Is there an absolute morality?

[Chriliman]

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.

Sorry, so for the sake of clarity; you agree its possible to reach an objective truth(assuming no subjective opinions involved)?

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.

I'll say again that if all we're using in our moral deliberation is objective information, then our moral deliberation is objective(containing no subjective information).

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.

If our conclusions are based on facts then I don't see how/why they can't be considered 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.

I agree that determining whether a movie is good or bad depends on a persons taste, but I'm saying we can objectively determine who might like a certain type of movie based on their objective chemical makeup(personality).

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?

Again, my logic is fine so long as we're basing our moral conclusion on facts, which will be different depending on any given situation.

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?

It really comes down to whether you base your morality on facts or not. We could have all kinds of different people from all walks of life and if we could get them to base their morality on facts, we could possibly get 100% agreement. We do see agreement among different people quite often, its just important to determine whether they’re agreeing on facts or not.

 

[durangodawood]

And why is a planet with life more valuable than a planet with just rocks?

Ultimately, your decision on what constitutes "value" will come down to a subjective opinion.

Not generally. Many values are natural to the human species as a matter of objective fact.

For this specific value, it could be a mix. I could see a natural species level value for habitat, which extraterrestrial life may satisfy in an oblique way. Otoh, the concept is kind of remote and may appeal more to idiosyncratic sci fi imagination motives

 

[LightLoveHope]

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

The problem with philosophical discussions is they avoid the reality we are emotional creatures that define truth based on our perspective and feelings. The sign of our instability is how strongly we deny our foundations emotionally on our life experiences.

Humans live two lives. Each day survival based on learnt behaviour patterns and the slow growth and progression as we mature and age. A classic insight into this reality is LSD and peoples experiences, where something minor becomes the answer to everything, which is actually just shifting how one feels and attaching it to a random perception.

14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,
15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
Rom 2:14-15

The heart of man is born in love, which soon get defensive and cuts off the loving and caring side and puts on the more selfish and getting as much as one can before the next person does.

The law is a written extension of loving others and oneself. But what passes philosophy by, is it is imprinted on us, our relationships, subjectively, which gets corrupted and destroyed the more we work against our hearts. I have had discussions with Christians who would claim they know Jesus but do not let Him work love through their lives and some even speak with disdain of love transforming our lives through Christ.

What we regard as an objective observation is probably our emotional balance justifying our position in relation to our families and central people in our lives. I certainly do not like looking nice to show off, or behaving in a conformist way so people will think nicely of me. This is a reaction against my mothers over emphasis of this above truly appreciating others and reaching out to them. I therefore go too far the other way.

 

[stevevw]

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

How can that be when the survey I am referring to is surveying University philosophers. The very first line in my reply clarifies that I am appealing to expert opinion ie
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.

 

[stevevw]

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

They don't support anti-realism as well. So we can say that double the philosophers support realism as opposed to anti-realism.

Nevertheles a more recent survey by Phil Paers actually found even even greater majority of 62.1% supporting moral realism, with only 26.1 supporting anti-realism and 11.8% other. So it looks like more of the anti-realists and "others" moved to the realist camp.
https://philarchive.org/archive/BOUPOP-3

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

I don't know, but to say that because we cannot make a formal arguement doesn't mean theres no moral realism. Why would the majority of philosophers support something that cannot be argued formally. Considering most philosophers understand formal deductive propositions it seems strange that they know more than anyone else yet still the majority support moral realism.

Like I said there may be other ways of supporting moral realism such as with defeasible inferences or through prudential "ought" or hyperthetical imperatives.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't know, but to say that because we cannot make a formal arguement doesn't mean theres no moral realism.

I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if you prove morality is objective if you can't prove what the objective moral facts are.

Like I said there may be other ways of supporting moral realism such as with defeasible inferences or through prudential "ought" or hyperthetical imperatives.

None of those matter. You just don't understand my proof to understand why. My argument points out the hidden assumptions that you presuppose without having any reason to believe them. And you make those presuppositions in all of the different forms you try to take.

 

[stevevw]

I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if you prove morality is objective if you can't prove what the objective moral facts are.

Thats silly we can prove objective morality. Like I said to Kylie "Rape is wrong" just like 2+2=5 is wrong.

