Is there an absolute morality?

[stevevw]

However, the difference is that math and gravity are the same for EVERYONE. No matter who studies it, they always get the same results as everyone else. And it can be described using equations. In the same way, logic can be described using equations.

Morality is nothing like this.

I disagree. I have just given comparisons and they match up well. Despite the fact of Math and Gravity people still disagree and try to breach those laws. Most of the time people fall down is because they are trying to defy the laws of gravity. The same with morality. There are moral truths that no one can dispute like "Rape or Torturing inncocent children for fun is objectively wrong. Anyone who disagrees is mistake and just trying to defy the truth like defying that 2+2=4 or gravity.

There is a clear moral language like Math and the Law of Gravity and the equations themselves don't have any bearing on what is real. Rather it is the laws they represent about reality that we can experience is what makes them real just like morality. So we use specific language to represent a fat or truth about how the world really is.

Moral statements do the same and sometimes they actually get it right because the language is about right and wrong just like laws are either correct or mistaken.

You're attempting to say that apples and golf balls are the same thing because they are both round and are sometimes found sitting underneath trees.

I don't understand what you mean.

We can show that some things about QM are objectively true. That light behaves as a particle and as a wave, for example.

You cannot show ANY objectively true facts about morality. The best you can do is show a statement that nearly everyone agrees with.

But the statements demand an objective determination not just agreement. Its either right or wrong and theres no room for subjective opinions. "Rape is wrong" not because you or I or anyone else says its wrong. The act of rape is wrong itself outside humans subejctive thinking.

No one can say " in my opinion rape is ok as it helps keep certain ethnic races alive" or "rape is ok as a wife is a husbands possession" or any other opinion. But under relative/subjective morality these different views would be tolerated as "different strokes for different folks"

So we can say the moral truth is "Rape is wrong". Thats a fact like Maths. We gradually discovered it by experiencing the effects of what rape does to individuals and societies and thats a fact. So we can stand on that and declare it an objective moral truth.

The question is can YOU see YOUR logical fallacy? You made it out to be that if we don't know ALL the facts then it's worthless. This is the "all or nothing" fallacy. All or nothing fallacy:

Lol so rather than account for your mistaken thinking you make a red herring logical fallacy about my cliam that you made a logical fallacy. You will have to explain where I made such a logical fallacy. Because my claim was a fact in logical arguements.

Ever heard of the saying "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Its more of less the same thing. You cannot assume that because we havn't found any evdience or moral truth that there is no evdience (moral truth) to be found. This does not reduce things down to an all or nothing. In matters that seek evdience , facts or truth a lack of evdience doesn't no facts at all to be found. It just means there these matters involve fact finding and some we have already found some facts and others are yet to be found.

For someone who is not afraid to answer the question, you've certainly been avoiding it a lot. I find this puzzling if what you say is true, particularly since that you actually answering the question would prove your own point.

Prove what point.

But the harm it does depends on the person. Some victims are able to move on with their lives. Other victims are deeply traumatized and find this greatly debilitating. There is no objective measure of the harm that is done.

See how far down the rabbit hole someone has to go to justify relative/subjective morality. Even to try and make out that variations of harm mean we cannot say that "Rape is objectively wrong". Let me ask you if someone from another culture said "rape is good to do" could we say they are just mistaken objectively and there is no way that "rape is good to do" no matter what culture or individual.

The fact is rape harms in one way of another. But its also a violation, a deprevation of libery. Exerting power over another. Its more the psychological harm that causes the most damage for individuals families and society as a whole. If you did not make rape objectively wrong then people could have a case that raping is ok because its culturally conditioned or their upbringing and personal preference.

If someone says, "Star Trek is better than Star Wars because Star Trek is based in science and Star Wars is just fantasy," then that is someone treating their subjective opinion as an objective fact.

That has nothing to do with making a preference objective. Preferences by nature cannot be objective outside the subject no matter what the content is about. All you would be doing is comparing a doco against a fantasy show. People will have preferences for docos and others for fantasy but they are still subjetcive preferences.

What you could say is that one TV show or movie is better than another because it just has better acting, cinamatography, edicting ect. Just like they do in the Oscars. Yes sometimes its subjective like they may Honor certain movie types because its their turn. But basically there are better TV shows than others and thats a fact. BUt then you would be using an objective basis such as measuring acting skills (good and bad actors), measuring cinamatography ect.

If you want other real life examples, how about the parent who kicks their child out of home because they are gay? Is that not the parent treating their subjective opinion (that homosexuality is wrong) as an objective fact?

But then thats an objective basis. Their basis is Gods laws even if its hard to prove God its still using some basis outside the subject and not their "preference or feeling" about homosexuality. Anyone who kicks their child out is going to have an objective basis ie Its causing chaos at home, they are not contributing financialy ect. These are based on objectives like (family stability is important or or a happy family is the basis for health individuals and societies) ect

 

[stevevw]

It does indeed work like that in real life.

So you agree that when people arge about a moral issue they appeal to objectives outside themselves.

Why must there be some independent measure? Again, this is an example of your opinion that morality MUST be objective blinding you to other options. There is no need for an independent measure if morality is subjective, just as their is no independent measure regarding whether STar Trek is better than Star Wars.

But as I have said to you may 30 times now that preferences for TV shows is not the same type of language. Preferences are desriptive of the subject ie "I like", "In my opinion", "I feel". They are all about "I, Me, the subject. Whereas moral statements matter much more than subjective preferences. Morality is normative so we make evalutaions and jusgdemnets about peoples behaviour.

