are objective fact.

Claiming that another culture is wrong implies that there must be some moral truth that applies to all cultures.

No it doesn't.

If I claim Star Trek is better than Star Wars, does that imply that there must be some objective truth to it that applies to all of fandom?

They not only condemn other cultures but take action with things like sanctions and appeals to UN as crimes against humanity. If thats the case then they are acting in contradiction to relative morality which means that each culture is not wrong in any universal way.

Who says that something must be UNIVERSALLY wrong in order to take action against it?

 

[childeye 2]

You used the first part, "If moral non-realism is true" and then you made a moral statement, "then people should eat their children". If moral non-realism is true then that statement is false because all moral statements are false. Your claim, "If moral non-realism is true then people should eat their children" is false.

Like I said, if moral nonrealism is true, then Maternal instinct would not exist. That's what was meant. Respectfully, you don't get to decide what I mean.

"IF moral non-realism is true all moral statements are false".

It's hypothetical so I don't see how one can claim any objective fact about reality from this statement other than there's this opinion of why/how all moral statements could be false.

"If moral non-realism is false then all moral statements are true?"
That doesn't sound right since not all moral statements are objective. In view of this, I don't see how any determination of whether all moral statements are true or not true could categorically hinge on moral non-realism.

"All Moral statements are false".
This statement implies it's wrong/falsehood to make any claim to ever knowing what is right and wrong. It's a moral statement to begin with, because it uses the term moral as it's subject matter. If it's a true statement that all moral statements are false, then it looks like a false statement according to its own statement. A contradiction to its thesis.

The statement seems to be alluding to statements about opinions of what's right and wrong from a subjective position on what's true or false about objective morality, while at the same time claiming there isn't any objective morality. That makes no sense to me. It sounds like it could simply be saying we don't always agree on what's moral. If that's the case then why not say so?

It looks like sophistry to me. It indicates that morality is not being viewed as a quality of goodness or virtue in mankind, such as caring, kindness, brotherly love, compassion, faithfulness, forthrightness, mercy, honesty. As if the existence of Maternal instinct or compassion is a matter of opinion.

When people lie, they claim to value the truth. They aren't going to tell you they're lying, now are they?

I get that this is what you meant.

Your words above indicate to me that you know lying is objectively wrong. You speak of valuing truth. To value Truth you have to value truthfulness. I take you at your word because I agree, and also because I see cynicism as a hypocritical subjective negative prejudice which we project onto others unfairly. I don't believe that was what you were doing. You were just making a point.

Nonetheless, what I would hope you realize, is that I was not claiming I never lie, nor expecting some respect that I hadn't earned; I was stating the objective Truth that honesty is a good Quality or virtue, in mankind. If I'm a liar in my unfaithfulness to that, it still wouldn't make what I said a lie.