And we were debating whether the articles I provided give good arguements for objective morality. We were debating the epistemic arguement for moral realism. I said that you will implicitly prescribe "honesty" to our debate. By doing that you are making "honesty" an independnet value that is necessary for our debate. That makes it objective.

None of those matter. You just don't understand my proof to understand why. My argument points out the hidden assumptions that you presuppose without having any reason to believe them. And you make those presuppositions in all of the different forms you try to take.

But that applies to all arguements. I have provided the epistemic support for why we can be justified to believe those assumptions are true.

 

[Moral Orel]

Thats silly we can prove objective morality. Like I said to Kylie "Rape is wrong" just like 2+2=5 is wrong.

That's not proof. That's not even an argument. That's a claim and nothing more.

And we were debating whether the articles I provided give good arguements for objective morality. We were debating the epistemic arguement for moral realism. I said that you will implicitly prescribe "honesty" to our debate. By doing that you are making "honesty" an independnet value that is necessary for our debate. That makes it objective.

No, that's what you wanted to shift the debate to. As I've told you repeatedly, I already debunked that argument from two different angles and I have no need or desire to repeat myself to someone who refuses to pay attention.

But that applies to all arguements. I have provided the epistemic support for why we can be justified to believe those assumptions are true.

You haven't even presented an argument!

 

[Kylie]

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

So you weren't talking about objective morality when you spoke of errors and delusions, you were talking about subjective morality...

So you were just going off topic then? Wasting our time?

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? I never made it out to be a black and white situation, did I? In fact, I very specifically stated how my own decisions would be different to another person's decisions. How in the world do you think that is black and white? Your statement here does not logically follow from the quote you posted.

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.

No, that is not an objective value.

Is the life of an 80 year old man of a greater value than the life of a 5 year old girl? Answer me that.

And don't reduce it to a black and white situation by saying that both lives objectively have value, because that's not what I'm asking you to do.

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.

And look at where that has gotten us. Poor people are treated like dirt because they are poor, and since they are poor, they have less value, and since they don't have much value, no one wants to actually fix the problem.

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.

Ah, and countries that don't add value, we don't care about? So the Notre Dam burns down, and people all over the world donate millions of dollars. But if there's some disaster in a country no one's heard of, say, Lesotho, and all of a sudden it's crickets.

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.

No, you have NEVER given any description of morality that uses the same kind of formalised language we see in maths or logic.

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.

Because I use my EMPATHY to imagine that those people feel the way aboutthose wrongs that I would feel if those wrongs were done to me.

I then apply the "Don't push your beliefs onto others" idea and conclude thatthose peoples would consider it wrong to be forced to suffer that kind of treatment.

This is not a complex idea, and it does not require any kind of objective morality.

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.

Is this your argument now? "You can't show it isn't, so maybe it is?"

So an objective determination has been made that it is right to allow SSM and the other party is wrong.

That some determination was made is an objective fact.

You have not shown that the determination was objectively correct.

Big difference, and yet you seem to repeatedly confuse them.

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.

Except for the fact that marriage involves another person/life form. If that person doesn't want to be involved, then why should they be forced to? Marriage requires CONSENT. When I got married to my huisband, I needed to consent to being married to him.

So tell me, if 5 people all decide that they want to be married to the other four, is that morally wrong? Why or why not? Show me your OBJECTIVE reasoning.

If a person wants to marry their pet, I would say it is morally wrong because their pet can't consent to the marriage. And yes, that is my SUBJECTIVE opinion, don't start telli ng me that my conclusion here shows there's some sort of objective source to morality.

And if a person decides they want to marry their car, then who's to say that's morally wrong? The car, since it is not a living thing, doesn't need to provide consent.

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

So what? Morality has long been used to justify cruelty. Stealing the children of indigenous people to give them a better life. Just look at a few years ago when families coming to America were separated, children taken from their parents.

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.

That's hilarious.

I don't know of a single company that would replace ALL its staff with robots tomorrow if it were possible. perhaps you can show me one?

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.

Are you really going to make me explain AGAIN why this is ridiculous?

Rape causes harm to society. As people living in a society, we generally want the society to function well. So we are going to act to stop things that prevent the functioning of society. That's why we invented things like refrigerators, because access to preserved food helps society function well. That's why we have infrastructure like roads and hospitals, because the ability to travel throughout the society and the ability to remain healthy help the society to function well. And that's why we have laws against rape, because preventing rapes helps the society to function well.

