Is there an absolute morality?

[Moral Orel]

That's what I just said.

It really isn't.

You can't arrive at the moral statements you write via logic and reason and what is true or false in reality

True.

because the morality in reality, things like love/compassion is disallowed, through the pretext of duty.

False.

 

[Kylie]

Its still defying gravity as humans were not meant to fly. Despite understanding the mechanics of flight there is still no clear explanation for how a plane lifts and stays in the air. In some ways its like magic in that the science doesn't explain why this happens.
No One Can Explain Why Planes Stay in the Air

• On a strictly mathematical level, engineers know how to design planes that will stay aloft. But equations don't explain why aerodynamic lift occurs.

No One Can Explain Why Planes Stay in the Air

Are you kidding me?

We can't completely explain how planes fly, therefore it's magic, therefore morality is objective!

So your saying that there is no way to measure rape as being wrong just like we cannot old sayings.

No, I am saying that you are ignoring the many shades of grey. You are treating actions as a binary, they are good or bad, no in between. You don't seem to realise that there are different levels of bad, and different levels of harm caused. And two different rape victims may experience different levels of harm, even if they face practically identical situations.

We have facts that rape causes humans harm in one way of another and affects society. We use those facts to make rape illegal and anyone who claims its OK is mistaken and are objectively wrong even to the point of job losses, ostrazing people from society and denying their freedom. We can only do that if there is some independent evidence that rape is wrong. You even acknowledged one of those measures being that it helps keep society safe and functional.

And when did I ever make any claims to the contrary? But as I've said several times now, some objective components doesn't mean the end result is objective. Particularly when what you are trying to measure is "harm."

Tell me, what units do you measure "harm" in? By what method do you measure it? If you are presented with two people who have been harmed, say a person who has been punched in the face and a person whose pet has been hit by a negligent driver, how do you determine who has been harmed more?

By the way "Blue is Tuesday is based on a fact that the serotonin levels of drug users depletes after drug use where they will feel down (blue) around a couple of days after drug use on the weekend. The Urban dictionary even states this.

the objective of a Blue Tuesday event should reference a genuine occasion without disclosing any actual information of this occasion. The depressed day (or times) you have got within the 72-96 hours after consuming ecstasy.
What does Blue Tuesday Blue Tuesday mean? - All Dictionary

Yeah, I wasn't referring to the drug.

I already gave a number of examples and you keep ignoring them. For example people use to think enslaving blacks was morally OK because they were sub-human. But now we understanding that all humans are equal regardless of race.

That led to a moral truth that all humans are born equal and set the basis for Human Rights and National descrimiation laws. So now we can say that back then people were objectively wrong as we now know the facts better.

But we cannot do that under a relative/subjective morla system as there is no such thing as moral progress for the better. Its just different views whcih are never actually wrong but just different according to times and relative positions.

Your example do not prove objective morality. Everything you have claimed is also perfectly explainable by people having widespread agreement on subjective morality.

Its not just about experiencing something alone but matching that experience to objectives. So we have a theory of Gravity but on paper that means nothing. Explanations in science don't have any actual creative ability to make something fact or real. It has to be observed or experienced. So when we see the effects of gravity and see that they conform to the equations we can then know its fact or real.

The same with morality. We have a theory of objective morality. When we see people and society actually live objectively we can see that theory in reality and then it becomes real. When we see people acting in contradiction to what they claim we can say that the observations don't match reality.

That sounds like new age hippy rambling to me.

"Science can describe something, but that doesn't make it real, man. You gotta experience it before it's real, man!"

But saying something is wrong cannot be determined by agreement alone. You have already acknowledged that there needs to be some measure beyond human subjective thinking such as "it helps society". The question would then be "Why" do you think rape is wrong.

So your argument is, "We can't say something is objectively wrong just because lots of people agree with it. So, if something is objectively wrong, it's objectively wrong."

Again, you are starting with the assumption that morality is objective. You really need to learn how to stop doing that.

As long as you start all your arguments with the premise, "Assume morality is objective," you're never going to be able to understand a different point of view.

And different levels of harm don't mean there is no harm. Your making a logical falalcy that because there is not a clear and consistent level of harm that there is no harm. All the experts agree that rape causes some degree of harm and its not a good thing. The article doesn't say there is no harm but that harm may vary but its all still harm.

I never said there was no harm, did I?

Thats because you have made a straw man and an either and or fallacy by saying that varying harm means no harm. The article still states thatrape causes harm in one way of another. It doesn't say that rape never causes harm.

No, YOU are making a strawman by claiming I said that varying harm means no harm. I never made such a claim.

Your making a logical fallacy again. If we apply your logic to science that we know is about finding objectives would be that because we cannot clearly know the effects of something like Quantum physics or consciousness that there must be no facts to find.

Of course we can look at crime stats and measure the harm. Thats why we have laws and moral norms to stop the disorder and bad efefcts lawlessness would have. These are objective measures.

Then again, I ask you, what units is harm measured in?

And then the person would say how am I deluded. The other person would then have to appeal to some objective measure outside their subjective views to show they are not deluded such as rape being harmful for individuals and society.

They would only have to appeal to some objective measure outside their subjective views if they were presenting a claim that was objective. Since they are not, they are making a SUBJECTIVE claim, there is no requirement for them to do so.

It was more than my personal claim. I supplied independnet evdience that rape is wrong.

No, you supplied evidence that rape causes harm, a fact I have never disagreed with.

My point is that there is no way to predict how much harm a person would suffer if they were subjected to that, because it's SUBJECTIVE. If it was objective, there would be an equation or something, and you could plug all the variables in and out comes a neat little result that tells exactly how much harm would be done. Objective things work that way. Gravity works that way. Ballistic trajectories work that way. I can take an equation, plug in all sorts of number like launch angle, launch speed, air density, are viscosity, wind speed, etc, and out comes a precise figure tell me where the projectile will land.

You want me to believe that morality is objective? Then show me how to do that for rape.

So you don't have any way of qualifying your opinion. So someone could say that rape is morally good and you both have opposing and equal opinions and neither person can say anyone is really right or wrong and there is no way to determine things. Therefore with no independent basis someone who thinks rape is OK is not really doing anything wrong. Seems like a crazy and dangerious way to determine morality.

Someone who thinks rape is okay is not doing anything wrong FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW. From the point of most other people, it will be very wrong indeed.

However, your inability to remove the "Assume morality is objective" premise from your arguments leads you to the conclusion that if someone thinks rape is okay, then it must be okay from a point of view independent from the person who thinks rape is okay. That is an irrational conclusion.

 

[childeye 2]

It really isn't.

You said it is. Look at the record. My presentation that compassion is not a duty, is proven through weeping at the suffering of others. Our bodies were made to experience it. This duty to put on a show of compassion is ridiculous. Compassion is either universal or it's all pretense.

 

[Moral Orel]

You said it is.

I said no such thing. I said a thing, then you imagined up my reasoning for saying that thing, and then you claimed I actually said the thing and it's reason.

I think we're done. This whole bit where I have to clarify things for you because you insist on inventing things for me to say is tiresome. I tried my best to get you to understand the claims being made, but you just don't have the interest. Goodbye.

 

[Kylie]

Which is no different to morality?

You say that only because you assume that morality, like science, MUST be objective. Again, you are biased by your preconceived idea that morality must be objective.

The same as for morality.

And again.

It’s the same thing for the examples I gave such as for slavery. We lacked information that humans were equal regardless of race and once we came to know those facts slavery began to cease. So we can say that back then people did not have all the information and were wrong in the light of that new information. So that alone tells us that morality can progress towards a greater truth with new information.

No, our conclusion that people are equal regardless of race was because our opinion changed.

If you disagree, please tell me what objective information was lacked by those people in the past who though black people were inferior.

The same with executing criminals. I can give some insights like they use to execute people for all sorts of things like stealing and other acts we consider not worthy of execution. So therefore we came to realise that this was not warranted or justified. The punishment was too extreme for such a minor crime. So some objective basis was used to stop execution of criminals for minor matters.

I think it's quite clear I was talking about executing criminals for crimes like rape, murder, etc.

The same logic can apply to execution itself. We can look at the justifications and rational for execution to see if there are any facts that can help us. For example stats showing if execution works, the effects on society if there was no execution. Rationales can be made that for some heinous crimes execution is justified and rational as it is a deterrent and is warranted because of the seriousness of the act.

I am sure that those who determine if execution is rational have asked all these objective questions. The point is we don't just make these determinations based on how we feel or prefer things and it’s not just about consensus as usually when people agree they base that agreement on a common objective basis regardless of what it is.

We can look at reasons for execution more closely to see if there is any rational for it and each culture will have their objective basis be it to stop those acts or because a life for a life is never warranted based on the value of human life.

It's a funny thing, isn't it?

You claim there is an objective morality, so surely there is an objective answer to the question, "Is it right to execute criminals for the crime of rape, murder, etc?"

And yet you dance around the issue and refuse to actual answer it. You can't even give a clear answer with extreme examples!

How does not proving that there is an objective moral determination prove there are not objective morals.

I'm not saying you have proved my point.

I'm saying you have failed to prove yours.

