Is there an absolute morality?

[Kylie]

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.

No, it's not. The people who voted to support SSM did so because of views that were equally subjective.

The only objective thing was that the number of people who supported SSM was objectively greater than the number of people who opposed it.

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.

Once again your argument is ridiculous.

I am not obligated to believe that a moral viewpoint that I disagree with is RIGHT just because the person who holds does so subjectively. It's the same way that I am not obligated to think that a movie I think is bad is actually good just because someone else thinks it's a good movie.

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).

Yes, you've consistently said it, but you haven't actually SHOWN it at all.

All you've done is make the same claims again and again without providing any actual support for them.

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.

Okay then. Let's use a different example. Is polyamory objectively right or wrong? If you don't like that example, I'm sure we can come up with something else. Because you have, once again, resorted to an extreme example to make your case.

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).

You are assuming that there is an objective truth there to find.

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.

No, it shows just the opposite.

It shows that subjective views can change. The people who took indigenous children believed they were morally right just as strongly as we believe today that a person doing that is morally wrong.

I don't understand. What is your point.

The corporations don't care at all about people unless they are legally required to. So don't give me this nonsense about how HR departments are there to look after the workers. If they were, we wouldn't need unions.

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.

And how do you objectively define "harm"?

Show your working.

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.

And evolution explains that perfectly well. Any life forms that were disposed to throw themselves off cliffs would die out and be less likely to reproduce. The ones more likely to reproduce were the ones who acted in ways that kept them around long enough to reproduce.

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.

Your claims are not going to become more persuasive if you repeat them again and again.

You need to actually show your working. I'm not going to be convinced by unsupported claims.

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.

Ridiculous. There are plenty of debates about things that are subjective, such as whether Star Trek is better than Star Wars.

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.

Again, you are assuming that there is an objective morality there to find.

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

Wow, you completely missed the point, didn't you?

In a particular situation, I will decide that a particular course of action is the morally best course of action. Someone else may decide that a different course of action is morally best. That doesn't mean there's an objective morally best course of action, it just means that different people have different subjective views about what is best, based on their own subjective opinions.

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.

And how do you define harm?

Tell me, if I steal $20 from someone, what OBJECTIVE harm have I done to them?

Because, if it's a poor person, that $20 might be the difference between them eating today or not. Or them getting their medicine or not. Or paying their rent or not. Or keeping their power connected or not.

But if it's a wealthy person, then it will make little difference to them at all.

See how the harm done is SUBJECTIVE?

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.

Except for the fact that stealing affects someone else. I've spoken many times about forcing one person's morality onto another person causes harm. You seem to forget that quite often.

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.

Where in that example did I appeal to some objective basis outside my personal views?

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

Are you actually saying that you think empathy is OBEJCTIVE?

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.

No, no, come on now.

I gave a specific example, you can do the same.

And you can't claim that you'd use an objective basis and then resort to the same subjective basis I used.

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.

Okay, so some person who is fairly wealthy has $20 stolen from him by someone who is struggling to feed their family. The victim insists that the thief is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and the thief who was trying to feed their family is sent to prison.

Tell me, what's your opinion of someone who would do that? Because cases like that have happened, and there's been outrage.

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.

Of course my feelings are going to be skewed by personal experience! That's why it's subjective! That's the whole point of what I'm saying! EVERYONE'S feelings are going to be skewed by their personal experience, and since their ideas of morality are based on their feelings, their ideas of morality are going to be SUBJECTIVE.

 

[Kylie]

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.

I don't know what you are talking about here.

If I am looking at two apples, then those two apples exist in reality. They do not exist in the mind. What exists in the mind is the PERCEPTION of the apples, not the apples themselves.

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)

.

Monetary value fluctuates. That's the whole idea of the stock market.

Something that we consider priceless is called that because the value we assign it is a subjective value based on subjective reasons.

Once when my daughter was little, I caught her putting my lipstick all over her face. I was mad (it was my favorite shade and fairly expensive), and I demanded to know what she was doing. She told me she wanted to give me some kisses for when she wasn't with me, and showed me how she had been using the lipstick to kiss a piece of paper, which she was going to give me, so even when I wasn't with her, I'd still have her kisses. My heart absolutely melted and I've still got that paper to this day. Now, to anyone else, it's just an old scrap of paper with smudged lipstick on it. If anyone found it laying around, they'd probably toss it out without a second thought. But to me it is priceless because of my SUBJECTIVE feelings about it.

