Is there an absolute morality?

[LightLoveHope]

Philosophers admit nothing is provable, absolutely. Everything relies on an assumption.

On this basis you can argue within a subjective framework of reference morality is consistent and works.
As soon as you say the words absolute, one has just contradicted than nothing is provable, and have gone from a statement of facts irrespective of context into a position of faith.

If one begins to analyse how anyone agrees a statement or disagrees you begin to see we follow linear logical thread, which either gives us the emotional feeling of agreement or disagreement.

Now imagine you could arrive at either position without a logical link in ones thread. You would believe ones position is correct. Cognitive disonance is one example of this problem. One major flaw in discussing morality, is we always have a tendency to justify and approve of our behaviour and disapprove of those who disagree or jar with us. So some who hate the feeling of guilt deny morality and call it a social construct which they can overthrow and ignore, while others who express mutual appreciation of others with a functioning conscience, are very aware of morality means caring for others and the relationships they have.

Nietzsche claimed to have found the ultimate morality, dominance and being a super man, yet it seems he was driven to reject christian morality more than creating another legitimate view. I suspect we are trapped in our own delusion of being able to see truth, not willing to accept our very subjective limitations.

God bless you

 

[stevevw]

You don't get it. You're trying to argue that morality is objective, but you can't show me the arguments for any specific moral fact.

You said we cannot apply a "should" or "ought" in any statement and not just moral ones. Some of the articles I linked argue for non-moral "should" and "oughts" and stop at that. Some go further and link those non-moral "oughts" to morality. But then you don't know that because you havn't read them.

These aren't arguments for moral facts. If moral facts were rational, then they would have arguments for them.

But you are dismissing the arguement before even understanding it. The epistemic arguement for example does argue for moral facts via epistemic facts in the same article. For example after argueing for epistemic facts it then argues that epistemic facts are entangeled with morals.

Entanglement Argument
1. If there are epistemic facts, then those beliefs that are arrived at through diligent inquiry are in some sense epistemically better than those arrived at through negligent inquiry.
2. In some cases, the fact that an investigation counts as diligent or negligent presupposes facts about the moral features of the agent’s situation.
C: Therefore, if there are epistemic facts, then there are moral facts.46

I mentioned an example of a moral fact tied to epistemic facts. For example when you engage in a philosophical debate with me you are implicitly applying epistemic facts about diligence in investigating what is proper and justified knowledge and belief.

That we should not misrepresent each others arguements or lie. You have been diligent in this by calling me out many times about logical fallacies for example. So being honest is a value and fact about our debate. We are both implicitly prescribing honesty to our debate and honesty is a moral value. Our debate cannot happen without these prescribe epistemic and thus moral facts.

I understand you tried to claim that you don't need honesty to know whether I am lying or misrepresenting arguements but I and the articles I am linking disagree. You cannot have these types of debates seeking the truth of a matter without prescribing "Honesty". The fact that you choose to enagge in a debate implicitly prescribes "honesty" to our debate whether regardless of your claim it doesn't.

Thats why I think it is better to describe objective morality as realism as it deals with the reality of how we do apply moral to real situations and cannot help but do so as opposed to semantics.

Plus you havn't addressed why most philosophers support moral realism (objective morality). Despite claims that there is no objective morality or it cannot be supported by formal arguements why would the experts still support moral realism as the moist reasonable position to take. Otherwise we would have to say that expert philosophers are deluded according to your way of thinking which I don't think is the case.

 

[stevevw]

Philosophers admit nothing is provable, absolutely. Everything relies on an assumption.

On this basis you can argue within a subjective framework of reference morality is consistent and works.
As soon as you say the words absolute, one has just contradicted than nothing is provable, and have gone from a statement of facts irrespective of context into a position of faith.

If one begins to analyse how anyone agrees a statement or disagrees you begin to see we follow linear logical thread, which either gives us the emotional feeling of agreement or disagreement.

Now imagine you could arrive at either position without a logical link in ones thread. You would believe ones position is correct. Cognitive disonance is one example of this problem. One major flaw in discussing morality, is we always have a tendency to justify and approve of our behaviour and disapprove of those who disagree or jar with us. So some who hate the feeling of guilt deny morality and call it a social construct which they can overthrow and ignore, while others who express mutual appreciation of others with a functioning conscience, are very aware of morality means caring for others and the relationships they have.