So basically you demanding that I give specifics of a moral issue about how morality its objective has no bearing o whether there are objective morals. Then why even ask if its irrelevant. I have given specific about moral determinations and you just said it doesn't count as its an extreme example. So how do I know you will just continue or are not already just dismissing things out of hand?

I am saying that if you can't give any actual examples of specific objective morality, then you should not expect anyone to believe your claim that morality is objective.

And don't tell me you have given specific examples. All you've ever done is make claims like "rape is wrong" which is not objective, despite the fact that most people agree with it.

Ah when you have no arguement appeal to logical fallacies again. As I said over and over TV shows don't work like morality because morality is normative and preferences for TV shows is not. The fact you keep relying on this fallacy shows you have no arguement.

The fact that something is normative does not mean that it's objective.

The fact is we do condemn other cultures for acts like rape and even place sanctions on them for bad behaviour. We cannot do that with preferences for TV shows. Have you ever seen anyone lose their job for liking Star Wars. But you do see people losing their job for sexual harrassment never mind rape which is far worse. So analogy is based on faulty thinking.

Oh rubbish. Star Wars vs. Star Trek debate ends in knife fight

The only difference is that things like rape etc can be shown to cause harm. But as I've repeatedly stated, that in itself is not enough to make something morally wrong. Remember, something having objective components doesn't make the result objective.

Yet another logical fallacy. Its subject to the evdience. So the evdience may be inconclusive or insufficent or the lawyer did not present a good case. But these factors have nothing to do with whether rape is a crime of not. Likewise it has nothing to do with whether rape is objective or not.

Then produce evidence that rape is objectively morally wrong. Note: evidence that rape causes harm is not evidence that it is morally wrong.

Yet because mmorality is normative we can cite objective measures. ie rape causes harm for individuals and society. Liking Star Trek is not normative and does not cause harm to society that we can measure it.

Liking chocolate is normative. Enjoying sex is normative. Being awake during the day is normative. Living in a society with other people is normative.

Yet if someone does not like chocolate, do we say they are objectively wrong? No.

If someone does not enjoy sex, do we say they are objectively wrong? No.

If someone is awake during the night and sleeping during the day, do we say they are objectively wrong? No.

If someone lives the life of a hermit and leaves society to live in the wilderness alone, do we say they are objectively wrong? No.

Something being normative does not mean it is objectively right.

Are you serious. So I just gave independent evdience for how movies can be objectively measures as better or worse and you still want to throw in objections. For one I am not a film maker so your asking the wrong person. I don't think you are either so anything you say will be unqualified. So why even ask this.

No you didn't. You just presented your subjective opinion as an objective fact.

Nevertheless an expert would have some measure depending on what the scene wanted to achieve. That may be to include all parties the best angle amy be from the side so that we can see both peoples faces. It may be that the director wants to create some mystery about one of the people so an angle from behind that person not showing their face is best.

But all these have objective measures and reasons. What your trying to do is muddy the water by trying to complicate things like we cannot have any measure which is another logical fallacy.

And here's the important bit. Which one the director and the cameraman chooses is a SUBJECTIVE choice.

No cameraman has ever said to a director, "According to my calculations, if we move the camera a foot to the left, the shot will be two fifths of a cinematographic unit better in terms of composition."

And that's because it's not objective.

Like I said its a logical falalcy of an ether or or. Your have created the false dichotomy. I never said that Gods moral law was objectively right. I said that the parents may use Gods law as one way to base morality on. That is their objective measure outside themselves. But other parents may use other objective measures like Human Rights such as equality, anti-descrimination laws, unconditional love ect.

The point is all are using some objective measure and not their personal whims. We could then reason what is the most rational measure. Saying Gods determines objective morality is not a good one for rationality as we cannot even prove God let along that objective morlaity comes from Him. But appeals to Human Rights or anti descrimination laws stands up rationally as we can measure this practcially.

So you are saying that God's law is not automatically morally correct?

So where do we get our absolute morals from if not from God?

 

[stevevw]

Wrong. The reason for choosing the measure is the basis.

How can you say that when you don't even know how they are argued to be an objective.

This isn't even an argument. Why should the measure be what it is?

Doesn't objective mean a measure or grounding beyond the persons subjective thinking.

 

[Moral Orel]

How can you say that when you don't even know how they are argued to be an objective.

Doesn't objective mean a measure or grounding beyond the persons subjective thinking.

Because as far as you've shown, you haven't gone beyond a person's subjective thinking. If it's a person's subjective opinion that X ought to be the goal to strive for, then it doesn't matter if X can be objectively measured.

Here's an objective measure: my bank account. Things that make my bank account get bigger are morally right, and things that make my bank account shrink are morally wrong. I chose that because of my personal feelings about money (I like it a lot... like, a lot a lot). But it can be objectively measured quite easily since it's all numbers. Therefore, you ought to give me $1000. And that's objectively true, because there's an objective measure. In fact, everyone in the world ought to give me all their money all the time.

Or maybe we need a logical reason beyond the subject for choosing what measurement we use, eh?

So again I ask, why should the measure be what it is?

 

[childeye 2]

I said no such thing. I said a thing, then you imagined up my reasoning for saying that thing, and then you claimed I actually said the thing and it's reason.

No, we're simply in agreement here. I agreed with you. I said it first, that ought=duty is purely subjective and disallows for the moral impetus that is objectively real, love/compassion (which is not a product of reasoning, because it's heartfelt by everyone in the reality we all share).

Childeye said:
Ought= Duty

It's set up by default so that it disallows for love/compassion to be the impetus of morality. You can't command someone to love or be kind or weep at the loss.

This duty stuff is just a projection of a subjective self-righteousness, debating over percentages of what should be true for everyone. Yet the actual moral things that are true for everyone in reality, they don't even allow.

Moral Orel said: ↑
All it states is that we can't arrive at the moral statements we write via logic and reason and what is true or false.

Childeye said:
That's what I just said. You can't arrive at the moral statements you write via logic and reason and what is true or false in reality, because the morality in reality, things like love/compassion is disallowed, through the pretext of duty.

I reason that compassion/Love/caring goodness, is an attribute in mankind given by the source of energy that created all things, because we can weep and feel sorrow at the suffering of others. Our bodies are made to experience that, so that's not an opinion, it's the actual way it is, not what it ought to be.

So, I don't reason that I ought to Love God. It's my testimony that sincere worship is drawn out by the object of worship.

 

[stevevw]

So? When did I ever say that morality has no objective components? I have never said that, and indeed I have said the opposite. I have agreed many times that rape causes harm, and this is an objective fact.

However, some objective components does not mean the end result is objective.

I am not sure what you mean, can you elaborate. Objective means the basis for for what determines morality is outside peoples subjective thinking (personal views, feelings and opinions). So if we reason that something is wrong based on an independent measure like harm then this is an objective basis rather than subjective. When you say harm we need to qualify what harm is and this is done by science for which I posted evidence.

Why isn't it good enough?

Because agreement alone doesn't equal being the right thing to do. There are examples of cultures doing immoral acts based on agreement. So agreement alone can lead to moral and immoral acts being regarded as OK.

Yes, that is indeed a problem with viewing morality as objective. You can use it to justify discrimination against those who disagree.

Objective morals are rational and reasoned against not harming humans so can at least be measured against some independent basis. So this stops people going around imposing their subjective view on others.

Descrimination against others can be quickly identified as immoral as it goes against the rationally determined basis that people have rights not to be descrinated against.

But its actually a problem for relative/subjective morality. Thats because under this system a moral vacumn is created because there is no way to measure right from wrong, its all about opinions. So the vacumn usually gets filled with whoever has the most power and they can dictate whatever morals they want without any rational for them or rationalize them according to their personal views.

Yeah, again, you just make the claim there are moral truths. You can't just assume that and then act as if it proves your point.

Its not a problem for objective morality because moral truths are about respecting and protecting humans. Its actually good as we can all know where we stand and we can be justified and confident about what is right and wrong.

But its when people claim that morality is relative/subjective that we lose that stability and assurity because there is no way to independently measure what is right and wrong. Acording to relative/subjective moral systems every person or culture is allowed their own moral truth. But what ends up happening is those in power promote their moral truth as the only truth and sack people for expressing their truth which is hypocritical.

How do you know moral language is correct?

Like I said its based initially on our intuition. When we see someone getting mugged we don't think that is just someone acting out their subjective moral views. Rather we say that is wrong and seek justice. Our intuition is based on these tested experiences of morality. We see that moral in action and see that its always regarded as wrong.
Therefore we are justified to believe that what we experience is correct that its actually wrong.

Yes he does. He does not say, "I think The Book of Boba Fett is bad, but that's my subjective opinion, and you may have a different view, and that's okay."
He says, "It stinks! It's terrible! It's garbage!" He's acting as though his subjective opinion is an objective fact.

Or do you know claim that something is an objective fact IF AND ONLY IF whoever makes the claim also produces a rationale for that claim?

Of course an objective needs to be rationally and logicallydetermined. Otherwise its not objective. Thats why personal opinions cannot determine morality because they are not independently rational.

The critic may have a personal bias against the makers of Boba Fett which skews they view. He gives no rational. Well actually he does but its not very clear when he says he has seen better graphics and more realistic fights on video games. So those claims can be tested against good or bad graphics and what is regarded as good fighting.