You see this all throughout the animal kingdom. Any social animal will work to reject anything that prevents their society from functioning well. And if something does NOT prevent the society from functioning, then it's generally accepted. That's why a lioness will mate with the males that have just killed the cubs she had with another male. Because not producing more cubs will harm the lion's society.

I have explained this to you many times now. The fact that you keep bringing up the same points I have repeatedly refuted shows me that you just ignore what I am saying.

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.

And that would be true IF AND ONLY IF there was some objective morality to show us which is "best".

There is no BEST when it comes to morality.

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.

I would ask them how they would feel in the situation, try to get them to use empathy.

Kylie: Hey, it's wrong to steal that person's wallet.

Other person: Why should I believe that?

Kylie: How would you feel if your wallet was stolen? You'd feel pretty bad, wouldn't you? Without your license, you wouldn't be able to drive your car, and you'd have to go through the hassle of getting all your credit cards cancelled, and then all of your cards replaced. Not to mention the loss of money. You'd feel pretty bad, wouldn't you? And you'd feel angry.

Other person: Yes I would.

Kylie: Wouldn't this person also feel that way if you stole his wallet? If you don't want to feel that way and have all those hassles, why would you inflict them on someone else?

Now, at this point, the person could just decide that they don't care about the person they're about to rob, in which case they obviously lack empathy, and that lack of empathy is what leads to them behaving immorally.

So, like I've said, empathy is a big part of where our morality comes from.

Now, let me ask you...

How would you use your objective morality idea to convince them your moral views were the correct ones?

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.

It seems like your argument here is, "If morality wasn't objective, then it wouldn't be objective, and I can't conceive of how morality couldn't be objective."

Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.

 

[Kylie]

Sorry, so for the sake of clarity; you agree its possible to reach an objective truth(assuming no subjective opinions involved)?

Yes. We do it with mathematics and science (to as high a degree as we can). That's how we determine where a planet will be at some future point in time. That's how we determine the distance between points using trigonometry.

I'll say again that if all we're using in our moral deliberation is objective information, then our moral deliberation is objective(containing no subjective information).

Agreed. IF. IF.

But I don't see how we can avoid having our subjective opinions getting in there as well.

If our conclusions are based on facts then I don't see how/why they can't be considered objective?

Because the values we assign to those facts can be different depending on different people.

I agree that determining whether a movie is good or bad depends on a persons taste, but I'm saying we can objectively determine who might like a certain type of movie based on their objective chemical makeup(personality).

lol, if that were possible, don't you think Hollywood wouldn't be churning out the garbage we see these days?

Again, my logic is fine so long as we're basing our moral conclusion on facts, which will be different depending on any given situation.

If there is no standard or constant, how can they be objective?

It really comes down to whether you base your morality on facts or not. We could have all kinds of different people from all walks of life and if we could get them to base their morality on facts, we could possibly get 100% agreement. We do see agreement among different people quite often, its just important to determine whether they’re agreeing on facts or not.

But it is impossible to reduce moral questions to objective facts because as I said, different people will assign different values to those facts.

 

[Kylie]

Not generally. Many values are natural to the human species as a matter of objective fact.

For this specific value, it could be a mix. I could see a natural species level value for habitat, which extraterrestrial life may satisfy in an oblique way. Otoh, the concept is kind of remote and may appeal more to idiosyncratic sci fi imagination motives

What value do we hold that is objective?

Show your working.

 

[Chriliman]

What value do we hold that is objective?

Show your working.

Ill take a stab at this. First off let’s see if we can agree that there is no objective value apart from minds(people) capable of assigning value, agree?

So any value assigned by a person is only objective if that value is based on the fact that people want whatever it is to be valuable.

So for example: Living a fulfilled life and helping others do the same would not be objectively valuable if there were no one alive to do it, but since there are people alive who really want to do that, then it’s objectively valuable based on that fact.

How’s that sound?

 

[stevevw]

That's not proof. That's not even an argument. That's a claim and nothing more.

Of course rape is wrong. There are several papers that argue rape is wrong.