Nietzsche claimed to have found the ultimate morality, dominance and being a super man, yet it seems he was driven to reject christian morality more than creating another legitimate view. I suspect we are trapped in our own delusion of being able to see truth, not willing to accept our very subjective limitations.

God bless you

If Gods laws are written on our heart then that moral truth should be identifiable in our lives in some way.

 

[Moral Orel]

But you are dismissing the arguement before even understanding it.

Stop telling me what I don't understand. I've refuted that argument from two different angles now (it's that bad). You don't remember because you don't listen to people when they talk to you.

If morals were a rational endeavor, then you would have arguments for specific moral facts instead of relying on arguments that try to prove moral facts exist. You would be able to present arguments that demonstrate morality is objective by proving a moral fact. My proof explains why that is impossible.

 

[stevevw]

Stop telling me what I don't understand. I've refuted that argument from two different angles now (it's that bad). You don't remember because you don't listen to people when they talk to you.

If morals were a rational endeavor, then you would have arguments for specific moral facts instead of relying on arguments that try to prove moral facts exist. You would be able to present arguments that demonstrate morality is objective by proving a moral fact. My proof explains why that is impossible.

Then how do you explain that the majority of philosophers support moral realism.

 

[Kylie]

Are you saying it's impossible to reach an objective truth because we can't help but have subjective opinions somewhere in our conclusion? Yet we know it is possible to comprehend objective truth, at least when it comes to math, so why not at least think it's possible to reach objective truths when it comes to more intricate and complex things like morality?

I was very clear about this.

I said, "...looking at the facts doesn't guarantee us of reaching an objective truth if we include any subjective opinions in our deliberations. And in any consideration of moral situations, we must include our subjective opinions."

I am not saying that we always include subjective opinions, and I am not saying that it is impossible to reach an objective truth.

I am very clearly saying that it is impossible to reach an objective truth if any part of that truth seeking involved subjective opinions.

Please make sure you read my responses next time.

If knowledge can be considered objective fact then why can't morality thats based on that knowledge be considered objective? Assuming no subjective opinions are included.

I've covered this.

It can't be considered objective because there were SUBJECTIVE parts included in our determination.

I think we can say that.

Then your reasoning has led to a paradox.

We must conclude that morality is objective in nature because it contains objective information, but we must also conclude that it is, at the same time SUBJECTIVE because it contains subjective information! How can it be objective in nature and simultaneously be subjective as well? It's like saying that the water both is and isn't contaminated.

In addition, I think even our subjective opinions are based on objective facts about our body's/brain's unique and extremely complex chemical make up, but I also thing those chemical makeups can cause us to be confused or not fully understand sometimes.

It is an objective fact that our bodies have a particular make up, but that doesn't mean that our conclusions based on that make up are objective.

In the same way, I can very specifically give an objective description of a movie - that is, after all, what a video file encoded onto a DVD is - but that doesn't mean my conclusion of whether the movie is good or bad is objective.

It would mean that, yes, or at least it would mean your call was objectively not as good.

Ah, but your logic doesn't work.

If my call was objectively worse because someone disagreed with me, why can't we say that the other person's call was objectively worse than mine because I disagreed with them?

I think instead of just assuming no one can reach objective conclusions about morality, we should leave room for the possibility of understanding the extreme complexities of whats actually going on that drives our behaviors, though it's hard and takes time, I think its possible.

But what drives our morality is unique to each individual, shaped by our experiences and unique chemical and psychological make ups, as you said earlier. In that case, how can there be any objective morality at all?

 

[Moral Orel]

Then how do you explain that the majority of philosophers support moral realism.

Like I said, you don't listen to people when they talk to you.

 

[Kylie]

Yet we do have good reasons for making life valuable and enforce those reasons on others through Human Rights and laws. So either these Human Rights and laws are errors or delusions or they stand for something. The fact is they are implemented as objective Rights and laws and that is what makes them real in the world.

Your attempt to discount subjective morality by calling it an error and a delusion are transparent and obvious , and they are intellectually dishonest. If you are going to participate in a discussion with me, please do so with integrity, or not at all.

But personal feelings about which life should be saved first does not negate that "Life" itself is valuable and should be saved in general. The fact that people risk their life to save others including strangers in the first place is the point.