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.

Being in someone's mind does not mean it exists in objectively reality. Right now, I am thinking about Mister Spock. That doesn't mean that Spock exists in objective reality. It means the IMAGE of Mister Spock that I have in my mind exists. And the image of something is not the same thing as the thing itself.

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.

So, if you can't measure the value, how do you know that there's something objective there to measure at all?

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?

I agree to that, but you seem to be confusing the idea of a thing that is in a person's mind with the thing itself.

 

[Kylie]

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

But of course, that's not true. We value the tastes of our favorite food, and how much we enjoy a food is subjective. And if we are starving, then a slice of dry bread and a mouthful of water will be amazingly refreshing, yet if we are well fed, such food will be rather unpalatable.

But the only objective thing we can say about being fed is that we get enough calories to keep our bodies working from day to day. By this reasoning, we should all be satisfied with a flavourless mush that provides enough energy for each day, but no more. And I doubt you'll agree to that.

 

[durangodawood]

But of course, that's not true. We value the tastes of our favorite food, and how much we enjoy a food is subjective. And if we are starving, then a slice of dry bread and a mouthful of water will be amazingly refreshing, yet if we are well fed, such food will be rather unpalatable.

But the only objective thing we can say about being fed is that we get enough calories to keep our bodies working from day to day. By this reasoning, we should all be satisfied with a flavourless mush that provides enough energy for each day, but no more. And I doubt you'll agree to that.

Youre adding in all kinds of other values into the mix that I didnt mention.

I just said we objectively value being fed. And it is true.

 

[Neogaia777]

I remember when "the news" used to only report only objective facts for the most part, instead of all the just only subjective opinions that it does now, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Chriliman]

I don't know what you are talking about here.

If I am looking at two apples, then those two apples exist in reality. They do not exist in the mind. What exists in the mind is the PERCEPTION of the apples, not the apples themselves.

Right, I agree. I'm saying the perception of value exists in the mind and the mind exists in objective reality, therefore the value exists objectively(in the mind). And yes that means it's subjective, but if your subjective perception aligns with reality, then your subjective perception is objectively correct. (a mouthful, I know)

Monetary value fluctuates. That's the whole idea of the stock market.

Something that we consider priceless is called that because the value we assign it is a subjective value based on subjective reasons.

I would disagree slightly and say the subjective value is based on the objective existence of said thing.

Once when my daughter was little, I caught her putting my lipstick all over her face. I was mad (it was my favorite shade and fairly expensive), and I demanded to know what she was doing. She told me she wanted to give me some kisses for when she wasn't with me, and showed me how she had been using the lipstick to kiss a piece of paper, which she was going to give me, so even when I wasn't with her, I'd still have her kisses. My heart absolutely melted and I've still got that paper to this day. Now, to anyone else, it's just an old scrap of paper with smudged lipstick on it. If anyone found it laying around, they'd probably toss it out without a second thought. But to me it is priceless because of my SUBJECTIVE feelings about it.

That's a neat story, thanks for sharing.

Being in someone's mind does not mean it exists in objectively reality. Right now, I am thinking about Mister Spock. That doesn't mean that Spock exists in objective reality. It means the IMAGE of Mister Spock that I have in my mind exists. And the image of something is not the same thing as the thing itself.

Right, I agree there's a difference between the objective thing and the minds representation of said thing, but I'm saying the minds representation is objective since the mind exists in objective reality.

So, if you can't measure the value, how do you know that there's something objective there to measure at all?

To me, that question is like looking at an ocean of apples and asking "If you can't measure how many apples there are, how do you know there's valuable apples here?" If someone highly values something, you don't have to know the exact measure in order to know that they value it.

I agree to that, but you seem to be confusing the idea of a thing that is in a person's mind with the thing itself.