That rape is wrong, and seriously wrong at that, can scarcely be doubted. Arguably, rape is among those wrongs which are never excusable. Probably, it is among those wrongs which are never justifiable. Certainly, it is among those wrongs which ought to be forbidden and punished by the criminal law.
https://johngardnerathome.info/pdfs/wrongnessofrape.pdf
I argue that rape is both properly defined as NCS and properly evaluated as a serious wrong.
Error - Cookies Turned Off

No, that's what you wanted to shift the debate to. As I've told you repeatedly, I already debunked that argument from two different angles and I have no need or desire to repeat myself to someone who refuses to pay attention.

What do you mean shift the debate too. If the epistemic arguement is part of supporting moral realism then of course the debate should be shifted to that.

You claimed that you didn't need honesty as a necessary value to determine if I am lying or misrepresenting things because as you claim "I score points by pointing out the false things you say".

But to point out the false things I say you have to prescirbe honesty as a necessary value. If "Honesty" is not a necessarily prescribed value then you have no way of knowing what is true or false even if you use reality to measure what I said compared to what is reality. Otherwise its just meaningless claims and counter claims that have no way of determining their truth value.

As to your other arguement by the fact that "honesty" is a necessary value for debates seeking the truth we are prescribe the "ought" when we engage with others in those debates. There is no way to have those debates otherwise.

You haven't even presented an argument!

And as I mentioned formal arguements are not the be all and end all in detrmining the truth of something.

In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur[1] (/ˌnɒn ˈsɛkwɪtər/; Latin for "it does not follow") is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic.[2] It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion.[3] Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process. This may not affect the truth of the conclusion, since validity and truth are separate in formal logic.
Formal fallacy - Wikipedia.

 

[Moral Orel]

Of course rape is wrong. There are several papers that argue rape is wrong.

That rape is wrong, and seriously wrong at that, can scarcely be doubted. Arguably, rape is among those wrongs which are never excusable. Probably, it is among those wrongs which are never justifiable. Certainly, it is among those wrongs which ought to be forbidden and punished by the criminal law.
https://johngardnerathome.info/pdfs/wrongnessofrape.pdf
I argue that rape is both properly defined as NCS and properly evaluated as a serious wrong.
Error - Cookies Turned Off

Summarize the argument for me. I'm not going to bother reading it if you don't.

What do you mean shift the debate too. If the epistemic arguement is part of supporting moral realism then of course the debate should be shifted to that.

I asked for a demonstration of a moral fact. That's what we're talking about.

And as I mentioned formal arguements are not the be all and end all in detrmining the truth of something.

Anything rational can be shown to be true through a formal argument.

 

[Kylie]

Ill take a stab at this. First off let’s see if we can agree that there is no objective value apart from minds(people) capable of assigning value, agree?

No.

If there is anything objective, it must be independent from anyone's mind.

Something that is objective MUST be the same for everyone. If it exists inside someone's mind, then no one other than the person whose mind it is can experience it.

If the value (here meaning perceived worth) exists in someone's mind, then it will be based on that person's subjective views.

So any value assigned by a person is only objective if that value is based on the fact that people want whatever it is to be valuable.

So for example: Living a fulfilled life and helping others do the same would not be objectively valuable if there were no one alive to do it, but since there are people alive who really want to do that, then it’s objectively valuable based on that fact.

How’s that sound?

It doesn't sound so good.

You have not shown that living a fulfilled life and helping others to do so is OBJECTIVELY valuable.

 

[stevevw]

So you weren't talking about objective morality when you spoke of errors and delusions, you were talking about subjective morality...

So you were just going off topic then? Wasting our time?

I just said I was talking about how people view objective morality as an error or illusion.

So? I never made it out to be a black and white situation, did I? In fact, I very specifically stated how my own decisions would be different to another person's decisions. How in the world do you think that is black and white? Your statement here does not logically follow from the quote you posted.

Because the basic idea of rushing into a burning building to save any human is the real moral issue at stake ie whether to risk ones life to save any human.

I am sure after you got your kids out that you would try to save others as most people would or the emergency workers will if they can. So its about humans saving humans by risking their life.

No, that is not an objective value.