Once again you try to prove your point by reducing it to a black/white binary and ignoring the shades of grey.

Of course not. I was only giving one example of how life is valued and a financial value is only because we live in capitalist societies. But as most of us recognise you cannot really put a money value on life.

So you CAN'T put an objective value on life!

I am speaking more as a human species than indiviudlas. The fact that we can create things that add value to life and the world shows that we should be valued more than rocks who cannot add this value like humans.

Irrelevant. You clearly stated that the ability to create things that add value to life is what endows humans with value. So, by your logic, someone who is a prolific creator is more valuable than someone who has never created anything.

We can violate the laws even if they are objective. You can choose to write the wrong answer on a Math equation and violate Math laws. But this doesn’t mean there are no Math facts to find.

But a person can be told why they are incorrect about math, and the explanation will be in ways that are communicable in a clear and precise language. I've been asking you to describe morality in such a language for ages now, and you have consistently failed to do so.

But you missed the point. You are objecting that people are breaching moral truths like murdering others, dispossessing Indigenous people of their land and rights. This shows that you understand that there is a morally right or wrong way to behave. You cannot complain about wrongs being done unless you have an objective basis to measure what wrong is being done.

Rubbish. I can complain about wrongs done based on my SUBJECTIVE point of view.

I think it is wrong to deny gay people the right to marry those who they love. There are other people who would say that such denial is the RIGHT thing to do. Both of these moral positions are subjective.

But there is a BIG difference between claiming that your view of Star is an objective fact that "only applies to you" and declaring that a moral wrong has been done into the world that applies to others in an objective way.

How did you so completely misunderstand what I was saying?

It is an objective fact that Kylie has some particular opinion about Star Trek.

It is NOT an objective fact that Kylie's opinion about Star Trek is correct.

You seem to be having trouble grasping the difference between these two ideas.

In any case, I can hold the subjective opinion that to force a person to live according to another's morality is wrong based on the fact that I would not want to be forced to live according to someone else's morality.

It's called EMPATHY, something which I have mentioned many times as being an important aspect of where our subjective views of morality come from.

I am not talking about HR as in Human Resources but HR as in Human Rights. A companies ethical codes of conduct cover this.

So my point was not any Human Rights law can qualify as a Human Right. HR as based on good reasons that are deemed rational and therefore exclude subjective thinking which is not based on rational reasons. By the way a companies ethical codes are based on Human Rights as well.

A company only cares about human rights to the degree that the law requires them to. The company doesn't actually care about Human rights.

But it does mean that those moral views you disagree with and even may find horrible are just as relevant a view as yours. Just like if someone preferred Star Wars, no one is right or wrong objectively and so everyones view is counted as equal.

Yeah, so?

So if you choose not to agree with another person’s moral view then how do you work out whether it’s something you will support or not if there is no measure of what is right and wrong outside subjective/relative morality.

By comparing it to my own subjective moral code.

How do you work out its something that is morally wrong in the first place for you to be in a position to reject that view.

By imagining how I could feel if I were in that situation. If I would find it a bad experience, I assume most other people would also find it bad, and so I take the subjective view that it is wrong.

I have never been tortured, but I can easily imagine that I would find it an extremely unpleasant experience. So, I conclude that others will also find it extremely unpleasant. And since I don't want to experience torture based on my assumption that it will be unpleasant, I don't think anyone else should have to experience it either.

Actually it’s a strong argument for the simple fact that you need some objective measure outside yourself to determine whether or not you wish to agree with another person’s moral view and to be able to tell if it’s a horrible way to act or not.

No it's not.

My own subjective point of view does just fine.

Otherwise there no point in even disagreeing and in fact there is no such thing as disagreement under subjective morality because there is nothing to disagree with. Its just preferences or feelings after all.

Yeah, right. Next time there's a big argument about whether Star Wars or Star Trek is better, I'll come and get you, stick you in the middle of the thread, and you can tell all the arguing people that there's no objectivity, so they shouldn't be arguing about it. Let's see how well that goes, hmm?

Ideally yes governments should take pre-emptive action to minimize human deaths on the roads. But governments work to budgets and so they may not take action until forced. Thats why we see people protesting to governments to deal with black spots. But the fact that it’s an issue that we care to try and save lives on roads shows we value human life.

It doesn't seem like you live in the real world.