If so, then the claim "Rape is wrong" is not an objective fact, because it does not provide any rationale for that claim.

Yes it does. When someone says rape is wrong theyusually base this on some rational ie rape harms women and disrupts society. This can be independntly verified unlike personal opinions.

So what? We can use subjective measures just fine for many things.

Then how can be measure what is right and wrong morally under subjectivity and know that its the better/best thing to do.

So if there's all these "complicated factors", how can anyone bring it down to one single number and claim that's objectively the best?

By rationality. We know certain core morals are rational as they protect and respect humans. Morality is a human endevour bettween humans.

So then you are not claiming that ALL morality is objective? You are claiming that only SOME morality is objective?

No thats a logical fallacy. Just because we cannot exactly find the moral truth for more complicated issues doesn't mean there is no objective. It just means like in science the facts cannot be found just yet but we can get close and may later find the truth/facts.

 

[stevevw]

Are you kidding me?

We can't completely explain how planes fly, therefore it's magic, therefore morality is objective!

I never said that. We were talking about how gravity or Math is experienced in real life as a comparision for how morality is experienced in real life.

No, I am saying that you are ignoring the many shades of grey.

You can only have shades of grey or wrongness if there is an objective to measure the shades of grey.

You are treating actions as a binary, they are good or bad, no in between.

Thats what morality is, its either right or wrong. You cannot be 1/2 wrong. Thats why morality is normative (how we should act as opposed to how we should not act morally.

You don't seem to realise that there are different levels of bad, and different levels of harm caused. And two different rape victims may experience different levels of harm, even if they face practically identical situations.

So how does the fact that people experience harm differently equat to rape causing no harm at all. Rape is also not just about harm but power and control over another which is also wrong when it is not consented.

And when did I ever make any claims to the contrary? But as I've said several times now, some objective components doesn't mean the end result is objective

What does this even mean. Whats an objective component of rape. There is only one objective determination and that is the end result, it harms in one way or another.

Particularly when what you are trying to measure is "harm."

But having different measures of harm doesn't mean that there is no harm at all. Rape harms every victim in some way and thats a fact. To say that someone is only slightly harmed or may handle things better does not equate to rape not being harmful.

Tell me, what units do you measure "harm" in? By what method do you measure it? If you are presented with two people who have been harmed, say a person who has been punched in the face and a person whose pet has been hit by a negligent driver, how do you determine who has been harmed more?

It doesn't matter as harm is harm. To say that someone only got slightly harmed and therefore it doesn't matter is silly. The fact that someone forces someone else to do something they don't want is a violation regardless of the harm done.

Your example do not prove objective morality. Everything you have claimed is also perfectly explainable by people having widespread agreement on subjective morality.

No it cannot be explained by subjective agreement for 2 reasons.
* First as I said agreement alone doesn't lead to something being morally right. Agreement could also lead to something being morally wrong because there is no independent measure.
* Second there is not way to improve morality under a relative/subjective system. So stopping slavery can only be seen as a different view rather than an improved moral. Just like the view that Star Trek is better than Star Wars is not an improvement but rather just a different view.

That sounds like new age hippy rambling to me.

"Science can describe something, but that doesn't make it real, man. You gotta experience it before it's real, man!"

Well its a fact and even science recognises this. If there are no observers of reality then we cannot say anything about reality as there is no one to report back whats happening.

So your argument is, "We can't say something is objectively wrong just because lots of people agree with it. So, if something is objectively wrong, it's objectively wrong."

I think you are purposely ignoring things to bolster your position. I have said many times that agreement alone is not enough and that we must also rationalize things against an objective measure. Thats is why we come to an agreement because we are using an independent measure that everyone recognises is right ie ("Life" is valuable and we should respect and protect human life).

But your objection applies more to you as you have been claiming that morality is determined by agreement alone. So therefore if something is subjectively wrong its because its subjectively wrong. You offer no independent measure of morality so your arguement relies on only agreement.

Again, you are starting with the assumption that morality is objective. You really need to learn how to stop doing that. As long as you start all your arguments with the premise, "Assume morality is objective," you're never going to be able to understand a different point of view.

Why science starts with an assumption. When have I said that the assumption by itself is enough. I have said that we begin with an assumption based on our intuition of how morality is experienced in real life. We see a person getting mugged and we know something is wrong even without knowing the details.

We can then test our assumption by how it pans out in real life. See enough muggings and we have a good basis that mugging people is wrong. We won't see people getting mugged and everyone saying "well thats just our subjective morality works so muggings is ok to do". No we see that its always wrong and there is no room for subjetcive views. We are born with the intuition of right and wrong. We build on that.

I never said there was no harm, did I?

Then if you really believe that rape always causes harm of some sort then we can say that it is objectively true that rape causes harm full stop.

No, YOU are making a strawman by claiming I said that varying harm means no harm. I never made such a claim.

Then why are you making such an issue out of varying levels of harm caused by rape.

Then again, I ask you, what units is harm measured in?

And thats irrelevant as to whether something is right or wrong. Even if its wrong by 1 unit its wrong. But to say that wrongness has units of varying levels means there must be some objective basis to measure those units against. Your own arguement is lending support for my arguement.

They would only have to appeal to some objective measure outside their subjective views if they were presenting a claim that was objective. Since they are not, they are making a SUBJECTIVE claim, there is no requirement for them to do so.

This is a good example of how in reality morality is objective. When 2 people are arguing about whether something is right or wrong they will always eventually appeal to some objective measure. Thats what argueing means, presenting independent evdience for your position. To pretend that we can have arguements about something and disagree about something means there is something to disagree about.

There are epistemic values and facts about how people should argue and hold proper justified beliefs about their moral claims ie don't believe anything without reasoning and independent support, maximize your efforts to find all the facts independently ect). So not using some objective basis is poor arguing and that in itself is wrong epistemically.

No, you supplied evidence that rape causes harm, a fact I have never disagreed with.
My point is that there is no way to predict how much harm a person would suffer if they were subjected to that, because it's SUBJECTIVE.

So as you claimed that "you never said that rape causes no harm", then you have acknowledged it causes harm period. Otherwise you need to argue why a little bit of harm negates rape causing harm objectively.

If it was objective, there would be an equation or something, and you could plug all the variables in and out comes a neat little result that tells exactly how much harm would be done.

So how does a little bit of harm equate to rape not causing harm objectively. Thats why I keep thinking you are trying to equate a small harm as no harm. A small harm is still harm and doesn't negate that rape harms objectively.

Objective things work that way. Gravity works that way. Ballistic trajectories work that way. I can take an equation, plug in all sorts of number like launch angle, launch speed, air density, are viscosity, wind speed, etc, and out comes a precise figure tell me where the projectile will land.

Whats that got to do with the fact that there is either gravity or there isn't gravity. You keep forgetting morality is normative unlike how we measure scientifc objectiuves.

You want me to believe that morality is objective? Then show me how to do that for rape.

So we have scientific measures like with physical and psychologucal harm. You say that there is slight harm which somehow means rape does not cause harm objectively. But slight harm is still harm. Its measured scientifically. We can aslo measure greater harm on that scale but its still harm. Whether its slight or great its still harm objectively.

So here we have varying degrees of harm that is objectively determined by science. Theres your plug in variables and they all show that rape causes harm objectively to a greater or lesser degree. A slight harm is still objectively determined and a slight harm still makes harm an objective fact caused by rape.

Someone who thinks rape is okay is not doing anything wrong FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW. From the point of most other people, it will be very wrong indeed.

So if its just about points of view and points of view do not say anything about whether rape is really wrong outside those points of view then the fact the vast majority view rape as wrong means nothing. Its still an opinion and there is no independnet evidence. Therefore the person with the point of view that thinks rape is OK is no more wrong than the majority who think its wrong.

However, your inability to remove the "Assume morality is objective" premise from your arguments

This is a straw man as I have said that assumption alone is not enough. We need to test that assumption in real life. So your arguement already fails without going any further.

leads you to the conclusion that if someone thinks rape is okay, then it must be okay from a point of view independent from the person who thinks rape is okay. That is an irrational conclusion.

I don't follow what you say here. I am saying that because relative/subjective moral systems have no way of determining what is right and wrong morally that anyone with a view that rape is OK cannot be held to be wrong because there is no way to determine they are wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Because as far as you've shown, you haven't gone beyond a person's subjective thinking. If it's a person's subjective opinion that X ought to be the goal to strive for, then it doesn't matter if X can be objectively measured.

Here's an objective measure: my bank account. Things that make my bank account get bigger are morally right, and things that make my bank account shrink are morally wrong. I chose that because of my personal feelings about money (I like it a lot... like, a lot a lot). But it can be objectively measured quite easily since it's all numbers. Therefore, you ought to give me $1000. And that's objectively true, because there's an objective measure. In fact, everyone in the world ought to give me all their money all the time.

Or maybe we need a logical reason beyond the subject for choosing what measurement we use, eh?

So again I ask, why should the measure be what it is?

But the argument for an objective is not based on subjective thinking. You haven’t even read the articles to understand how an objective base is argued. Basically your objection is about the “Is/Ought” problem. This has been a long time problem but philosophers have made arguments over and around it. What they are saying is that the “is/ought” problem is overrated.