You cannot say that if someone "prefers" peas that they are wrong. So you don't need some independent measure outside the subject because its all about inside the subject. But when it comes to morality because it matters much more and is normative when people disagree they cannot justify their position just by saying "I prefer its wrong" Or "In my opinion its wrong".

People want to take a stand on morals based on some objective measure like with BLM it was racism, or a disagreement about capital punishment will come down to when are we justified to take a life or not.

I've already covered this many times, that sometimes speaking of our subjective views without prefacing them each with, "In my subjective opinion" is just easier. It's the same reason we speak of the sun setting rather than the Earth's rotation carrying us past the terminator and into the Earth's shadow.

I disagree. Morality has a specific language. Its normative and its not descriptive. We speak differently when it comes to morality. Because its normative (about what we should and should not do) we have to speak in terms of there being only a right and wrong answer and not a subjective one because a subjective system would potentially allow for many different answers (views).

You know, passing a law doesn't make it objectively true.

Yes it does as that is how morality works. Making it law states that there is only one option and theres no room for relative/subjective views. Like with the UN Human Rights which makes the mistreatment of women a law in the form of Rights.

So this declares that all cultures even those who mistreat women must abide by these Womens Rights. So no relative moral views are allowed. This makes real the objective law as it is enacted into the world as the absolute truth. It is by the fact that relative views are disallowed which makes it real. Its either relative/subjective or objective.

If they passed a law that said that every person was required to wear a hat while outdoors, would that make it immoral to go hatless?

Like I said these laws and Rights are rational and common sense. They have good reasons to be made objective. They don't make cultures conform to irrational laws or Rights. These righst were born our of the horrible treatment fo humans. So if someone treied to make wearing hats a law associted with the treatment of humans then they better have a good reason because it will be rejected as irrational.

There's more evidence for morality being subjective than there is for the world being a simulation.

The point is you cannot rule out a simulation. According to you there is no real evidence for morality one way or another. What you keep asking me for evdience also applies to you. Yet you claim there is no evidence up to your standard.

So how can there beany evdience according to you. It would just be logical falalcies and maybe some indirect evdience that coule be take other ways as well like disagreement doesn't prove subjective morality and agreement doesn't prove objective morality according to you. We could say in that sense the Simulation has just as much evdience if not more.

But you have entirely missed the point when you compare evdience for simulations and evidence for morality as they are determined differently. I was only using the fact that our intuition of the physical world being is a true/real representation of reality just like our intuition that morality is objective is a good representation of reality. They are both based on assumptions for which we can test when we venture into the world.

 

[childeye 2]

And here are your exact words, thanks for not making me look it back up:
Yep, not mistaken.
childeye 2 said: ↑
you claim to reject objective morality which means you reject honesty

MO, my Bro, you are not hearing me.

So, respectfully, you are misunderstanding what I said. I know what I meant. See the words in bold below. That very bottom line qualifies what I meant, which is this:

You reject honesty as being a virtue, WHEN you reject objective morality.

It therefore does not mean to say, you are a dishonest person because you disagree with objective morality.

AND IF you say "No", how do I know you're not lying since you claim to reject objective morality, which means you reject honesty? This is why morality has to be objective, or it doesn't even exist in reality. By objective morality I mean Love/compassion and all moral virtues.

Please, I don't want you to think bad about me. I want you to see me and know me. See, I was saying he denies all moral virtues exist in reality, and not that they don't exist in him.

 

[stevevw]

Respectfully, you are misunderstanding what I said. I know what I meant. See the words in bold below. That very bottom line qualifies what I meant, which is this:

You reject honesty as being a virtue, WHEN you reject objective morality.

It therefore does not mean to say, you are a dishonest person because you disagree with objective morality.

AND IF you say "No", how do I know you're not lying since you claim to reject objective morality, which means you reject honesty? This is why morality has to be objective, or it doesn't even exist in reality. By objective morality I mean Love/compassion and all moral virtues.

This can also be argued through epistemics. When we argue/debate with someone philosophically and they freely engage in the debate they are implicitly prescribing honesty to the debate. Both parties agree they should not misrepresent arguements with logical fallacies or lie.

Otherwise if you disregard the value of honesty there cannot be a coherent debate and anyone can just make up stuff and the debate breaksdown. So because there are epistemic values and facts about how we gain knowledge this can be interwoven with moral values such as "Honesty". Epistemic facts and values can stand or fall with moral values and facts.

 

[childeye 2]

This can also be argued through epistemics. When we argue/debate with someone philosophically and they freely engage in the debate they are implicitly prescribing honesty to the debate. Both parties agree they should not misrepresent arguements with logical fallacies or lie.

Otherwise if you disregard the value of honesty there cannot be a coherent debate and anyone can just make up stuff and the debate breaksdown. So because there are epistemic values and facts about how we gain knowledge this can be interwoven with moral values such as "Honesty". Epistemic facts and values can stand or fall with moral values and facts.

An Epistemologist and a Linguistics Professor are sitting at a bar. The Epistemologist says to the Professor, "Did you know that we don't actually know anything?" The Professor replies, "So how do you expect me to know that?"

Anyway, I thought it was funny when I first heard it.

 

[Moral Orel]

C'mon, @stevevw
Let's argue a point to it's bitter end before moving on to the next one.

If moral non-realism is true, then then all moral statements are false.
Any form of "People should..." is a moral statement.
Any form of "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." is always false.