Why we know that rape, nurder and stealing is wrong. If someone said I think rape, murder and stealing is ok to do or if some culture claimed that murdering and raping ethnics was ok to do we would declare this objectively wrong regardless of individual or cultural moral views even to the point of prosecuting them. We don't allow subjective views when it comes to these moral wrongs.

Is the life of an 80 year old man of a greater value than the life of a 5 year old girl? Answer me that.

And don't reduce it to a black and white situation by saying that both lives objectively have value, because that's not what I'm asking you to do.

So your asking me to limit the determination to what you think should be included. Epistemically we should consider all possible alternatives when valuing something. Otherwise we cannot be justified in our determination. So any determination you make without considering all possible options will be unjustified.

So if we are just valuing "Life" for itself then both lives are intrinsically valuable as intrinsic value does not depend on any other value to make it valuable. But after that it depends on the circumstances but this does not change the intrinsic value of "Life" itself.

And look at where that has gotten us. Poor people are treated like dirt because they are poor, and since they are poor, they have less value, and since they don't have much value, no one wants to actually fix the problem.

I agree but whats your point. We can say that this is morally wrong that certain people are poor because the system is geared to create a class society. The fact that we continually protest this wrong and setup support systems for the poor shows we care and value them. Why even make it an issue if "LIfe" has no value.

Ah, and countries that don't add value, we don't care about? So the Notre Dam burns down, and people all over the world donate millions of dollars. But if there's some disaster in a country no one's heard of, say, Lesotho, and all of a sudden it's crickets.

I would beg to differ that we don't care full stop. I am sure that any major disaster anywhere is met with some support whether it be localized or from a nearby country. Of course it depends on circumstances. If a small localized event then it wil be supported internally but a more major event will attract outside help.

I think we are becoming more connected as a world and reach out more to others as we see with the many aid supports in the world. But nevertheless the fact that we may not have the same level of support or care in all situations doesn't negate "Lifes" value.

No, you have NEVER given any description of morality that uses the same kind of formalised language we see in maths or logic.

What do you mean I have given descriptions of morality compared to Math several times but you just ignore or reject them.

Math facts are either right or wrong. Moral situations are either right or wrong. In more complex situations the circumstances/variables need to be considered to get the final right or wrong determination just like in more complex Math equations ie.

Each part of the equation determines the right solution. Each circumstance will play a role, like part of an equation, in determining the morally right thing to do.

So we can say in simple obvious moral situations Murder = morally wrong or 1+1=2 or with more complex Math equation like above or complex moral determination like killing in self defence where we have to consider other variables. But in each situation like in Math equations there can be only one right or wrong answer.

Because I use my EMPATHY to imagine that those people feel the way aboutthose wrongs that I would feel if those wrongs were done to me.

I then apply the "Don't push your beliefs onto others" idea and conclude thatthose peoples would consider it wrong to be forced to suffer that kind of treatment.

This is not a complex idea, and it does not require any kind of objective morality.

But if your personal feelings are what determines things then you are pushing your beliefs onto others when you move them into the world and want justice. Under a subjective moral system the people who treated the Indigenous people "wrong" may believe that they are morally right and it cannot be wrong as there is no moral rights and wrongs under a subjective/absolute system in the world beyond their personal view.

By you moving your personal opinion from just applying to you to now applying to a "wrong" situation in the world and wanting justice in the world you are now making it objective because you are declaring a fact of a "wrong" being done in the world and wanting other people to stop doing that wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Is this your argument now? "You can't show it isn't, so maybe it is?"

Well certainly the vote for SSM was either a "Yes or No". It was either right or wrong to allow SSM. Only one determination was made "yes" for SSM. So all those who opposed SSM had their personal subjective view denied and not allowed. Isn't that pretty objective.

If there was a subjective moral system then discounting some moral views as wrong is a contradiction to the system because all moral views are equal and should not be wrong. Just like all tastes for food are equal and none are wrong and should not be denied from society. So denying all other subjective views and fixing on one right determination and making it law is objective.

That some determination was made is an objective fact.
You have not shown that the determination was objectively correct.
Big difference, and yet you seem to repeatedly confuse them.

I haven't confued anything. I have consistently said that we can measure a moral right or wrong against certain values like Human Rights for example which have been reasoned as inalienable rights that cannot be devalued by relative/subjective views.