I gave you those arguments and from what I can see you have dismissed them based on an assumption that it cannot be bridged. I can go through them one by one and they are not all about making deriving an “ought” out of an “is”. For example one argument is that there is no “Is/ought problem” to begin with. So I may as well start with this one.

Basically the argument is based on Peter Railton’s reductive naturalism. First a non-moral good is argued

The basic idea of this account is that what is (non-morally) good for a person is what would satisfy their idealised preferences. By ‘idealised preferences’, I mean the preferences they would want themselves to hold if they were ideally rational, and fully informed about all possible considerations and alternative courses of action, ways of living, consequences of different alternatives, etc. This additional element of abstraction enables the account to incorporate the fact that we often don’t know what we actually want, or what would be good for us, and so frequently hold mistaken beliefs about what will satisfy us or be helpful for us.

Then the idea of a non-moral good is argued into moral good by introducing a social dimension.

So, by Railton’s account, the moral good consists in maximising non-moral good from a social point of view, treating the interests of all individuals equally. I think this captures a very significant aspect of morality, which is its intrinsic social, relational dimension. Morality is about incorporating the concerns of others into one’s own decision making, and not privileging one’s own interests over those of others. I think this key aspect of morality is captured very well in Railton’s account, and this acts as a powerful consideration in its favour.

This leads to the argument for how we can derive an “ought” out of an “is” or in this case dissolve the "is/ought" problem.

The author argues that there is no “is/ought” problem because “ought” claims are really “is” claims because under Railton’s reductive naturalism moral claims constitute a particular subset of factual claims about the real world because they are statements about what satisfies as the ideal preferred individual in society, and treating everyone equally. This makes moral claims both “ought” and “is” statements with the former being a subset of the latter.

The argument covers all the objections such as the “Nasty Preferences’ Objection” which covers your objection that any objective basis is still subjectively determined i.e. what if a person prefers a nasty idealized person rather than a good person. This is based on something similar that I have been saying when we incorporate epistemology.

A properly informed and rational person will be in the best position to construct the ideal morally good person as opposed to someone who may think a a child abuser is the ideal person because any rationally informed person who properly investigates things would not want they own life to be that way nor could they really justify their belief that this would be the case.

So the objection is refuted based on a misunderstanding of Railton’s account of non-moral goodness and its extension to moral goodness. It assumes that what someone would prefer now as opposed to a fully informed and instrumentally-rational version of the ideal person they would prefer. So the objection is unwarranted i.e,

This assumption is unwarranted, because precisely the point of introducing such a concept is because the two are often considerably different. If we consider, for instance, the cat torturer or the child molester, we must ask the question: what sort of life would they want themselves to pursue, and what sort of preferences would they desire themselves to have, if they had access to all relevant information about possible alternative lifestyles, approaches to living, sources of meaning, etc? If they could somehow consider all the alternatives and choose carefully which they most preferred, would they still choose child molestation or cat torturing? I consider this to be very unlikely; I just don’t think it is the case that many people would actually find those to be the good life for themselves, if they had proper access to alternatives and the time and mental clarity to consider them. To an extent, this is an empirical question, and one I would welcome further research into. Nonetheless, it seems to me that it is at least highly plausible to argue that at least a sizeable proportion of cases of ‘objectionable preferences’ would be eliminated by simply considering idealised, rather than actual, preferences.
How to get an Ought from an Is

The article also covers “Moores Open Question”, Rationality and reasons to be moral, moral motivation and obligation, addresses Relativism and Subjectivism so I think it gives a good conclusive case for naturalising morality to derive facts which we can then use to measure what is better/best moral behaviour as opposed to other behaviours that may be less ideal for oneself.

 

[Moral Orel]

You haven't established that anyone chose these measures based on anything other than their personal whim. Why should the measure be what it is?

Its still an objective basis to measure morality.

Wrong. The reason for choosing the measure is the basis.

But the argument for an objective is not based on subjective thinking.

It took way too long, but now you see that my question was valid all along. What should the measure be, and where's the argument that proves it? You wrote an entirely too lengthy post stating that you can answer the question. I want to see you do it.

If your arguments are right, then we now know what measure we should all use. So what is it? And why should we use that measure?

And please try to put it into an at least semi-formal argument.

 

[stevevw]

It took way too long, but now you see that my question was valid all along. What should the measure be, and where's the argument that proves it? You wrote an entirely too lengthy post stating that you can answer the question. I want to see you do it.

If your arguments are right, then we now know what measure we should all use. So what is it? And why should we use that measure?

And please try to put it into an at least semi-formal argument.

I linked the main points of that article so you could see the arguement as most people don't bother to read links.

you said
You haven't established that anyone chose these measures based on anything other than their personal whim. Why should the measure be what it is?

As the article argues that morality is not based on subjective thinking because according to Railton’s account, the moral good consists in maximising non-moral good from a social point of view, treating the interests of all individuals equally. This incorporates an intrinsic social, relational dimension for measuring non-moral good and seperates it from moral good for which we can derive facts from.

So it dissolves the "is and ought" problem because we are not even using morality to determine what is morally good but rather a socially constructed non-moral good which we can get facts from.

Because there is a difference in a socially idealized good person based on what a fully rational and informed person would prefer for themselves as opposed to what someone prefers now (subjective views). It is argued that people are not calable of knowing what is best for themselves so using the socially constructed good person they can compare what they think is a morally good person (subjective) to the idealized good person rationally determine on all the possible information (facts).

If the person knows all the information about their subjective preferences and the idealized preferred good person they could not rationally claim that their preference was the best morally.

 

[Kylie]

I am not sure what you mean, can you elaborate. Objective means the basis for for what determines morality is outside peoples subjective thinking (personal views, feelings and opinions). So if we reason that something is wrong based on an independent measure like harm then this is an objective basis rather than subjective. When you say harm we need to qualify what harm is and this is done by science for which I posted evidence.

I believe I have been quite clear.

Does rape cause harm? Yes. This is clear, and I will not dispute it.

Does the fact that rape objectively causes harm mean that the morality of rape is also objective? No.

Just because one component of rape has some objective sense, doesn't mean that a different part of it is also objective.

You can not judge the end result to be the same as one of the components.

Another example...

If I get a box and fill it with stones of different sizes, some big, some small, some of medium size, and then I randomly shake it, I will find that even though the input was random, the outcome is not. As the stones move, gaps open up between them, and the smaller stones fall through these gaps. So, the end result will be that the stones are sorted by size with the smaller stones on the bottom and the largest stones on the top. But the movement of the box was completely random.

So, in just the same way that a random component doesn't mean the end result is random, an objective component of rape doesn't mean that the morality of rape is objective.

Because agreement alone doesn't equal being the right thing to do. There are examples of cultures doing immoral acts based on agreement. So agreement alone can lead to moral and immoral acts being regarded as OK.

Then this destroys your "lived experience" argument for morality being objective.

You can't claim that a lived experience is evidence supporting your position and then turn around and say the lived experience of cultures who act in ways you don't approve of is invalid as evidence. Lived experience is either valid or invalid. You don't get to pick and choose depending on whether you like what it is evidence for.

Objective morals are rational and are reasoned against not harming humans so can at least be measured against some independent basis.

Its actually a problem for relative/subjective morality. Thats because under this system a moral vacumn is created because there is no way to measure right from wrong, its all about opinions. So the vacumn usually gets filled with whoever has the most power and they can dictate whatever morals they want without any rational for them or rationalize them according to their personal views.

Except how are we to judge what does the most harm, since how much harm a person will experience is entirely subjective? And what if the only option is between two different kinds of harm? Let's say there has been an accident and there's an injured person. They are going to be badly burned but you can pull them to safety. However, if you move them, you will damaged their spinal chord and they'll never walk again. Do you leave them where they are so they can walk, but leave them hideously burned and with any number of other health issues, or do you move them, meaning they'll never walk again, but also saving them from the health issues that would have come with the severe burns? What is the objective morality there? (No doubt you are going to say it's unanswerable because there are two many variables, or some nonsense like that.)

Its not a problem for objective morality because moral truths are about respecting and protecting humans. Its actually good as we can all know where we stand and we can be justified and confident about what is right and wrong.

But its when people claim that morality is relative/subjective that we lose that stability and assurity because there is no way to independently measure what is right and wrong. Acording to relative/subjective moral systems every person or culture is allowed their own moral truth. But what ends up happening is those in power promote their moral truth as the only truth and sack people for expressing their truth which is hypocritical.

If this is true, then you should have no problem answering my hypothetical scenario.

Like I said its based initially on our intuition. When we see someone getting mugged we don't think that is just someone acting out their subjective moral views. Rather we say that is wrong and seek justice. Our intuition is based on these tested experiences of morality. We see that moral in action and see that its always regarded as wrong.
Therefore we are justified to believe that what we experience is correct that its actually wrong.

No, when we see a person getting mugged, we respond with EMPATHY and decide that if we were getting mugged we would not want it to be happening, and also that we would want someone to come to our aid, and so we are driven to go to the victim's aid.