You've already acknowledge the premises are true. The argument is valid, the premises are true, so the conclusion must be true.

To argue that there can be moral facts is to change topic. We are assuming that there are no moral facts because that is how if/then statements work.

If I could fly by flapping my arms really hard, then I would sell my car.

You can't argue against that if/then statement by explaining how the laws of physics prevent me from flying by flapping my arms really hard.

If/then statements take the form If H is true, then C is true. Where H is called the "hypothetical" and C is called the "conclusion". The "hypothetical" is assumed to be true and therefore is indisputable.

So do you understand, based on my conclusive argument, that any statement of the form, "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." is always false?

 

[childeye 2]

Now I'm a hypocrite because I disagree with you, lol.

I never said you were a hypocrite.

I said this: "Exactly, which is evidence that moral non-realism is the hypocrisy of cynicism."

If there is no objective morality, then there are no moral virtues. Since it's an unbelief in any moral virtues in humanity, it's a belief that the reality is, everyone is only out for their own skin, or in other words, cynicism.

 

[VirOptimus]

I never said you were a hypocrite.

I said this: "Exactly, which is evidence that moral non-realism is the hypocrisy of cynicism."

If there is no objective morality, then there are no moral virtues. Since it's an unbelief in any moral virtues in humanity, it's a belief that the reality is, everyone is only out for their own skin, or in other words, cynicism.

Thats not how it works.

Learn the basics.

 

[Kylie]

Actually they all say a similar thing that the observations don't match the Big Bang Theory which is one of the fundelmental criterion for scienific verification.

Irrelevant. It's not enough to say that you think something is wrong unless you also propose a better solution that explains things better.

You just need to lok it up. There are many sources with scientists talking about how the current cosmological model cannot unite with QM. I guess thats why ideas like String Theory are being proposed.
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
Relativity v quantum mechanics – the battle for the universe

Yeah, if all you can say is, "Just look it up," then you've got nothing. I don't take homework assignments from you.

It should be you who should be checking his claims, evidence and logical proof as you are the one disputing his work. He states he has evdience so you need to understand that evidence and make a case against it rather than attack the source (Ad Hominem). The paper is peer reviewed and meets the criteria which includes Scientific Rigor. For example the authors claims

Rubbish. If I did this, then I'd have to check the claims of every single kook who made any claims. Some guy says the Earth is flat? Well, I can't just dismiss his claims because of the huge amount of evidence that shows it is roughly spherical! I have to go and check this random guy's claims and disprove them! And then tomorrow when another guy makes essentially the same claim, I have to go and disprove it again!

No, it doesn't work that way.

You wanna hold this guy up as an authority I should respect, it's up to you to show that this guy is actually an authority.

Yes they are. They have reasoned that there is only one moral position to take and relative/subjective views are not allowed even to the point that people and governments will be prosecuted or singled out as breaching these these Rights and Laws.

Because those views are widely agreed on.

Once again, widespread agreement does NOT make something objective.

Then under that logic all scientific claims are "just is" because they are also based on assumptions. The point is they are not a "just is' as in flip a coin or have a uneducated guess. Its a rational and logical determination. ie

No, scientific claims have EVIDENCE.

human "LIfe" is very rare and at present only on earth, we know there is a great loss when a life is gone. It would seem impossible for non-life to create life so this is a very amazing thing. Not valuing life will lead to our destruction. As Life came from none life and doesn't depend on anything else to make it valuable it is intrinsically valuable (it is valuable in itself).

Do you also feel that way about the eradication of smallpox? Was that a great loss? That's even rarer than Human life, after all.

I just did above. Self evident truths are not just based on a whim. They need to be justified and there is a process to do that as explained above. Do you honestly think that entire Nations and world organisation who make Human Rights and "LIfe" an inalienable natural born Right just did that based on an uneducated guess.

Oh please. I can also say it's "self evident" that Star Trek is better than Star Wars.

I already gave you one. The Standard Evolutionary Theory verses the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. There is evidence that the EES fits the evidence better but the SET is still being pushed. Gravity is another. We know that Gravity has already been reformulated with relativity.

Well now relativity is being questioned thanks to QM. Which also brings into question most other theories about reality hense String Theory which is a radical and counter intuitive idea that doesn't meet scientific verification. Yet it is put forward as the best idea to unite physics.

I asked "when you have one."

So you actually have a way to get QM and relativity to agree? Great! Time to go claim your Nobel Prize!

I don't know about that. Take rape or torturing innocent kids. Thats pretty much in line with the shape of the Earth debate. The vast majority agree those acts are objectively wrong just like the vast majoirty think the earth is a sphere.

Ah, but those moral issues aren't representative of morality as a whole, are they? You are committing the Fallacy of Composition, an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. Fallacy of composition - Wikipedia

But if we look at more complex issues like QM, consciousness or causes of personality disorders in psychiartry we will have far more disagreement and may not even be able to find the facts at the time just like with some more complex moral issues. In both cases disagreement and the fact we cannot find agreement or a fact/truth does not follow as with science that there are no facts/truths to find.

But we can never demonstrate a fact unless we have evidence to support it. You have failed to produce any evidence to support objective morality. Any evidence you have presented has been shown wrong.

Which are logical fallacies. You have presented no reasoned arguement to refute moral realism. Thats why I reduce everything down to applying morality to practical real life situations. This is when we see that relative/subjective morality is impossible and impractcial to apply.