The government doesn't care about budgets. That's why they refuse to spend money where it is needed, but are happy to spend lots of money to expand sporting facilities in small suburbs that don't need it just to please the people who live there a

No they would brag to their constituients about how they are saving lives. They look at the stats and see how the measures saved lives. Its the same with almost everything they do is around saving lives. Look at the road traffick campaigns and stats before random breath testing and now drug driving or speeding and how the measures saves lives.

Again, you seem out of touch with the real world.

But nevertheless how does the governments reaction to the measures they take negate that they take measures to save lives. The fact that they complain that the measures they took saved lives and is now a waste of money shows they are concerned about saving lives in the first place. They know reversing those measures will only cause more deaths again.

No, they leave it there because removing those measures would cost even MORE money, and they'd rather spend that money making sure they get votes to win the next election.

So therefore we can say this is wrong, the system is wrong and needs to change to put human lives first above money. Any system that puts profits before people is bound to fails as we have been seeing in recent times. The fact that you and most people object and complain that governments put money before people shows that there is an objective basis that human life is valuable. Otherwise why make it an issue.

No, not at all.

The fact I think human life has value does not mean it is objectively true that human life has value.

If all of humanity was wiped out tomorrow, the universe would not care about it one bit.

 

[stevevw]

Stop telling me what I don't understand. I've refuted that argument from two different angles now (it's that bad). You don't remember because you don't listen to people when they talk to you.

If morals were a rational endeavor, then you would have arguments for specific moral facts instead of relying on arguments that try to prove moral facts exist. You would be able to present arguments that demonstrate morality is objective by proving a moral fact. My proof explains why that is impossible.

After checking back on the post related to the epistemic arguement I wanted to clarify some points. I said that there were epistemic values and facts we both implicitly agree to when we engage in a debate ie not misrepresenting arguements and not lying for example. That these epistemic values and facts relate to honesty which is a moral value. So we both implicitly prescribe honesty as part of the guideline/rules for our debate.

You said it didn't matter if I misrepresented things (was dishonest) because you can use reality to check what is the case and used selling apples as the example. My point was that being honest in the debate didn't just apply to me but also to you.

So you also implicitly prescribe honesty to our debate by the fact that you said you can tell I made a false statements by checking what is really the case which is just another way of determining falsehoods. But that can only happen if you prescribe honesty.

If you claim there are no epistemic and moral facts and values then "honesty" would not be a necessary requirement for you and me. BUt the fact that you appeal to honesty yourself to be able to tell in reality if I was lying or not shows you know it is a necessary value to be able to determine true claims or false claims in the first place.

Otherwise you cannot rely on honesty as a necessity to measure my honesty while at the same time claiming its not a necessary value for our debate.

I think this is important as it represents most of the type of arguements for moral realism because it deals with what actually happens in real life situations where people claim moral relativism but cannot help but appeal to and use epistemic and moral facts and values.

 

[stevevw]

Like I said, you don't listen to people when they talk to you.

What does that even mean. That has nothing to do with the fact that most of the experts in this field think moral realism is a reasonable moral position to take. I am wanting to know why this discrepency between people claiming there are no objective morals and what the experts say. I would rather trust the experts than people who may or may not have the credentials.

Its the same when people even on this site say that the majority of biologists think evolution is well supported and a reasonable position to take. We would therefore need to give some creedence to their qualified opinion as they know what is involved more than anyone.

But if someone said evolution is false it would be reasonable to refer to the fact that the majority of biologists who seem to think evolution is a reasonable position to take because there is qualified expert opinion which must count for something.

 

[Moral Orel]

After checking back on the post related to the epistemic arguement I wanted to clarify some points. I said that there were epistemic values and facts we both implicitly agree to when we engage in a debate ie not misrepresenting arguements and not lying for example. That these epistemic values and facts relate to honesty which is a moral value. So we both implicitly prescribe honesty as part of the guideline/rules for our debate.

You said it didn't matter if I misrepresented things (was dishonest) because you can use reality to check what is the case and used selling apples as the example. My point was that being honest in the debate didn't just apply to me but also to you.

So you also implicitly prescribe honesty to our debate by the fact that you said you can tell I made a false statements by checking what is really the case which is just another way of determining falsehoods. But that can only happen if you prescribe honesty.