I'm not confusing that, but I can see how you might think that based on my choice of words, sorry for any confusion. Hopefully more clear now.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Ok I think this is similar to the "harm and rape" example inhow you are citing the difference experiences of an objective event. I agree people will experience having to save others differently and we will want to try and save our own child first. But what happens if you hear the cries of a child and you go to them through the smoke and its not your child. Do you leave them there to die or try and get them out quickly and then go back in.

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."

The question then is why we don't want those things to happen to us or others.

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.

As I said "life"as being intrinsically valuable is a First Principle Truth. It doesn't need any other qualification to make it valuable. So what happens in life after this is subject to evaluation according to the circumstances that happen. We can derive some added value from this like human wellbeing, flourishing ect because if "Life" is valuable in itself then certain values can stem from this.

For example the value of every person being born with natural rights is inalienable and no one can deny that of every person. That gives them rights regardless of age, gender, race, ability. But lifes circumstances may cause ethical dilemmas where we have to make decisions about "Lives" and their value. That doesn't mean we should give up the idea that every "Life" has natural rights as a value.

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

I never said that. I said they don't just create ethical codes without any reason. Like its some indiscriminate arbitrary code they picked out of a hat.

If you notice ethical codes have the same core truths that Human Rights, and most nations laws and religions have. Its a common and universal core set of truths that are well recognised as the basis for society (norms). We understand the reasoning (basis) for these codes/laws/norms as being good for individuals and society.

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.

If the value of life was a subjective measure then we would have to say that there is no way to value "Life" as there would be no independent basis to know what Lifes value was. So we would end up with different and opposing views of value all conflicting and equal in status as a personal reason for value. That includes views about lifes value that we may think are abhorent.

The fact is we have reasoned a small set of principles that we based "Lifes" value on and these are inalienable and cannot be subject to subjective/relative views by Human Right and Law.

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.

So whats your point. This doesn't negate that "life" is valuable. It just exposes that humans can be callous and uncaring. We implement a law to show that murder and rape is wrong but people still murder and rape. We know "water" as a resourse is valuable but we still waste water. Humans can be both good and bad, they have free will so have the ability to ignore laws and objectives values.

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?

Because the natural value as recognised by laws like Human Rights are not subject to any additional value we put on them. They just are an inalienable natural born right that recognises the Right to a "Life" regardless. If we started valuing this by additional circumstances then we would be devaluing people based on their race, gender, geography ect.

But what happens after this is to a point in individual hands. If they end up in a horrible situation where they may have a less quality life we don't think they should be put out of their misery.

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."

No 2+2=4 just like rape = being wrong. If someone said 2+2=5 we can say they are mistaken. If someone says rape = being ok to do we can say they are mistaken. Its pretty simple and commonsense. I can't see why there is a problem. Do you really think a system that allows someone to say rape is good to do is real or allwable. Never and even if all the people in the world said it was ok to rape they would still be wrong.

So show me this kind of thing with morality!

I thought I already did. So we have an obvious Math example 1+1=2 is like straight out 1st degree killing. Theres no variables to consider to reach the answer.

As with the more complex Math example where we have to consider the variables (additional numbers to be calculated) to reach the objective answer of 2. A more complex moral situation of "killing in self defence" compared to the obvious 1st degree killing needs to consider the variables like additional numbers (the circumstances) such as non intentional killing to save your family.

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.

And theres your objective "they support a functioning society". If someone has the subjective view and disagrees that a "functioning society" is good then they are discounted. All subjective views are discounted and not allowed to negate the basis that a "functioning society" is the best way we can behave.

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.

But you do want a system that will bring justice and prosecute those who do wrong. So indirectly you do support the perpetrators of wrongs being brought to justice and therefore the value of "Justice". Thats why we have things like neighbourhood watch because as a community we know that allowing unjust and wrong behaviour is not a good idea.

 

[stevevw]

If I am looking at two apples, then those two apples exist in reality. They do not exist in the mind. What exists in the mind is the PERCEPTION of the apples, not the apples themselves.

How do you know that you are not in some simulation that has programmed you to only think you are objectively seeing the apples.

.

 

[stevevw]

No, it's not. The people who voted to support SSM did so because of views that were equally subjective.

The only objective thing was that the number of people who supported SSM was objectively greater than the number of people who opposed it.