This fits in PERFECTLY with what I have been saying - that our moral views have been shaped by what is most beneficial for our societies. Our societies are benefitted most by everyone working to aid others when they are in trouble.

Of course an objective needs to be rationally and logicallydetermined. Otherwise its not objective. Thats why personal opinions cannot determine morality because they are not independently rational.

The critic may have a personal bias against the makers of Boba Fett which skews they view. He gives no rational. Well actually he does but its not very clear when he says he has seen better graphics and more realistic fights on video games. So those claims can be tested against good or bad graphics and what is regarded as good fighting.

And by what units do you measure the quality of CGI animation?

Yes it does. When someone says rape is wrong theyusually base this on some rational ie rape harms women and disrupts society. This can be independntly verified unlike personal opinions.

If your argument is "X causes harm, therefore X is morally wrong," then people who enjoy being spanked are morally wrong. People who listen to loud music are morally wrong. And, I should note, people who are gay are NOT morally wrong, at least by this reasoning.

Are you prepared to say that listening to loud music (even through headphones so you are not bothering anyone else) is morally wrong?

Then how can be measure what is right and wrong morally under subjectivity and know that its the better/best thing to do.

We base it on our opinion. "In my opinion, it is morally wrong to do such-and-such."

I have been saying this for ages.

By rationality. We know certain core morals are rational as they protect and respect humans. Morality is a human endevour bettween humans.

What constitutes respect is subjective. In some cultures it is disrespectful to burp after eating, in other cultures it is disrespectful not to. 10 Rude Manners That Are Actually Polite in Other Countries

No thats a logical fallacy. Just because we cannot exactly find the moral truth for more complicated issues doesn't mean there is no objective. It just means like in science the facts cannot be found just yet but we can get close and may later find the truth/facts.

Could you please just answer the question clearly?

1. Morality is not objective at all.
2. Some morality is objective, but not all of it is.
3. All morality is objective.

Which do you hold? Option 1, 2, or 3?

 

[Kylie]

I never said that. We were talking about how gravity or Math is experienced in real life as a comparision for how morality is experienced in real life.

The laws of the universe are real even if we don't experience them.

You can only have shades of grey or wrongness if there is an objective to measure the shades of grey.

Rubbish.

Battlefield Earth is a terrible movie, in my opinion. The Abyss is an amazing movie in my opinion. Starship Troopers is a decent movie in my opinion.

My opinions about the quality of these movies is obviously my subjective point of view. By your logic, since I have no OBVJECTIVE measure to determine the quality, I should not be able to say that Starship Troopers is better than Battlefield Earth, but not as good as The Abyss.

Clearly your argument is incorrect.

Thats what morality is, its either right or wrong. You cannot be 1/2 wrong. Thats why morality is normative (how we should act as opposed to how we should not act morally. So how does the fact that people experience harm differently equat to rape causing no harm at all. Rape is also not just about harm but power and control over another which is also wrong when it is not consented.

Then by your logic, since stealing a candy bar is morally wrong and murder is morally wrong, stealing a candy bar is just as bad as murder. You said it yourself! It's either right or wrong!

What does this even mean. Whats an objective component of rape.

I was quite clear. The fact that it causes harm to the victim.

There is only one objective determination and that is the end result, it harms in one way or another. But having different measures of harm doesn't mean that there is no harm at all. Rape harms every victim in some way and thats a fact. To say that someone is only slightly harmed or may handle things better does not equate to rape not being harmful.

The harm caused is not the measure of morality. Even if it was, how do you objectively determine the harm caused? What units do you measure it in? How do you determine if one rape victim was harmed more than another?

It doesn't matter as harm is harm. To say that someone only got slightly harmed and therefore it doesn't matter is silly. The fact that someone forces someone else to do something they don't want is a violation regardless of the harm done.

So again, this leads to the conclusion that stealing candy is as bad as murder.

Stealing is wrong, murder is wrong. By your own argument, it's either right or wrong, and both are wrong. You said, "You cannot be 1/2 wrong." So you do not look at the degree of wrongness, since according to you there are no degrees. It's either right or wrong.

And now you are making the same argument regarding harm! Your arguments are leading to ludicrous results.

No it cannot be explained by subjective agreement for 2 reasons.
* First as I said agreement alone doesn't lead to something being morally right. Agreement could also lead to something being morally wrong because there is no independent measure.

And that's why we have laws about the age of consent. We decided to agree that it is morally wrong for a person under a particular age to have sex. That came about precisely because of the agreement you decry here. And yes, it's subjective, because there is no objective answer to hold old someone needs to be before they are mature enough to have sex. It's literally different for each person. We used a SUBJECTIVE OPINION to decide on an age which works well for most cases.

* Second there is not way to improve morality under a relative/subjective system. So stopping slavery can only be seen as a different view rather than an improved moral. Just like the view that Star Trek is better than Star Wars is not an improvement but rather just a different view.

What are you talking, improving something that is objective? That's like improving the objective fact that addition always results in a result that is higher than either of the two numbers being added together.

Well its a fact and even science recognises this. If there are no observers of reality then we cannot say anything about reality as there is no one to report back whats happening.

Rubbish.

No one has observed the surface of any exoplanets, yet it is an objective fact that the surfaces of those planets actually exist.

I think you are purposely ignoring things to bolster your position. I have said many times that agreement alone is not enough and that we must also rationalize things against an objective measure. Thats is why we come to an agreement because we are using an independent measure that everyone recognises is right ie ("Life" is valuable and we should respect and protect human life).

Then show me this objective measure that you use for morality!

But your objection applies more to you as you have been claiming that morality is determined by agreement alone. So therefore if something is subjectively wrong its because its subjectively wrong. You offer no independent measure of morality so your arguement relies on only agreement.

Yes, that's how subjective things work.

Once again, your insistence on having objective morality leads to your confusion. You conclude that subjective morality can't work because it's not objective.

Why science starts with an assumption. When have I said that the assumption by itself is enough. I have said that we begin with an assumption based on our intuition of how morality is experienced in real life. We see a person getting mugged and we know something is wrong even without knowing the details.

We can then test our assumption by how it pans out in real life. See enough muggings and we have a good basis that mugging people is wrong. We won't see people getting mugged and everyone saying "well thats just our subjective morality works so muggings is ok to do". No we see that its always wrong and there is no room for subjetcive views. We are born with the intuition of right and wrong. We build on that.

Ah, so if you caught the guy who just robbed the little old lady of her rent money, you wouldn't forcibly take it back from him? For someone who wasn't aware of the situation, they'd say you were mugging him, wouldn't they?

Then if you really believe that rape always causes harm of some sort then we can say that it is objectively true that rape causes harm full stop.

Sure.

But "causes harm" is not the same thing as "morally bad" is it?

Then why are you making such an issue out of varying levels of harm caused by rape.

Because the perceived morality of something depends a great deal on how much harm was done.

Action A causes very little harm, and the person who received the action was able to live their life practically unaffected.
Action B left the person with severe emotional trauma, and they had recurring mental helth problems for many years afterwards.

Sure you would say Action B was, morally speaking, worse than Action A, right?

And thats irrelevant as to whether something is right or wrong. Even if its wrong by 1 unit its wrong. But to say that wrongness has units of varying levels means there must be some objective basis to measure those units against. Your own arguement is lending support for my arguement.

Oh, stop with this ridiculous line of reasoning. I've already pointed out that it leads to the conclusion that theft of candy is just as bad as murder.

This is a good example of how in reality morality is objective. When 2 people are arguing about whether something is right or wrong they will always eventually appeal to some objective measure. Thats what argueing means, presenting independent evdience for your position. To pretend that we can have arguements about something and disagree about something means there is something to disagree about.

There are epistemic values and facts about how people should argue and hold proper justified beliefs about their moral claims ie don't believe anything without reasoning and independent support, maximize your efforts to find all the facts independently ect). So not using some objective basis is poor arguing and that in itself is wrong epistemically.

They can only do that if they are arguing about something that is objective. If they are arguing about something that is subjective, they can't rely on an outside measure because there is none.

So as you claimed that "you never said that rape causes no harm", then you have acknowledged it causes harm period. Otherwise you need to argue why a little bit of harm negates rape causing harm objectively.

What in the world are you talking about? Where did I say that a little bit of harm means rape doesn't cause harm?

Just stop with the strawman arguments, would you?

So how does a little bit of harm equate to rape not causing harm objectively. Thats why I keep thinking you are trying to equate a small harm as no harm. A small harm is still harm and doesn't negate that rape harms objectively.

Where in the world did you get the crazy, ridiculous notion that I ever said a small amount of harm means it's no harm?

Whats that got to do with the fact that there is either gravity or there isn't gravity. You keep forgetting morality is normative unlike how we measure scientifc objectiuves.

Good luck then, trying to use the same value for gravity on the moon that you use on Earth. Your results are going to be way off.

Gravity is not an on/off thing. It has different strengths. Seriously, this is basic science. If you don't grasp this, then an actual debate might not be the best place for you.

So we have scientific measures like with physical and psychologucal harm.

And what units do we use to measure harm?

You say that there is slight harm which somehow means rape does not cause harm objectively.

I never said that, and your repeated claims that I did are lies and are beginning to really tick me off. If you are going to continue to lie to me about what I said, then I will report you.