The reasons underpinning laws like Human Rights has been reasoned against a justified belief truth about human "Life" having intrinsic value (natural born rights).

Except for the fact that marriage involves another person/life form. If that person doesn't want to be involved, then why should they be forced to? Marriage requires CONSENT. When I got married to my huisband, I needed to consent to being married to him.

So tell me, if 5 people all decide that they want to be married to the other four, is that morally wrong? Why or why not? Show me your OBJECTIVE reasoning.

If a person wants to marry their pet, I would say it is morally wrong because their pet can't consent to the marriage. And yes, that is my SUBJECTIVE opinion, don't start telli ng me that my conclusion here shows there's some sort of objective source to morality.

And if a person decides they want to marry their car, then who's to say that's morally wrong? The car, since it is not a living thing, doesn't need to provide consent.

Unfortunately as mentioned by another poster that this topic is off limits. I can only say like with other issues like rape or killing we should be able to look at all the information from science and stats and see how each situation can affect individuals and society.

To say we can't investigate the situation to find the facts is epistemically unjstified. The fact that we can determine better/best ways to behave in these situations shows we can move towards a more truthful determination (objective).

So what? Morality has long been used to justify cruelty. Stealing the children of indigenous people to give them a better life. Just look at a few years ago when families coming to America were separated, children taken from their parents.

So it shows that acts done under the guise of "empathy" are unpredictable and biased and not a good way to measure morality. Though people thought they were doing the right thing at the time like with many past wrongs we can look back and see that they were objectively wrong today.

We could not do that if morality was subjective/relative as there is nothing morally wrong and people are just expressing their different moral views like expressing their different food tastes. The fact that we look back and evaluate those acts as being wrong shows there is some moral objective basis for measuring that those acts as wrong.

That's hilarious.

I don't know of a single company that would replace ALL its staff with robots tomorrow if it were possible. perhaps you can show me one?

I don't understand. What is your point.

Are you really going to make me explain AGAIN why this is ridiculous?

Rape causes harm to society. As people living in a society, we generally want the society to function well. So we are going to act to stop things that prevent the functioning of society. That's why we invented things like refrigerators, because access to preserved food helps society function well. That's why we have infrastructure like roads and hospitals, because the ability to travel throughout the society and the ability to remain healthy help the society to function well. And that's why we have laws against rape, because preventing rapes helps the society to function well.

Theres one object measure. Not causing harm to humans and a functioning society is an objective measure beyond individual personal subjetcive views because it homes in on one criterion for what is right and wrong morally ie Don't do anything that harms humans and disrupts the functioning of society.

We could investigate further what that entails and I think we have already done that to make this criterion about how society should act with moral norms nwhich are objective.

You see this all throughout the animal kingdom. Any social animal will work to reject anything that prevents their society from functioning well. And if something does NOT prevent the society from functioning, then it's generally accepted. That's why a lioness will mate with the males that have just killed the cubs she had with another male. Because not producing more cubs will harm the lion's society.

And now you have identified a possible objective reason why all "LIfe" is geared towards survival as opposed to throwing themselves off a cliff. As I mentioned before all domains converge on "LIfe" being intrinsically valuable whether thats through evolution, psychology, religion, socialisation, culture ect. All behaviour treats "Life" as being something worth saving.

I have explained this to you many times now. The fact that you keep bringing up the same points I have repeatedly refuted shows me that you just ignore what I am saying.

The reason I keep repreating the same things is because I think your wrong. You are not negating lifes value but actually promoting my arguement and I keep pointing this out.

And that would be true IF AND ONLY IF there was some objective morality to show us which is "best".

And we can find what is better/best when we debate by appealing to facts beyond our subjective views. Debates always come down to facts to prove you are right and the other person is wrong. The fact that we argue to the point of appealing to facts shows we are appealing to something objective.

Moral realism points out that some of those facts/reasons are objective because when we argue about morality we argue in terms of their being a right or wrong determination. The fact that we seek that objective determination shows we know morality needs a right or wrong answer.

There is no BEST when it comes to morality.

So do you think we could find a better way to behave by comparing that behaviour to other ways of behaviour.