Case in point as you acknowledged taking the relative/subjective position would mean having to both declare morality as having not truths while at the same time declaring there are moral truths when we apply them in real life. It doesn't matter if you say people only act that way. The point is they are acting that way and not in a relative/subjective way. That makes it reality because thats how morality works. Humans make it real.

In real life people apply their subjective moral truths. Just like how in real life I apply ther subjective moral truth that Star Trek is better than Star Wars.

Once again, people acting as though their subjective opinion is objective fact doesn't actually make it objective fact. You don't seem to be able to grasp this concept, given the sheer number of time I've had to repeat it.

Yes Math is both invented and discovered. But the point is if its dicovered then there must be some Math facts/truths out there to be found and we just put some language to it to help explain observations.

In that case its even more like morality in that moral truths can be discovered through intuition, logic and reasoning. Moral language is just like Math Language explaining an invisble law or truth of some sort.

Completely different things. When someone presents a mathematic proof, it is carefully examined and can be shown true, and then everyone (who is rational) agrees with it. This has happened with Fermat's Last Theorem, for example, and countless other proofs.

This does NOT happen with morality. So don't pretend they are the same thing.

 

[Kylie]

I disagree. I have just given comparisons and they match up well. Despite the fact of Math and Gravity people still disagree and try to breach those laws. Most of the time people fall down is because they are trying to defy the laws of gravity. The same with morality. There are moral truths that no one can dispute like "Rape or Torturing inncocent children for fun is objectively wrong. Anyone who disagrees is mistake and just trying to defy the truth like defying that 2+2=4 or gravity.

That's hilarious. Please, give an example of someone who knows what they are doing who tried to defy the laws of gravity.

There is a clear moral language like Math and the Law of Gravity and the equations themselves don't have any bearing on what is real. Rather it is the laws they represent about reality that we can experience is what makes them real just like morality. So we use specific language to represent a fat or truth about how the world really is.

If there is, you haven't been able to produce a single example of it.

Moral statements do the same and sometimes they actually get it right because the language is about right and wrong just like laws are either correct or mistaken.

And SOMETIMES they get it right? Ha! You admit that your own claims only SOMETIMES get it right!

Way to shoot yourself in the foot there.

I don't understand what you mean.

You are claiming that since two things share one characteristic in common, then they share ALL characteristics in common. This is a logical fallacy.

But the statements demand an objective determination not just agreement. Its either right or wrong and theres no room for subjective opinions. "Rape is wrong" not because you or I or anyone else says its wrong. The act of rape is wrong itself outside humans subejctive thinking.

Unsupported claim.

No one can say " in my opinion rape is ok as it helps keep certain ethnic races alive" or "rape is ok as a wife is a husbands possession" or any other opinion. But under relative/subjective morality these different views would be tolerated as "different strokes for different folks"

Except people HAVE said those things. The fact that you and I disagree with them doesn't change the fact that those people were as certain that they were correct as you are that you are correct.

So we can say the moral truth is "Rape is wrong". Thats a fact like Maths. We gradually discovered it by experiencing the effects of what rape does to individuals and societies and thats a fact. So we can stand on that and declare it an objective moral truth.

A fact in maths can be proven.

Prove to me that rape is wrong. Please note that simply claiming that everyone says it is wrong is not good enough, since that's the fallacy Argument from popularity.

Lol so rather than account for your mistaken thinking you make a red herring logical fallacy about my cliam that you made a logical fallacy. You will have to explain where I made such a logical fallacy. Because my claim was a fact in logical arguements.

Wher did you make this logical fallacy? Where you said, "We cannot work out all the facts of QM so there is no facts about QM. We cannot find any facts about how life began on earth so there are no facts about how life began on earth. We cannot find the true facts about the Big Bang so theres no true fact about the Big Bang."

Ever heard of the saying "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Its more of less the same thing. You cannot assume that because we havn't found any evdience or moral truth that there is no evdience (moral truth) to be found. This does not reduce things down to an all or nothing. In matters that seek evdience , facts or truth a lack of evdience doesn't no facts at all to be found. It just means there these matters involve fact finding and some we have already found some facts and others are yet to be found.

Ah yes. That old argument is a terrible one.

Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence if such evidence should be there. If I want to know if there's any water in a cup, I don't need to examine every single cubic centimeter of the cup's volume. I just check the bottom of the cup. If there's an absence of evidence for water there, then I can conclude that this is evidence for the absence of water in the rest of the cup. Unless, of course, it was some magical water that could levitate, filling the cup without touching the bottom of it.

In any case, you have not provided any evidence that actually supports your position either, so there's no rational basis for you to conclude that your point of view is the default that we should hold.

Prove what point.

That morality is objective. Did you really forget your own point?

See how far down the rabbit hole someone has to go to justify relative/subjective morality. Even to try and make out that variations of harm mean we cannot say that "Rape is objectively wrong". Let me ask you if someone from another culture said "rape is good to do" could we say they are just mistaken objectively and there is no way that "rape is good to do" no matter what culture or individual.

The fact is rape harms in one way of another. But its also a violation, a deprevation of libery. Exerting power over another. Its more the psychological harm that causes the most damage for individuals families and society as a whole. If you did not make rape objectively wrong then people could have a case that raping is ok because its culturally conditioned or their upbringing and personal preference.

And yet what we see in reality seems to go against this point of view.

Rape cases where the victim is told to drop the charges because if they take it to court, the defense will drag their name through the mud, try to claim that they were a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] who consented to sex and then regretted it after the fact and made a rape claim, and even if there is a conviction, the attacker gets off very leniently.