But slight harm is still harm. Its measured scientifically. We can aslo measure greater harm on that scale but its still harm. Whether its slight or great its still harm objectively.

Again, what units is harm measured in?

So here we have varying degrees of harm that is objectively determined by science. Theres your plug in variables and they all show that rape causes harm objectively to a greater or lesser degree. A slight harm is still objectively determined and a slight harm still makes harm an objective fact caused by rape.

Once again: What units is harm measured in?

So if its just about points of view and points of view do not say anything about whether rape is really wrong outside those points of view then the fact the vast majority view rape as wrong means nothing. Its still an opinion and there is no independnet evidence. Therefore the person with the point of view that thinks rape is OK is no more wrong than the majority who think its wrong.

A person thinking that rape is okay does NOT mean I have to agree with them, and it does NOT mean that I have to sit by and do nothing if I catch them in the act of raping someone. I honestly don't understand why you think that this is only possible with things that are objective.

This is a straw man as I have said that assumption alone is not enough. We need to test that assumption in real life. So your arguement already fails without going any further.

And yet your arguments are consistent with that assumption being made.

I don't follow what you say here. I am saying that because relative/subjective moral systems have no way of determining what is right and wrong morally that anyone with a view that rape is OK cannot be held to be wrong because there is no way to determine they are wrong.

They can be held accountable if they are forcing someone to participate against their will. And I have already said that I agree that rape causes harm. So I conclude that the rapist is morally wrong because it involves someone against their will and it causes harm.

I reach this conclusion based on my subjective opinion of:

1. How much the victim doesn't want to be involved
2. How much harm the victim experiences

 

[stevevw]

I believe I have been quite clear.

Does rape cause harm? Yes. This is clear, and I will not dispute it.

Does the fact that rape objectively causes harm mean that the morality of rape is also objective? No.

Just because one component of rape has some objective sense, doesn't mean that a different part of it is also objective.

You can not judge the end result to be the same as one of the components.

You've lost me. Not sure what you are trying to say. Can you explain this
Just because one component of rape has some objective sense, doesn't mean that a different part of it is also objective.

Another example...

If I get a box and fill it with stones of different sizes, some big, some small, some of medium size, and then I randomly shake it, I will find that even though the input was random, the outcome is not. As the stones move, gaps open up between them, and the smaller stones fall through these gaps. So, the end result will be that the stones are sorted by size with the smaller stones on the bottom and the largest stones on the top. But the movement of the box was completely random.

So, in just the same way that a random component doesn't mean the end result is random, an objective component of rape doesn't mean that the morality of rape is objective.

I still don't follow. A box of stones has nothing to do with morality or rape. Rape is not random in that its a specific and willful act. If that act causes objective harm and harming humans disrespects the value of humans then its objectively wrong as measured against respecting and protecting humans.

Then this destroys your "lived experience" argument for morality being objective.

You can't claim that a lived experience is evidence supporting your position and then turn around and say the lived experience of cultures who act in ways you don't approve of is invalid as evidence. Lived experience is either valid or invalid. You don't get to pick and choose depending on whether you like what it is evidence for.

Once again I don't understand your logic here. I said that your claim that moral agreement is because of how societies are conditioned and therefore is not because of objective morality fails because moral agreement alone can lead to immoral acts.

What has that got to do with lived experience. Lived moral experience is not about agreement but what actually happens in a moral situation and how we observe that and form justified beliefs about morality. We experience rape for example as being wrong. We never experience someone raping and walking away like its just a normal subjective/relative view people take.

So we can justify our belief that rape is always wrong because people always treat it as wrong and will never act like its subjectively OK to do.

Except how are we to judge what does the most harm, since how much harm a person will experience is entirely subjective?

How people experience harm does not negate that there is some harm done. So any harm done is wrong. But its not just about physical or psychological harm. Rape is also about a deprevation of Rights, consent, power imbalance. So we have a number of ways we ca establish rape as devaluing and disrespecting humans for which we all have acknowledged as valuable.

And what if the only option is between two different kinds of harm? Let's say there has been an accident and there's an injured person. They are going to be badly burned but you can pull them to safety. However, if you move them, you will damaged their spinal chord and they'll never walk again. Do you leave them where they are so they can walk, but leave them hideously burned and with any number of other health issues, or do you move them, meaning they'll never walk again, but also saving them from the health issues that would have come with the severe burns? What is the objective morality there? (No doubt you are going to say it's unanswerable because there are two many variables, or some nonsense like that.)

And if its unanswerable how does that show that there are no moral truths.

First you are creating strawman arguements with all these examples. You are also talking in hindsight and anyone facing this situation does not know what the outcome will exactly be. For example leaving the person in a burning car may kill them rather than them surviving to live with the scars. So the options may be life or death and more stark.

This example is a bit like all the other ones you throw up in an attempt to show that there are no moral truths but none actually prove there is no moral truths if not answerd. Your creating the scenarios and then being the judge as well for which you could be biased. Who are you to start determining the fate of others without consulting the person involved bassed on your subjective thinking.

But nevertheless like with the execution issue we can derive some facts. Its a moral imperative that we should try to save people. They may end up crippled or burnt but who says that you can allow them to die based on what you think. Any rational person would try to save others.

If this is true, then you should have no problem answering my hypothetical scenario.

So how about replying to the reply rather than dismissing it with another logical fallacy.

No, when we see a person getting mugged, we respond with EMPATHY and decide that if we were getting mugged we would not want it to be happening, and also that we would want someone to come to our aid, and so we are driven to go to the victim's aid.

Which is an objective basis for measuring what is right and wrong behaviour.

This fits in PERFECTLY with what I have been saying - that our moral views have been shaped by what is most beneficial for our societies. Our societies are benefitted most by everyone working to aid others when they are in trouble.

Which is an objective basis. Its removed from subjective thinking (personal opinions and preferences) because it sets a standard based on what is best for society. If someone says I subjectively think that what is best for society is rubbish and I will do my own thing we can then refer to that objective measure and say no you are wrong because its not best for society.

And by what units do you measure the quality of CGI animation?

First do you think CGI animation has improved over the years. If we compared CGI animation 20 years ago to todays quality would there be an increase in quality. If so this shows there is poor and good quality CGI animation we can compare.

The same prinicple applies when comparing todays CGI animation. There will be inferior quality compared to very good quality. This will be partly because of better technology but also because animators have improved their skills and knowledge. As far as the specific measures go I am sure there are benchmarks that show better CGI animation than others.

If your argument is "X causes harm, therefore X is morally wrong," then people who enjoy being spanked are morally wrong. People who listen to loud music are morally wrong. And, I should note, people who are gay are NOT morally wrong, at least by this reasoning.

Not sure why you put the last one. But it also depends on context and I have told you this before. Comparing rape to consensual sex is completely different.

Are you prepared to say that listening to loud music (even through headphones so you are not bothering anyone else) is morally wrong?

Any wrong doing is not just about the act but the intention. If you did not mean to kill someone that is different to intentially killing someone out of revenge or selfish reasons. The same with harm. If someome is not intending to hurt someone out of self interest and the other person consents then how can it be harm in the first place.

This is where rationality and logic comes in. We can reason these things out. I think Sam Harris covers this in the Moral Landscape.

We base it on our opinion. "In my opinion, it is morally wrong to do such-and-such."

I have been saying this for ages.

And I keep showing how this is faulty reasoning because with that logic an opposite opinion to you is just as worthy an opinion for determining morality because there is no way to work out who is actually correct. So 2 people argueing the morality of rape. Person (a) says in my opinion rape is wrong and person (b) says no in my opinion is OK.

If we leave it at that how can we tell who is correct without any independnet measure of what is right and wrong. Both moral views are relavant because its all about personal opinions and personal opinions are never morlaly wrong, they are just different.

What constitutes respect is subjective. In some cultures it is disrespectful to burp after eating, in other cultures it is disrespectful not to. 10 Rude Manners That Are Actually Polite in Other Countries

Burping is not about morality its about social etiquette.

But lets transfer this to morality. What happens is that people think differences understanding the facts about how to apply morality in different cultures is actually about the morals themselves when its not. For example different cultures greet people differently. Greeting someone with respect and friendship is a moral.

So some cultures kiss each other when greeting while others shake hands. Some people would be offended by a kiss or if they did not bow when greeted. But the reality is we all have the same moral truth that greeting someone should be respectful and friendly. We just happen to apply that moral truth differently.

Could you please just answer the question clearly?

1. Morality is not objective at all.
2. Some morality is objective, but not all of it is.
3. All morality is objective.

Which do you hold? Option 1, 2, or 3?

I choose Option (3) and option (3) is not affected if we cannot find all the specific moral truths about every situation. Just like in science is not affected if we cannot find all the facts it doesn't mean that science is not objective or that there is no objective to find.

The problem is the majority of your replies are based around this logical fallacy which is really a waste of time as its irrelevant. You even admitted this when you said that not finding all the facts doesn't mean there is no objective.

 

[Moral Orel]

I linked the main points of that article so you could see the arguement as most people don't bother to read links.

you said
You haven't established that anyone chose these measures based on anything other than their personal whim. Why should the measure be what it is?