I would ask them how they would feel in the situation, try to get them to use empathy.
Kylie: Hey, it's wrong to steal that person's wallet.
Other person: Why should I believe that?
Kylie: How would you feel if your wallet was stolen? You'd feel pretty bad, wouldn't you? Without your license, you wouldn't be able to drive your car, and you'd have to go through the hassle of getting all your credit cards cancelled, and then all of your cards replaced. Not to mention the loss of money. You'd feel pretty bad, wouldn't you? And you'd feel angry.

Other person: Yes I would.

Kylie: Wouldn't this person also feel that way if you stole his wallet? If you don't want to feel that way and have all those hassles, why would you inflict them on someone else?

And you have just given an objective reason why stealing is wrong ie "harm done to others, its causes a hassle". Remember under a subjectiv/relative moral system there are no objective basis. So appealing to how stealing affects the individual and society is an objective measure.

If morality was subjective your reasoning would mean nothing in regards to how stealing affect others and society just like your reasoning for preferring chocolate cake. There is no reasons beyond you that you can put out in the world as a reason why everyone should not steal or like chocolate cake.

But the fact that you end up appealing to some objective basis outside your peronsal view shows how when it comes to morlaity we cannot help but appeal to some objective. You cannot argue with someone about morality without there being some objective determination of being either right or wrong.

Now, at this point, the person could just decide that they don't care about the person they're about to rob, in which case they obviously lack empathy, and that lack of empathy is what leads to them behaving immorally.

So, like I've said, empathy is a big part of where our morality comes from.

So therefore "Empathy" is your objective basis as to why everyone should not steal.

Now, let me ask you...

How would you use your objective morality idea to convince them your moral views were the correct ones?

Probably similar to what you just explained. Perhaps with some more detail about the facts for how stealing harms/damages individuals (even the perpetrator) and society. When you say "how would you like your wallet stolen" as an example of explaining to the perpetrator that its morally wrong to steal you are taking your personal subjective view and making it the objective that everyone should follow.

Like I said before people can claim stealing is subjective and and that in certain situations like being poor is a justification for stealing being ok and therefore subjective. But when they have their wallet stolen by some poor person they objective and want justice. So this exposes how we really view morality in reality.

It seems like your argument here is, "If morality wasn't objective, then it wouldn't be objective, and I can't conceive of how morality couldn't be objective."

Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.

No its clear what I said. How can I trust your feelings about what is right and wrong when your feelings could be skewed by personal experience. Surely we can investigate some facts about the matter beyond feelings so that we can have a better basis for making such important determinations. Like you used above such as empathy or human wellbeing and flourishing.

 

[Chriliman]

No.

Lol, great start.

If there is anything objective, it must be independent from anyone's mind.

Ok, but minds themselves exist in objective reality as well and they can have value in them. The value of 2 apples is an example of objective value within a mind. This goes back to when I said(and I think you agreed) that just because something is subjective(in this case the understood value of 2 apples), doesn't mean it doesn't exist in objective reality.

Something that is objective MUST be the same for everyone. If it exists inside someone's mind, then no one other than the person whose mind it is can experience it.

I don't quite agree because it sounds like you're saying something can only be objectively valuable if it can be measured. Yet, you wouldn't say something that is priceless has no objective value. The fact that it's priceless just means it's extremely valuable beyond measure and that value objectively exists(So long as there are people around who give it such great value).

If the value (here meaning perceived worth) exists in someone's mind, then it will be based on that person's subjective views.

And thats exactly why it's objective(it exists in objective reality in someone's mind), just because you can't measure the exact value, like you can with 2 apples, doesn't mean the value isn't objectively there.

So with my full-filled life example: Though how we as individuals measure the value of a full-filled life, may differ(may even be immeasurable), that doesn't mean there's no objective value there, as I described above, it just means the value is extremely high.

To clarify; when I use the term subjective, I'm referring to whats going on in someone's mind, while acknowledging that what's going on in their mind is happening in objective reality. Agree?

 

[durangodawood]

What value do we hold that is objective?

Show your working.

I'll pick an easy one. We value being fed. You feel this subjectively. But we observe it in the species objectively.

 

[Kylie]

Because the basic idea of rushing into a burning building to save any human is the real moral issue at stake ie whether to risk ones life to save any human.

I am sure after you got your kids out that you would try to save others as most people would or the emergency workers will if they can. So its about humans saving humans by risking their life.