That has nothing to do with making a preference objective. Preferences by nature cannot be objective outside the subject no matter what the content is about. All you would be doing is comparing a doco against a fantasy show. People will have preferences for docos and others for fantasy but they are still subjetcive preferences.

it has EVERYTHING to do with people treating their personal subjective opinions as objective fact.

What you could say is that one TV show or movie is better than another because it just has better acting, cinamatography, edicting ect. Just like they do in the Oscars. Yes sometimes its subjective like they may Honor certain movie types because its their turn. But basically there are better TV shows than others and thats a fact. BUt then you would be using an objective basis such as measuring acting skills (good and bad actors), measuring cinamatography ect.

Ridiculous. Tell me, what objective measure is there for cinematography? Do people really have conversations like, "Oh yes, the cinematography in that movie was at least a 9.7 of the Deakins meter."

But then thats an objective basis. Their basis is Gods laws even if its hard to prove God its still using some basis outside the subject and not their "preference or feeling" about homosexuality. Anyone who kicks their child out is going to have an objective basis ie Its causing chaos at home, they are not contributing financialy ect. These are based on objectives like (family stability is important or or a happy family is the basis for health individuals and societies) ect

Ah, so the parent who gives their gay child unconditional support and love regardless of their orientation is objectively morally wrong, is that what you are saying?

 

[Kylie]

So you agree that when people arge about a moral issue they appeal to objectives outside themselves.

No, the "that way" I was referring to was the one I presented in post 1079, when I said, "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 said it doesn't work that way in real life (post 1088), and I said it does indeed work that way.

But as I have said to you may 30 times now that preferences for TV shows is not the same type of language. Preferences are desriptive of the subject ie "I like", "In my opinion", "I feel". They are all about "I, Me, the subject. Whereas moral statements matter much more than subjective preferences. Morality is normative so we make evalutaions and jusgdemnets about peoples behaviour.

You cannot say that if someone "prefers" peas that they are wrong. So you don't need some independent measure outside the subject because its all about inside the subject. But when it comes to morality because it matters much more and is normative when people disagree they cannot justify their position just by saying "I prefer its wrong" Or "In my opinion its wrong".

People want to take a stand on morals based on some objective measure like with BLM it was racism, or a disagreement about capital punishment will come down to when are we justified to take a life or not.

I can't remember how many times I've pointed out to you that just because a person acts like their subjective opinion is objective, doesn't mean it IS objective.

I also can't remember how many times I've pointed out that people don't always preface their statements with language like that because it's just plain easier not to, in the same way when we talk of the sun setting, we aren't literally meaning that the sun is moving around a stationary Earth.

You seem to ignore these points constantly. Why?

I disagree. Morality has a specific language. Its normative and its not descriptive. We speak differently when it comes to morality. Because its normative (about what we should and should not do) we have to speak in terms of there being only a right and wrong answer and not a subjective one because a subjective system would potentially allow for many different answers (views).

So what? I've seen Trek vs Wars debates that do the same thing.

Yes it does as that is how morality works. Making it law states that there is only one option and theres no room for relative/subjective views. Like with the UN Human Rights which makes the mistreatment of women a law in the form of Rights.

In Victoria Australia, there is a law that says you are not allowed to change a lightbulb unless you are a qualified electrician. Does that mean the Melbournian who changes their own lightbulb is behaving in a way that is morally wrong?

In Turin, Italy, dog owners are required to walk their dogs three times a day. If a person walks their dog just twice a day, are they abusing the dog?

Or maybe legal laws don't determine the objective nature of reality.

So this declares that all cultures even those who mistreat women must abide by these Womens Rights. So no relative moral views are allowed. This makes real the objective law as it is enacted into the world as the absolute truth. It is by the fact that relative views are disallowed which makes it real. Its either relative/subjective or objective.

So what?

That's little different than saying that everyone who joins the "Star Trek is best" club has to agree that Star Trek is best. There are plenty of cultures in the world that still consider women inferior to men. Why doesn't the UN step in and stop that?

Like I said these laws and Rights are rational and common sense. They have good reasons to be made objective. They don't make cultures conform to irrational laws or Rights. These righst were born our of the horrible treatment fo humans. So if someone treied to make wearing hats a law associted with the treatment of humans then they better have a good reason because it will be rejected as irrational.

Nah, we don't just get to say things are objective because everyone agrees that they should be objective.

The point is you cannot rule out a simulation.

So what? If it were proven that we lived in a simulation, how would your life change?

According to you there is no real evidence for morality one way or another. What you keep asking me for evdience also applies to you. Yet you claim there is no evidence up to your standard.

So how can there beany evdience according to you. It would just be logical falalcies and maybe some indirect evdience that coule be take other ways as well like disagreement doesn't prove subjective morality and agreement doesn't prove objective morality according to you. We could say in that sense the Simulation has just as much evdience if not more.

I would count it as evidence if what we saw actually matched what we would see if morality was indeed objective.

Everyone reaching the same conclusion about a particular moral situation, for example. But we don't see that.

But you have entirely missed the point when you compare evdience for simulations and evidence for morality as they are determined differently. I was only using the fact that our intuition of the physical world being is a true/real representation of reality just like our intuition that morality is objective is a good representation of reality. They are both based on assumptions for which we can test when we venture into the world.

Yet if the real world is just a simulation, then our intuition about the real world is WRONG. So don't tell me that intuition about morality being objective counts as evidence that morality is objective when your own example of intuition shows that it can be mistaken.