If you claim there are no epistemic and moral facts and values then "honesty" would not be a necessary requirement for you and me. BUt the fact that you appeal to honesty yourself to be able to tell in reality if I was lying or not shows you know it is a necessary value to be able to determine true claims or false claims in the first place.

Otherwise you cannot rely on honesty as a necessity to measure my honesty while at the same time claiming its not a necessary value for our debate.

I think this is important as it represents most of the type of arguements for moral realism because it deals with what actually happens in real life situations where people claim moral relativism but cannot help but appeal to and use epistemic and moral facts and values.

Keep reading our exchange from back then. I already debunked all of this.

 

[Moral Orel]

What does that even mean. That has nothing to do with the fact that most of the experts in this field think moral realism is a reasonable moral position to take. I am wanting to know why this discrepency between people claiming there are no objective morals and what the experts say. I would rather trust the experts than people who may or may not have the credentials.

Its the same when people even on this site say that the majority of biologists think evolution is well supported and a reasonable position to take. We would therefore need to give some creedence to their qualified opinion as they know what is involved more than anyone.

But if someone said evolution is false it would be reasonable to refer to the fact that the majority of biologists who seem to think evolution is a reasonable position to take because there is qualified expert opinion which must count for something.

Philosophy Poll

Okay, let's see. 56.4% believe in moral realism, so 43.6% of the experts don't. Big whup. Don't spam me with your Reddit post I know you're just itching to cutandpaste again. I won't read it. I've already explained why it's bunk.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The poll doesn't tell the whole story: What makes moral realism so popular a standpoint?

Moral Realism isn't a clear term. The way the survey is set up, some constructivists could label themselves under it. (I've also heard of terminology that puts Moral Relativism under Moral Realism, so then things get really strange.) But it'd probably still be popular without that. So why's that? I'd argue it's because the literature on it is vast and, also, "currently" (meaning the last 20 years or so) really active. Which is either unwittingly reason to defend Moral Realism (so, because it's interesting), or is a symptom of its sturdiness or maybe even strength. Depends on how we look at it.​

{My emphasis}

 

[stevevw]

Your attempt to discount subjective morality by calling it an error and a delusion are transparent and obvious , and they are intellectually dishonest. If you are going to participate in a discussion with me, please do so with integrity, or not at all.

Show me where I called subjective morality an error or delusion. I actually said quite the opposite ie So either these Human Rights and laws are errors or delusions or they stand for something.
I was

So where have I said subjective morals are delusions or errors. You have read something into this thats not there. I was making a point that many skeptics make that because there is no objective morals peoples claims to objective moral are some sort of mistake or error in thinking. This is well know such as with Mackies "Error Theory"

ERROR THEORY OF ETHICS
Mackie believed that ordinary moral claims presuppose that there are objective moral values, but there are no such things. Hence, the practice of morality is founded upon a metaphysical error.
Error Theory of Ethics | Encyclopedia.com
The moral sceptic, however, thinks that his view is more ‘realistic’ than moral realism. He believes that although all meaningful moral ‘is’ claims are either true or false, the truth of the matter is that all moral claims are in fact false. A systematic ‘error’ occurs because the properties to which indicative moral propositions refer do not exist.
The Necessity of Moral Realism | Issue 6 | Philosophy Now

Once again you try to prove your point by reducing it to a black/white binary and ignoring the shades of grey.

But your the one who gave the example of rushing into a burning building to save lives. So I was only using your example.

So you CAN'T put an objective value on life!

Yeah don't murder, rape steal as it destroys lifes value. As far as the monetary value of life, the reason why they try to put some monetary value on life in the first place is because they value life in non-monetary terms.

Irrelevant. You clearly stated that the ability to create things that add value to life is what endows humans with value. So, by your logic, someone who is a prolific creator is more valuable than someone who has never created anything.

Actually we are both right. I agree that under a neo-liberal capitalist system the most important individuals can gain more worth if they are able to be more productive. We see this with the class society.

But evenso we all benefit as a species. You could say certain Nations have added value rather than individuals on the world stage. We look to the US and Britain with the industrial revolution and now different nations are adding more value and everyone is contributing and getting the benefits with how the standard of life has risen over the years.

But a person can be told why they are incorrect about math, and the explanation will be in ways that are communicable in a clear and precise language. I've been asking you to describe morality in such a language for ages now, and you have consistently failed to do so.