As the article argues that morality is not based on subjective thinking because according to Railton’s account, the moral good consists in maximising non-moral good from a social point of view, treating the interests of all individuals equally. This incorporates an intrinsic social, relational dimension for measuring non-moral good and seperates it from moral good for which we can derive facts from.

So it dissolves the "is and ought" problem because we are not even using morality to determine what is morally good but rather a socially constructed non-moral good which we can get facts from.

Because there is a difference in a socially idealized good person based on what a fully rational and informed person would prefer for themselves as opposed to what someone prefers now (subjective views). It is argued that people are not calable of knowing what is best for themselves so using the socially constructed good person they can compare what they think is a morally good person (subjective) to the idealized good person rationally determine on all the possible information (facts).

If the person knows all the information about their subjective preferences and the idealized preferred good person they could not rationally claim that their preference was the best morally.

So the measure is the "idealized good person"? What qualities make a person the "idealized good person", and why should those be the qualities we select?

Why should I act like an "idealized good person" instead of acting solely in my own self interest?

 

[stevevw]

The laws of the universe are real even if we don't experience them.

How would we know if there was no one to observe them. If for example we lived in a simulation where we were programmed to think the universe is real then how could we know they were real if we cannot step outside that simulation to verify things.

Rubbish.

Battlefield Earth is a terrible movie, in my opinion. The Abyss is an amazing movie in my opinion. Starship Troopers is a decent movie in my opinion.

My opinions about the quality of these movies is obviously my subjective point of view. By your logic, since I have no OBVJECTIVE measure to determine the quality, I should not be able to say that Starship Troopers is better than Battlefield Earth, but not as good as The Abyss.

Clearly your argument is incorrect.

But once again you make a logical fallacy for which I keep having to point out. Preferences for TV shows are subjective and subjective opinions cannot be measured objectively. So your own arguement fails. If someone disagreed with you and thought the opposite how could you even tell who was right or wrong if there is no way to measure things.

But when someone claims that there are shades of grey this is measured against what is black and white. You would not even know what grey was unless there was an objective basis of black and white to compare that to.

So it is with morality. When we make moral statements they are normative rather than desriptions of our subjective state. That means moral statements like "rape is wrong" do have objective determinations of either being right or wrong by their very nature. So before we even get into actually determining of there are objective morals you need to first understand this.

Then by your logic, since stealing a candy bar is morally wrong and murder is morally wrong, stealing a candy bar is just as bad as murder. You said it yourself! It's either right or wrong!

No your making a starw man. You are comparing 2 different moral acts rather than comparing the same moral act with greater or lesser severity. So your comparing apples and oranges.

So stealing a candy bar is a wrong act, but armed robbery is a greater wrong act of stealing. Both are deemed wrong but one act of stealing is more severe. The penalties reflect this in that a bank robber will get a more severe penalty than someone who steals a candy bar.

I was quite clear. The fact that it causes harm to the victim.

Why do you call it a conponent of rape.

The harm caused is not the measure of morality. Even if it was, how do you objectively determine the harm caused? What units do you measure it in? How do you determine if one rape victim was harmed more than another?

It doesn't matter because rape is rape regardless of levels of harm. Are you seriously saying if no one gets harmed that rape is not wrong. If someone gets a little bit harmed that its not wrong. The simple fact that it is a violation of peoples rights also makes it wrong without any psychological or physical harm.

So again, this leads to the conclusion that stealing candy is as bad as murder.

Why when the 2 acts are completely different. Your comparing apples and oranges.

Stealing is wrong, murder is wrong. By your own argument, it's either right or wrong, and both are wrong. You said, "You cannot be 1/2 wrong." So you do not look at the degree of wrongness, since according to you there are no degrees. It's either right or wrong.

Yes we can look at degrees of wrong but degrees of wrongness still make the act wrong regardless of degrees. I am not sure what your point is.

And now you are making the same argument regarding harm! Your arguments are leading to ludicrous results.

No your logical fallacies are leading to ludicrous results.

And that's why we have laws about the age of consent. We decided to agree that it is morally wrong for a person under a particular age to have sex. That came about precisely because of the agreement you decry here.

So are you saying the determination for the age of consent was only because people agreed. That is even more ludicrous that the above. If it was only based on agreement alone then like I said "ageement alone with any measure can lead to agreeing that 10 years is the age of consent. There is no rational. Surely we don't base laws of rape on agreement alone.

And yes, it's subjective, because there is no objective answer to hold old someone needs to be before they are mature enough to have sex. It's literally different for each person. We used a SUBJECTIVE OPINION to decide on an age which works well for most cases.

In that case if theres no objective answer to work out what the age of consent is then we can say 10 years old is the age of consent. See how your logic doesn't work for morality and there needs to be some objective measure.

What your doing once again is creating a logical fallacy by saying because the age of consent varies a bit that we cannot work out any age of consent. I think thats a record for the number of fallacies.

What are you talking, improving something that is objective? That's like improving the objective fact that addition always results in a result that is higher than either of the two numbers being added together.

No once again another logical fallacy of strawman, false analogy. We have obvious equastions that 2+2=4 which explain certain Maths facts. Just like the obvious moral examples like rape and torturing innocent children always adds up to being wrong.

But Maths is more than simple equations and has improved over time and we have found new ways to discover Math facts that we did not know previously ie

Kepler's invention of logarithms, The analytic geometry developed by René Descartes. Building on earlier work by many predecessors, Isaac Newton discovered the laws of physics explaining Kepler's Laws, and brought together the concepts now known as calculus. Leonhard Euler (1707–1783) graph theory. Joseph Louis Lagrange, pioneering work in number theory, algebra, differential calculus, and the calculus of variations,

Throughout the 19th century mathematics became increasingly abstract. Algebra evolved into what is now called Boolean algebra, Boolean algebra is the starting point of mathematical logic. Entirely new areas of mathematics such as mathematical logic, topology, and John von Neumann's game theory.

Quantum mechanics led to the development of functional analysis. Other new areas include distribution theory, fixed point theory, singularity theory and catastrophe theory, model theory, and Mandelbrot's fractals. Alan Turing's computability theory; complexity theory; by the end of the century there were hundreds of specialized areas in mathematics.
History of mathematics - Wikipedia

So as you can see Math has developed and though some simple facts were known greater facts were discovered along the way with better methods of discovery. Just like we know certain moral truths like rape is wrong we have also discovered greater moral truths like slavery is wrong, Human Rights, civil rights, anti-racism, equality, childrens rights, womens rights ect with better methods of discovery and understanding.

 

[Kylie]

You've lost me. Not sure what you are trying to say. Can you explain this
Just because one component of rape has some objective sense, doesn't mean that a different part of it is also objective.

I've answered this as clearly as I can.

I still don't follow. A box of stones has nothing to do with morality or rape. Rape is not random in that its a specific and willful act. If that act causes objective harm and harming humans disrespects the value of humans then its objectively wrong as measured against respecting and protecting humans.

This was an example of how something can have a component that has one particular characteristic, but it doesn't follow that the outcome has that characteristic.

Again, I was very clear about this.

Once again I don't understand your logic here. I said that your claim that moral agreement is because of how societies are conditioned and therefore is not because of objective morality fails because moral agreement alone can lead to immoral acts.

What has that got to do with lived experience. Lived moral experience is not about agreement but what actually happens in a moral situation and how we observe that and form justified beliefs about morality. We experience rape for example as being wrong. We never experience someone raping and walking away like its just a normal subjective/relative view people take.

So we can justify our belief that rape is always wrong because people always treat it as wrong and will never act like its subjectively OK to do.

Oh rubbish. A person's lived experience takes place WITHIN a society!

How people experience harm does not negate that there is some harm done. So any harm done is wrong. But its not just about physical or psychological harm. Rape is also about a deprevation of Rights, consent, power imbalance. So we have a number of ways we ca establish rape as devaluing and disrespecting humans for which we all have acknowledged as valuable.

Irrelevant. Treating harm as a binary results in the conclusion that stealing candy is as bad as murder.

And if its unanswerable how does that show that there are no moral truths.

Because truth requires an answer in order for that answer to be true. If there is no possible answer, what is it that is true? Any truth statement MUST be an answer. If answers are impossible, then there can be no truth statement possible.

First you are creating strawman arguements with all these examples.

And yet you fail to explain how.

You are also talking in hindsight and anyone facing this situation does not know what the outcome will exactly be. For example leaving the person in a burning car may kill them rather than them surviving to live with the scars. So the options may be life or death and more stark.

Utterly irrelevant. People speculate about what the future might hold all the time. It's called "Planning ahead." I know I do it, do you not plan ahead?

This example is a bit like all the other ones you throw up in an attempt to show that there are no moral truths but none actually prove there is no moral truths if not answerd. Your creating the scenarios and then being the judge as well for which you could be biased. Who are you to start determining the fate of others without consulting the person involved bassed on your subjective thinking.

Yes, you've made it clear that your "objective morality" idea can't withstand any actual examples.

But nevertheless like with the execution issue we can derive some facts. Its a moral imperative that we should try to save people. They may end up crippled or burnt but who says that you can allow them to die based on what you think. Any rational person would try to save others.

And what if it involves a patient who is refusing treatment?