 

[stevevw]

C'mon, @stevevw
Let's argue a point to it's bitter end before moving on to the next one.

If moral non-realism is true, then then all moral statements are false.
Any form of "People should..." is a moral statement.
Any form of "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." is always false.

You've already acknowledge the premises are true. The argument is valid, the premises are true, so the conclusion must be true.

To argue that there can be moral facts is to change topic. We are assuming that there are no moral facts because that is how if/then statements work.

If I could fly by flapping my arms really hard, then I would sell my car.

You can't argue against that if/then statement by explaining how the laws of physics prevent me from flying by flapping my arms really hard.

If/then statements take the form If H is true, then C is true. Where H is called the "hypothetical" and C is called the "conclusion". The "hypothetical" is assumed to be true and therefore is indisputable.

So do you understand, based on my conclusive argument, that any statement of the form, "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." is always false?

I am not disputing that. I undertsand there are no moral facts/truths under moral anti-realism. Thats a given as moral antirealism takes the position that moral statements are false. But I find this pointless as we could turn it around and say "If moral realism is true, then then all moral statements are true. Any form of "People should..." is a moral statement.
Any form of "If moral realism is true, then people should..." is always true.

I wasn't disputing that I was disputing that all statements with "Should" in them is a moral statement and gave arguements from others for supporting this ie Phillippa Foot ect.

 

[Moral Orel]

any statement of the form, "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." is always false

I am not disputing that

Okay, good. Now that you know it's always false, you'll stop making that claim, ya?

 

[Moral Orel]

But I find this pointless

You find it pointless for me to point out that a claim you repeat again and again is false? That's the whole point of this subforum.

So again, just so you don't forget:

Orel: Any statement of the form, "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." is always false.
Stevevw: I am not disputing that.

All those times you claimed that if morality was subjective, then people should tolerate other people's behavior, you were wrong, and you'll stop making that mistake in the future. Surely, after having a point proven so soundly, you wouldn't repeat a claim that you know is false, right?

I wasn't disputing that I was disputing that all statements with "Should" in them is a moral statement and gave arguements from others for supporting this ie Phillippa Foot ect.

Tough noogies. We defined "moral statement" and agreed on that definition. No backsies. If you are using "should" or "ought" prescriptively about behavior, then it's a moral statement.

If moral realism is true, then then all moral statements are true

That isn't what moral realism claims, so you're already off to a bad start. C'mon man, that's your position you're misrepresenting. "If moral realism is true, then some moral statements are true".

 

[stevevw]

That's hilarious. Please, give an example of someone who knows what they are doing who tried to defy the laws of gravity.

Every attempt at flying throughout history. Any attempt to climb anything as a profession, any attempt to lift ones body and/or any man made machine off the ground. All these areas are trying to defy gravity even when they know what gravity is through experiencing it.

If there is, you haven't been able to produce a single example of it.

I have many times, I cannot believe you say that which shows you don't undertsand morla language and how it applies. When we say "Rape is wrong" we use specific language. You cannot say "LIking Star Wars is wrong" as its the wrong language. So there is specific language for morality. This represents a truth/fact because the only answers to "Rape is wrong" is either its wrong or right to do. Each of those options are objective because they both are the only answers possible and use an objective measure of some sort outside the subject.

And SOMETIMES they get it right? Ha! You admit that your own claims only SOMETIMES get it right!

No sometimes humans get things wrong. Just because there are moral truths doesný mean that people will find them and get them right every single time. I really think you need to read up on moral realism. Moral realism takes the position that moral statements are either true or false and that sometimes the true statements actually true statements about the world.
Way to shoot yourself in the foot there.

You are claiming that since two things share one characteristic in common, then they share ALL characteristics in common. This is a logical fallacy.

But I never said that. I said Just because we cannot find The facts doesn't mean there are no facts.

Unsupported claim.

So your saying that rape is not wrong outside subjective thinking.

Rape is a traumatic experience that affects the victim in a physical, psychological, and sociological way, Even though the effects and aftermath of rape differentiate among victims, individuals tend to suffer from similar issues found within these three categories.
Effects and aftermath of rape - Wikipedia

THE WRONG OF RAPE
Error - Cookies Turned Off

Except people HAVE said those things. The fact that you and I disagree with them doesn't change the fact that those people were as certain that they were correct as you are that you are correct.

Yes and they were just mistaken, deluded and we tell them that is the case.
A fact in maths can be proven. There is no room for any subjective views about rape in real life. Thats why I keep saying people can claim morals are relative but when we live them out we find they can only work if they are made objective.

Prove to me that rape is wrong. Please note that simply claiming that everyone says it is wrong is not good enough, since that's the fallacy Argument from popularity.

I just did above. But like I said your implying that rape cannot be shown to be wrong. If thats the case then how do we stop rape if we can never tell or say its wrong. Like you just agreeing its wrong is not good enough. We need to have some objective basis outside our personal view to make it wrong for all.

Wher did you make this logical fallacy? Where you said, "We cannot work out all the facts of QM so there is no facts about QM. We cannot find any facts about how life began on earth so there are no facts about how life began on earth. We cannot find the true facts about the Big Bang so theres no true fact about the Big Bang."

I don't think your even following this debate as you don't even remember what you said. You said that "if morality is objective then we should be able to find the answer to whether executing criminals is morally right or wrong".

I said thats a logical fallacy because if we apply the same logic to science then we would have to say because we cannot find the facts/answers to difficult scientific questions then there must not be any facts to find. Your claim was that I was avoiding telling you the facts/answer to your moral situation of the death penalty and therefore if I cannot do this then there must be no objective morals and if I can then I prove objective morals. That in itself is a logical fallacy.