And I have given that explanation many times and actually think these have been good analogies.

So I gave the example that math facts (laws) can be violated by getting even the obvious equations wrong ie 2+2=5. But there is still an objective Math fact (2+2=4). We can explain that 2 objects plus 2 objects amounts to 4 objects and we intutively know its correct. More complicated equations will also be violated more often because they are harder to work out. But that doesn't mean there is no objective Math.

So once again this applies well to Morality. We have the obvious equations like Rape = being wrong. We can show that Rape violates human life and devalues it because it damages a person and society. That is the basis we use now.

People can still get this wrong as they do in some cultures Rape = being right just like people do with Math where 2+2=5. But that doesn't mean there is no objective fact that Rape = being wrong (2+2=4). In fact we tell the cultures that think rape is ok that they are objectively wrong. That under their view rape is ok (2+2=5) is wrong and that rape = being wrong is a fact like 2+2=4.

Then we have the more complicated moral equations like string theory or relativity which are harder to work out for the average person. But that doesn't mean there is no objective Morals. It just means like Math we need to think about it more and we will eventually find the moral truth.

Rubbish. I can complain about wrongs done based on my SUBJECTIVE point of view.

Yes but it holds no weight or truth beyond your personal opinion. It only applies to you in that sense. But when you complain about wrongs done to Indigenous peoples you are now moving outside your personal opinion because you are claiming it as a true wrong done in the world. You want some justice done in the world.

I think it is wrong to deny gay people the right to marry those who they love. There are other people who would say that such denial is the RIGHT thing to do. Both of these moral positions are subjective.

How do you know they are subjective and not two opposing positions on the same moral issue. As each party disagrees about something then maybe one party is right and the other is wrong. Certainly it is now law so those who disagree no longer have a right to apply their moral position. So an objective determination has been made that it is right to allow SSM and the other party is wrong.

If it was truely subjective then shouldn't all parties including any other view of marriage such as polgamy, group marriage, animal human marriage whatever view should also be equal and no single moral view be help above the other. Thats how it seems to work if we use the opinions about say food. No preference for a particular food takes precedence over another. All opinions of food are equal at the dinner table because none are wrong.

How did you so completely misunderstand what I was saying?

It is an objective fact that Kylie has some particular opinion about Star Trek.

It is NOT an objective fact that Kylie's opinion about Star Trek is correct.

You seem to be having trouble grasping the difference between these two ideas.

In any case, I can hold the subjective opinion that to force a person to live according to another's morality is wrong based on the fact that I would not want to be forced to live according to someone else's morality.

It's called EMPATHY, something which I have mentioned many times as being an important aspect of where our subjective views of morality come from.

Except empathy is a poor basis for morality as it can aslo promote hatred and descrimination against certain people who are not part of the in group. Because its a feeling it is arbitrary and unpredictable and can be skewed by unconscious bias and hatred.

empathy is not a component, a necessary cause, a reliable epistemic guide, a foundation for justification, or the motivating force behind our moral judgments. In fact, empathy is prone to biases that render it potentially harmful.
Error - Cookies Turned Off

A company only cares about human rights to the degree that the law requires them to. The company doesn't actually care about Human rights.

To say that a company doesn't care about Human Rights undervalues most organisations genuine concern for their staff. It paints a cynical and pessimistic picture and under estimates their humanity.

Most organisations don't just have ethical codes to abide by laws. They genuinely want a good culture based on human rights. Thats why I say there are good objective reasons for Human Rights because it actually creates a better organisation and world.

Yeah, so?

Yeah so!. So you are happy with the idea that someone who may think Rape is ok has just as much a valid view of morality as anyone else. Any system like that would collaspe in no time. Thats why relative morality is impossible to implement as a system as we would have to tolerate horrible injustices like genocide as being just a different taste of morality. JUst like food tastes no one is wrong to think genocide or rape is ok to do.

By comparing it to my own subjective moral code.

But that doesn't help in determining what is the best possible moral way to behave. You are telling your oponent that they are wrong for no other reason than it doesn't match your moral opinion. But you both could be wrong who knows as theres no way to tell.

So what happens when the other person says "why should I believe that your opinion is correct". What do you tell them then remembering that you are both trying to work our the best way to act morally in an important moral issue that can have consequences for others.