So how about replying to the reply rather than dismissing it with another logical fallacy.

Okay then. Yes, people can act hypocritically. Have you ever met people? Why do you expect they will always act in a way that is consistent with what they claim about how they would act?

Now that I have answered your question, you can answer mine.

Which is an objective basis for measuring what is right and wrong behaviour.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that empathy is objective! HA!

Empathy is, by definition, using our own SUBJECTIVE feelings as a way to ASSUME how another person FEELS about a particular situation.

What part of that comes across as objective to you?

Which is an objective basis. Its removed from subjective thinking (personal opinions and preferences) because it sets a standard based on what is best for society. If someone says I subjectively think that what is best for society is rubbish and I will do my own thing we can then refer to that objective measure and say no you are wrong because its not best for society.

And who defines what is BEST for a particular society?

First do you think CGI animation has improved over the years. If we compared CGI animation 20 years ago to todays quality would there be an increase in quality. If so this shows there is poor and good quality CGI animation we can compare.

The same prinicple applies when comparing todays CGI animation. There will be inferior quality compared to very good quality. This will be partly because of better technology but also because animators have improved their skills and knowledge. As far as the specific measures go I am sure there are benchmarks that show better CGI animation than others.

Please, show me an objective measurement of this increase in quality. On what scale is the quality of CGI measured in? Please tell me. You seem to have ignored all the other times I've asked you to answer questions like this.

Not sure why you put the last one. But it also depends on context and I have told you this before. Comparing rape to consensual sex is completely different.

And the context is always subjective, isn't it?

Any wrong doing is not just about the act but the intention. If you did not mean to kill someone that is different to intentially killing someone out of revenge or selfish reasons. The same with harm. If someome is not intending to hurt someone out of self interest and the other person consents then how can it be harm in the first place.

This is where rationality and logic comes in. We can reason these things out. I think Sam Harris covers this in the Moral Landscape.

And how do you objectively measure the intention?

And I keep showing how this is faulty reasoning because with that logic an opposite opinion to you is just as worthy an opinion for determining morality because there is no way to work out who is actually correct. So 2 people argueing the morality of rape. Person (a) says in my opinion rape is wrong and person (b) says no in my opinion is OK.

If we leave it at that how can we tell who is correct without any independnet measure of what is right and wrong. Both moral views are relavant because its all about personal opinions and personal opinions are never morlaly wrong, they are just different.

Oh, for crying out loud...

I've already talked about how people are welcome to their subjective morality, but I'm going to have an issue with it if they start forcing other people to go along with it if they don't want to.

Your arguments seem to include this reuse of points refuted multiple times quite a bit. Do you forget what I have said, or do you just skim my posts without actually reading them properly?

Burping is not about morality its about social etiquette.

Morality is about what is right and wrong. Social etiquette is about what is right and wrong.

But lets transfer this to morality. What happens is that people think differences understanding the facts about how to apply morality in different cultures is actually about the morals themselves when its not. For example different cultures greet people differently. Greeting someone with respect and friendship is a moral.

So some cultures kiss each other when greeting while others shake hands. Some people would be offended by a kiss or if they did not bow when greeted. But the reality is we all have the same moral truth that greeting someone should be respectful and friendly. We just happen to apply that moral truth differently.

No it's not. How you greet someone is social etiquette!

I choose Option (3) and option (3) is not affected if we cannot find all the specific moral truths about every situation. Just like in science is not affected if we cannot find all the facts it doesn't mean that science is not objective or that there is no objective to find.

The problem is the majority of your replies are based around this logical fallacy which is really a waste of time as its irrelevant. You even admitted this when you said that not finding all the facts doesn't mean there is no objective.

If all morality is objective, why do you have to rely on only the extreme examples? Surely, if all morality is objective, you can rely on ANY example and it will prove your point just as well.

 

[Kylie]

How would we know if there was no one to observe them. If for example we lived in a simulation where we were programmed to think the universe is real then how could we know they were real if we cannot step outside that simulation to verify things.

Oh come on. Are you suggesting that an exoplanet might not have gravity just because no one has gone out there to measure it?

But once again you make a logical fallacy for which I keep having to point out. Preferences for TV shows are subjective and subjective opinions cannot be measured objectively. So your own arguement fails. If someone disagreed with you and thought the opposite how could you even tell who was right or wrong if there is no way to measure things.

But when someone claims that there are shades of grey this is measured against what is black and white. You would not even know what grey was unless there was an objective basis of black and white to compare that to.

So it is with morality. When we make moral statements they are normative rather than desriptions of our subjective state. That means moral statements like "rape is wrong" do have objective determinations of either being right or wrong by their very nature. So before we even get into actually determining of there are objective morals you need to first understand this.

No.

The instant anyone says, "Starship Troopers is better than Battlefield Earth, but not as good as The Abyss," they are referencing different shades of grey. By your argument, there must be some objective measure to determine these shades of grey, and therefore movie preference is objective fact, not subjective opinion.

No your making a starw man. You are comparing 2 different moral acts rather than comparing the same moral act with greater or lesser severity. So your comparing apples and oranges.

So stealing a candy bar is a wrong act, but armed robbery is a greater wrong act of stealing. Both are deemed wrong but one act of stealing is more severe. The penalties reflect this in that a bank robber will get a more severe penalty than someone who steals a candy bar.

So where do we draw the distinction between what constitutes a different category of moral act? One could easily argue that there are as many different categories of moral acts as there are different moral acts themselves. And if we do that, then it becomes a lot harder to argue that there is an objective morality.

And even apart from this, if we take just one single moral act and get two different opinions on it, those opinions are almost certainly going to be different. Two different people can easily give two different levels of severity to the same act. This should not be possible in an objective moral system.

Why do you call it a conponent of rape.

Because the harm that was done is not the only part of the act of rape.

It doesn't matter because rape is rape regardless of levels of harm. Are you seriously saying if no one gets harmed that rape is not wrong. If someone gets a little bit harmed that its not wrong. The simple fact that it is a violation of peoples rights also makes it wrong without any psychological or physical harm.

Why do you so consistently build strawmen of my arguments?

Why when the 2 acts are completely different. Your comparing apples and oranges.

No, I am comparing a moral act to another moral act.

Yes we can look at degrees of wrong but degrees of wrongness still make the act wrong regardless of degrees. I am not sure what your point is.

No, you've said there's no relevance to degrees of wrongness. "Thats what morality is, its either right or wrong." "It doesn't matter as harm is harm. To say that someone only got slightly harmed and therefore it doesn't matter is silly."

You've gone from saying it's either right or wrong, and the shades of grey don't matter to now saying we should look at degrees of wrongness.

In that case if theres no objective answer to work out what the age of consent is then we can say 10 years old is the age of consent. See how your logic doesn't work for morality and there needs to be some objective measure.

There is an objective age given by the law, but that doesn't mean that it's objective in the same way that the speed of light is objective. There are some people who are emotionally mature enough to have sex at 14. And other people who are NOT emotionally mature enough at 30.

And we have different countries with different ages. And even within a country, different states have different ages. So don't try to tell me that it's objective. You used ten years old as an extreme example (as you so often do), but you have missed the fact that what you have said is wrong IS PRECISELY WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS IN REALITY.

What your doing once again is creating a logical fallacy by saying because the age of consent varies a bit that we cannot work out any age of consent. I think thats a record for the number of fallacies.

Again with the strawman!

I NEVER said that.

I said that there is no objectively correct age of consent. Different countries and different states have come up with their own decisions on what the age of consent should be, and these often disagree. This is exactly what we would expect to see if there was no objectively correct answer.

No once again another logical fallacy of strawman, false analogy. We have obvious equastions that 2+2=4 which explain certain Maths facts. Just like the obvious moral examples like rape and torturing innocent children always adds up to being wrong.

But Maths is more than simple equations and has improved over time and we have found new ways to discover Math facts that we did not know previously ie

Kepler's invention of logarithms, The analytic geometry developed by René Descartes. Building on earlier work by many predecessors, Isaac Newton discovered the laws of physics explaining Kepler's Laws, and brought together the concepts now known as calculus. Leonhard Euler (1707–1783) graph theory. Joseph Louis Lagrange, pioneering work in number theory, algebra, differential calculus, and the calculus of variations,

Throughout the 19th century mathematics became increasingly abstract. Algebra evolved into what is now called Boolean algebra, Boolean algebra is the starting point of mathematical logic. Entirely new areas of mathematics such as mathematical logic, topology, and John von Neumann's game theory.

Quantum mechanics led to the development of functional analysis. Other new areas include distribution theory, fixed point theory, singularity theory and catastrophe theory, model theory, and Mandelbrot's fractals. Alan Turing's computability theory; complexity theory; by the end of the century there were hundreds of specialized areas in mathematics.
History of mathematics - Wikipedia

So as you can see Math has developed and though some simple facts were known greater facts were discovered along the way with better methods of discovery. Just like we know certain moral truths like rape is wrong we have also discovered greater moral truths like slavery is wrong, Human Rights, civil rights, anti-racism, equality, childrens rights, womens rights ect with better methods of discovery and understanding.

So now you equate the development of new fields to an improvement in the previous fields.

Tell me, how did the development of calculus improve addition?