Then rather than address this fallacy you diverted things by making another logical fallacy of a Red Herring that I was saying that this must mean there are no facts at all to find when I never said that. I was using your logic and applying it to science to show it doesn't work.

Ah yes. That old argument is a terrible one.

Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence if such evidence should be there. If I want to know if there's any water in a cup, I don't need to examine every single cubic centimeter of the cup's volume. I just check the bottom of the cup. If there's an absence of evidence for water there, then I can conclude that this is evidence for the absence of water in the rest of the cup. Unless, of course, it was some magical water that could levitate, filling the cup without touching the bottom of it.

In any case, you have not provided any evidence that actually supports your position either, so there's no rational basis for you to conclude that your point of view is the default that we should hold.

Your missing the whole point. Its not about whether there are actually moral facts but rather the general fallacy you are claiming. You were saying that I must prove certain moral situations by providing you with specific answers and facts to prove objective morality. I was saying this is irrelevant as that doesn't prove there there are no objective moral facts just like it would not prove there were no facts about specific scientific issues we find hard to determine factually.

That morality is objective. Did you really forget your own point?

That wasnt the point as explained above so thats why I asked. Nevertheless lets take your logic to its conclusion. So if I failed to show there was an objective moral for a specific moral issue does that disprove objective morality.

And yet what we see in reality seems to go against this point of view.

No in reality we make rape objectively wrong. We don't say that a culture is allowed to rape because thats their relative moral view. Not we say all the way from accross the other side of the world that any culture who claims rape is OK to do is mistaken and objectively wrong as rape is an absolute wrong that applies to all cultures. That is taking an objective/absolute position.

Rape cases where the victim is told to drop the charges because if they take it to court, the defense will drag their name through the mud, try to claim that they were a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] who consented to sex and then regretted it after the fact and made a rape claim, and even if there is a conviction, the attacker gets off very leniently.

Your pumping out the logical fallacies for just about every reply now. Saying that a rape case may not suceed in court doesn't deminish rape being objectively wrong. You creating a Red Herring.

it has EVERYTHING to do with people treating their personal subjective opinions as objective fact.

So how is one TV show objectively better than the other beyond personal subjective views. If I was debating this with you what would you say to prove to me that Star Trek is a better TV show besides your personal view. You can't because preferences have no objective fact outside the subject. If you said to me that Star Wars is a better show I would say, so what thats just your opinion. Can you show me how it is better beyond your opinion. If you cant your claim is just an unsupported assertion.

Ridiculous. Tell me, what objective measure is there for cinematography? Do people really have conversations like, "Oh yes, the cinematography in that movie was at least a 9.7 of the Deakins meter."

Basically Cinematography is about trying to create as realistic a picture as possible with lighting, camera angles and movement ect as in real life or even even to create a mood that matches whats happening in the scene. The more it matches real life and whats happening in the story the better it is.

So therefore movies with poor lighting, film quality, camera angles ect are going to be inferior. Look at a film made on a cheap video with an ametaur compared to a high quality film with experts. If someone has too much lighting when its suppose to be dark and moody will create bad Cinematography compared to someone who matches the scene.

Cinematography comprises all on-screen visual elements, including lighting, framing, composition, camera motion, camera angles, film selection, lens choices, depth of field, zoom, focus, color, exposure, and filtration.

Cinematography sets and supports the overall look and mood of a film’s visual narrative. Each visual element that appears on screen, a.k.a. the mise-en-scène of a film, can serve and enhance the story—so it is the cinematographer’s responsibility to ensure that every element is cohesive and support the story. Filmmakers often choose to spend the majority of their budget on high-quality cinematography to guarantee that the film will look incredible on the big screen.
https://www.masterclass.com/article...s-a-cinematographer-do#what-is-cinematography

Ah, so the parent who gives their gay child unconditional support and love regardless of their orientation is objectively morally wrong, is that what you are saying?

Another logical fallacy Red Herring. Somehow you create a new issue that has nothing to do with what we were talking about. This especially happens when you cannot answer my point and know you are wrong.

If a parent gives their child unconditional love then they have a good reason for doing so and not just because they feel like it or prefer that position. They obvioulsy think being Gay is part of being human and thats an objective basis. The fact that someone else may think being Gay is wrong and uses their own objective basis such as it causes harm doesn't change the fact that both examples are appealing to some objective basis outside themselves. It just means one of them is wrong.

To say that we make moral judgemnets based on a subjective whim like a feeling or opinion is dangerious IMO. We cannot make such impostant decisions without reasoning against some objective measure.

 

[stevevw]

Okay, good. Now that you know it's always false, you'll stop making that claim, ya?

I was merely pointing out that any system like moral non-realism when applied to real life becomes contradictory because people cannot live it out. In other words I was saying it doesn't make sense.

 

[stevevw]

You find it pointless for me to point out that a claim you repeat again and again is false? That's the whole point of this subforum.

So again, just so you don't forget:

Orel: Any statement of the form, "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." is always false.
Stevevw: I am not disputing that.

All those times you claimed that if morality was subjective, then people should tolerate other people's behavior, you were wrong, and you'll stop making that mistake in the future. Surely, after having a point proven so soundly, you wouldn't repeat a claim that you know is false, right?

As I said I realise this and was pointingout the inconsistency with reality which many philosophers agree on and in fact the majority do.