Doesn't change the fact that I would try to save my loved ones first before saving someone else's loved ones, but another person would save their loved ones first before saving mine.

Once again you resort to reducing it to a black and white in order to avoid actually addressing the issue that has been raised.

Why we know that rape, nurder and stealing is wrong. If someone said I think rape, murder and stealing is ok to do or if some culture claimed that murdering and raping ethnics was ok to do we would declare this objectively wrong regardless of individual or cultural moral views even to the point of prosecuting them. We don't allow subjective views when it comes to these moral wrongs.

No. What I have posited explains this perfectly well.

We view rape and murder and theft as wrong because we do not want others to rape us, we do not want others to murder us, and we do not want others to steal from us.

I have shown repeatedly how people can reach the conclusion "I don't want it to happen to me, so other people probably don't want it to happen to them either."

So your asking me to limit the determination to what you think should be included. Epistemically we should consider all possible alternatives when valuing something. Otherwise we cannot be justified in our determination. So any determination you make without considering all possible options will be unjustified.

So if we are just valuing "Life" for itself then both lives are intrinsically valuable as intrinsic value does not depend on any other value to make it valuable. But after that it depends on the circumstances but this does not change the intrinsic value of "Life" itself.

No, I'm asking you to go beyond the black and white view you have been running to hide behind. Are all lives of equal value? Are some lives worth more than others? And show how you have objectively reached that determination.

I agree but whats your point. We can say that this is morally wrong that certain people are poor because the system is geared to create a class society. The fact that we continually protest this wrong and setup support systems for the poor shows we care and value them. Why even make it an issue if "LIfe" has no value.

The point is that your claims that respect for human dignity is inherent in the way corporations work is just plain wrong.

And who says that life has no value if there is no objective way to measure it? A subjective measure of the value of a life will work just fine.

I would beg to differ that we don't care full stop. I am sure that any major disaster anywhere is met with some support whether it be localized or from a nearby country. Of course it depends on circumstances. If a small localized event then it wil be supported internally but a more major event will attract outside help.

I don't know about that. In April 2019, Notre Dame burned. Less than a week later, terrorists blew themselves up in Sri Lanka, killing 267 people. There were news reports about Notre Dame all over the place. How many reports were there about the bombings? Very few compared to Notre Dame.

I think we are becoming more connected as a world and reach out more to others as we see with the many aid supports in the world. But nevertheless the fact that we may not have the same level of support or care in all situations doesn't negate "Lifes" value.

You continually claim that life has value without saying if all lives have equal value. Why do you run from that question and refuse to answer it?

What do you mean I have given descriptions of morality compared to Math several times but you just ignore or reject them.

No you haven't. You've made claims, but offered no arguments of the sort found in maths or logic. What you've done is little different to making the claim "Two plus two equals five."

Math facts are either right or wrong. Moral situations are either right or wrong. In more complex situations the circumstances/variables need to be considered to get the final right or wrong determination just like in more complex Math equations ie.

View attachment 311788

Each part of the equation determines the right solution. Each circumstance will play a role, like part of an equation, in determining the morally right thing to do.

So we can say in simple obvious moral situations Murder = morally wrong or 1+1=2 or with more complex Math equation like above or complex moral determination like killing in self defence where we have to consider other variables. But in each situation like in Math equations there can be only one right or wrong answer.

So show me this kind of thing with morality!

But if your personal feelings are what determines things then you are pushing your beliefs onto others when you move them into the world and want justice. Under a subjective moral system the people who treated the Indigenous people "wrong" may believe that they are morally right and it cannot be wrong as there is no moral rights and wrongs under a subjective/absolute system in the world beyond their personal view.

Let's not forget that those beliefs are shared by the majority of people living in the society, and those beliefs are held because they support the functioning of that society.

By you moving your personal opinion from just applying to you to now applying to a "wrong" situation in the world and wanting justice in the world you are now making it objective because you are declaring a fact of a "wrong" being done in the world and wanting other people to stop doing that wrong.

Now you're just getting ridiculous.

Most of the time, if Person A commits a crime against Person B, Kylie is not the one who wants to press charges! It is the VICTIM of the crime who decides to press charges. So stop trying to set up a flawed argument. I'm not the one who decides whether to press charges against anyone except those who commit crimes against me.