By imagining how I could feel if I were in that situation. If I would find it a bad experience, I assume most other people would also find it bad, and so I take the subjective view that it is wrong.

I have never been tortured, but I can easily imagine that I would find it an extremely unpleasant experience. So, I conclude that others will also find it extremely unpleasant. And since I don't want to experience torture based on my assumption that it will be unpleasant, I don't think anyone else should have to experience it either.

What happens if your personal experience biases your view, how do you tell whether what you feel is really equates to something being wrong. What is a person with the opposite view ro you that likes torturing people uses the same subjective thinking where they think that people really enjoy torture because his view has been skewed by his past experiences of being abused.

If I was debating a moral issue with you I would be asking why should I trust your feelings about something when its all about you and theres nothing concrete to show that what your saying is true. I would be asking you why you take that position besides feelings or preferences as its not enough for me to believe your right and that I should accept your moral position.

 

[stevevw]

The poll doesn't tell the whole story: What makes moral realism so popular a standpoint?

Moral Realism isn't a clear term. The way the survey is set up, some constructivists could label themselves under it. (I've also heard of terminology that puts Moral Relativism under Moral Realism, so then things get really strange.) But it'd probably still be popular without that. So why's that? I'd argue it's because the literature on it is vast and, also, "currently" (meaning the last 20 years or so) really active. Which is either unwittingly reason to defend Moral Realism (so, because it's interesting), or is a symptom of its sturdiness or maybe even strength. Depends on how we look at it.​

{My emphasis}

I think theres much more literature on moral skepticism (relativism, subjuctivism). I just think its the most reasonable and you will find that most people will acknowledge that there is some truth to realism in that we can certainly see it at work in reality. Most people appeal to some truth or fact about their moral complaints.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think theres much more literature on moral skepticism (relativism, subjuctivism). I just think its the most reasonable and you will find that most people will acknowledge that there is some truth to realism in that we can certainly see it at work in reality. Most people appeal to some truth or fact about their moral complaints.

*Most* people aren't equipped to discuss philosophy. Argumentum ad populum.

 

[stevevw]

Philosophy Poll

Okay, let's see. 56.4% believe in moral realism, so 43.6% of the experts don't. Big whup. Don't spam me with your Reddit post I know you're just itching to cutandpaste again. I won't read it. I've already explained why it's bunk.

Who says its a Reddit post. It comes from Phil Papers. You have fudged the figures with sayiong 43.6% don't support moral realism. We don't know what the other 15.9% support. So we can only go off the actual support for moral realism 56.4% as opposed to the 27.7% anti-realists. So thats double the amount of philosophers who support moral realism. Thats a pretty big difference.

But the real point is why is there only just over a 1/4 of philosophers actually support antirealism if its so obviously true that theres no objective morality.

 

[stevevw]

*Most* people aren't equipped to discuss philosophy. Argumentum ad populum.

I think we can appeal to popular view as a support for something as we do when we refer to expert opinion about say Heart Health. Its not just about a random group of unqualified people who just happen to support a position purely by consesus alone.

But rather they have thought about the issue based on their qualified opinion and come to a qualified conclusion. So its more than a quantative determination by the numbers but a qualified one. Argumentum ad populum is only relevant if the arguement completely rests on numbers without any quatification because the number of people is what is being appealed to. Whereas I am also appealing to qualified opinion.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think we can appeal to popular view as a support for something as we do when we refer to expert opinion about say Heart Health. Its not just about a random group of unqualified people who just happen to support a position purely by consesus alone.

But rather they have thought about the issue based on their qualified opinion and come to a qualified conclusion. So its more than a quantative determination by the numbers but a qualified one. Argumentum ad populum is only relevant if the arguement completely rests on numbers without any quatification because the number of people is what is being appealed to. Whereas I am also appealing to qualified opinion.

Read what you wrote. It implies a random group of unqualified people.

 

[Moral Orel]

You have fudged the figures with sayiong 43.6% don't support moral realism. We don't know what the other 15.9% support.

I fudged nothing. The other 15.9% do not support moral realism.

But the real point is why is there only just over a 1/4 of philosophers actually support antirealism if its so obviously true that theres no objective morality.

If moral realism is true, how come no one can make a formal argument to demonstrate a moral fact?