Tough noogies. We defined "moral statement" and agreed on that definition. No backsies. If you are using "should" or "ought" prescriptively about behavior, then it's a moral statement.


That isn't what moral realism claims, so you're already off to a bad start. C'mon man, that's your position you're misrepresenting. "If moral realism is true, then some moral statements are true".

I am using the same logic as you are using for if anti moralism is true.

 

[childeye 2]

Being skeptical isn't being cynical.

I don't see how a moral non-realist is a skeptic. A skeptic tests the waters. A non-realist claims the waters don't even exist.

Being cynical doesn't require being hypocritical or even condemning.

I would think that the distrust of others comes from being betrayed too many times. The world is harsh. People form shells and they don't let people in or reach out, because love hurts. To a cynic morality is a pretense, so a cycle begins where people have to prove they're not guilty before they are innocent and there's always a counter narrative. To simply not see others as ourselves, in a negative prejudice, is objective immoral hypocrisy. I think we all do that in some measure.

I haven't even made an argument as to why all moral statements cannot be true, and yet you're already arguing.

What? I thought your semantical construct of moral statements can't be true based on the premise If moral non-realism is true, was your argument.

Wrong. Moral non-realism claims that there are no true moral statements. That claim is not "true subjectively". It's simply true.

If that's the case, then it simply says there would be no moral statements if there were no objective morality. That's circular reasoning, restating the premise in a different way as a conclusion in support of the premise.

Claiming that there are no true moral statements does not mean that there are no true statements about the subject of morality. That's ludicrous.

Respectfully, it's not ludicrous. It's common sense that you can't logically claim morality is a subject matter about something that doesn't exist in reality. There's a whole vocabulary on this subject that supposedly does not exist. Morality is not just wordplay.

Wrong, they're both false with no contradiction.

In a circular reasoning I can see why you would say that since reality vanished with the word non-real. They're both false because there's no such thing as moral non-realism.

"... then people should believe in moral non-realism"
"... then people should not believe in moral non-realism"

Making stuff up again. All I pointed out was that "One ought to" and "This thing is" are not equal to one another, so your argument was invalid.

When in the premise there exists no morality, then there is no thing to begin with, sooo, should or ought or is, doesn't even factor in.

Logic is always on topic.

Everyone ought to enjoy chocolate ice cream.
Everyone ought not to enjoy chocolate ice cream.

One of them is true, and one of them is false. They are in direct contradiction with one another, so according to you, they cannot both be false. Which one is true?

I claimed objectively moral terminology has a positive/negative aspect, and the negative proves the positive through the reality of it. Honesty/dishonesty, Light/dark.

Ice cream has no negative. I see nothing that would qualify these statements as either true or false. They simply present as opinions or judgments.

No one here claimed to "reject honesty". Most people value honesty. Moral realists say that they value honesty because it should be valued. Moral non-realists say that they value it simply because they like it.

Well, how exactly can a moral non-realist evaluate something that they're claiming is not there? If you deny morality exists objectively, then you deny honesty/dishonesty exists objectively.

According to moral non-realism there is no fact about whether a person ought to be dishonest or honest.

If what you're saying is true here, then a moral non-realist doesn't value honesty as you just claimed earlier.

Talking about abstract concepts as existing or not existing is unnecessarily cumbersome.

Brotherly love is not an abstract concept.

 

[Neogaia777]

Anything you might say is just flat out "wrong", either was, or is, or was, in the past, or might be in the future, etc, "permissible" under the quote/unquote "right" kinds of conditions and/or circumstances, etc...

Even in the Bible, and especially in the OT, it is filled with some of these, etc...

Lot and his daughters for example, is just one I am thinking of right now, etc...

But is "permissible" the same as "right", or else "wrong" maybe, etc...?

In the OT, it would say how certain women were "humbled" because of "rape" also, etc...?

But does that make it "right", etc...? or just temporarily permissible or permitted or allowed under certain circumstances, etc...?

"Killing a disobedient child", etc, and many other things, etc...

Not so black and white as many might think, etc...

We like to think that the morality that we have or feel or sense in ourselves right now, is timeless, or situationless, but the truth is, it is not, nor was it, or is it, or has it always been "ingrained" or "inherent" in humanity or whatever, etc, but we "learned it" "over time", etc, and it is only because of the conditions we are under right now, in the modern day societies and ages and era's, technology and the like, etc, that we feel or have or sense the "morality" that we do right now, etc, but it has not always been, etc, and it might not be or could change drastically in the future as well, etc, especially if society, or the world as we know it right now, all of the sudden changes very, very drastically and suddenly and overnight all of the sudden, etc, because under conditions like that, your own morality will most certainly have to drastically adjust or change, etc, and it's something that I have thought about "a lot", etc, that kind of thing happening overnight, etc, and how I would still be a "moral person" if I had to survive in it, etc... My own "morality" about "killing" for example, would most definitely and most certainly change very much drastically overnight along with the change in the world or society, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

When we were cavemen, and in the animal kingdom, "rape" was not considered "wrong", or at least was "permissible", at or during those times, etc...

Now thank God that we have come a long, long way since then, but those "primal" feelings are still a part of us, and are still with us, etc...

And if you are ever "stripped down" like I have been, you will know, etc...

But my point is that the morality that we have has only come from our advancements, and our advancements only, etc, because before that, there was almost none, etc...

And my other point is/was, strip those advancements away, and the world goes back to very much the way it was long, long ago, etc, when there was almost none, etc...

God Bless!