Yet only one view was made law and imposed on all. I thouht all subjective views have equal status if there is no rational for why we go with one view or another. Like preferences for TV shows no view about which TV is best is more right or deserves special priveledge over another. It would be like legislating for people to be forced to like and accept Star Wars as the best TV show.

Once again your argument is ridiculous.

I am not obligated to believe that a moral viewpoint that I disagree with is RIGHT just because the person who holds does so subjectively. It's the same way that I am not obligated to think that a movie I think is bad is actually good just because someone else thinks it's a good movie.

But you are obligated to allow and accept the equal status of that other view point within a subjective/relative system even if you disagree with it and thing is abhorent. Just like your obligated to accept people sitting at the dinner table who love foods you dislike.

No subjective view of morality is wrong just like no preference for food is wrong in any truthful way in society or the world under a subjective/relative system

Yes, you've consistently said it, but you haven't actually SHOWN it at all.

All you've done is make the same claims again and again without providing any actual support for them.

So what about Human Rights and other laws that are underpinned by morals. Are you saying these have not been reasoned as the rational and right thing to do. If you read up on "why" the specific Human Rights and national laws were chosen as opposed to any subjective view you will see they have good underpinning reasons that make them objective and inalienable.

That means they are protected against subjective/relative determinations.

Human rights are the bedrock principles which underpin all societies where there is rule of law and democracy. Since the end of World War II, the core importance of human rights has been universally acknowledged.
Today, against a backdrop of multiple conflicts, humanitarian emergencies and severe violations of international law, it is all the more essential that policy responses be firmly grounded in human rights, and that States comply with the binding obligations they have contracted when ratifying international human rights treaties.
https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/handbookparliamentarians.pdf

Okay then. Let's use a different example. Is polyamory objectively right or wrong? If you don't like that example, I'm sure we can come up with something else. Because you have, once again, resorted to an extreme example to make your case.

Unfortunately promoting polgamy is probably off limits as a debate topic as well. Maybe go back to your "stealing a candy bar example". I don't think we could say that this is an extreme example. So petty crime is still wrong. It comes down to whether petty crime is right or wrong behaviour to do. We could say that anyone who claims stealing small things is just mistaken and objectively wrong ie Petty crime = being wrong to do.

You are assuming that there is an objective truth there to find.

Its also not assuming there isn't one which is a proper way in which we should investigate anything if we are to be justified in our belief and position on something.

So its good practice to maximize our efforts to investigate things to see if there is a better/best way to behave rather than just rely on poor efforts and slopy investigations which may cause us to miss something and give us second best outcomes even worse false outcomes.

No, it shows just the opposite.

It shows that subjective views can change. The people who took indigenous children believed they were morally right just as strongly as we believe today that a person doing that is morally wrong.

Exactly so why should we look back and say they were wrong if there is no objective way to measure what is morally wrong and its just about different subjective/relative views that cannot be wrong.

Subjective/relative morality is self-defeating because on the one hand you want to claim morlaity is subjective/realtive so there is no objective truth but rather many subjective truths. Yet at the same time want to protest past wrongs "we know better today"because we know the truth.

The corporations don't care at all about people unless they are legally required to. So don't give me this nonsense about how HR departments are there to look after the workers. If they were, we wouldn't need unions.

Ok so all your doing is building a case for objective ethical codes that force employees to conform and relinquish their subjective views over to the corporation. Now why should employees be forced to conform to someone elses subjective view.

I still think your psoition is a bit cynical. Union representation has fallen dramatically. Companies aremuch more in tune with their employees nowadays. Sure we need laws to keep people in line but if we look at most laws relating to ethics they are for good reasons we all agree on. The fact that there may be some nasty unethical company bosses out there doesn't reflect on the ethical system and its basis for treating people with respect and equality.

Many companies now see for example equality/ diversity in the workforce brings benefits from a wider group of people. They see being interested in employees brings greater productivity. There is good reasoning behind the ethical codes as well. Those reasons are a good basis for why they matter.

And how do you objectively define "harm"?

Show your working.

Well obviously its based on human "Life" being intrinsically valuable. With that comes certain other values such as with Human Rights. So I guess the first place to look for a definition is there.

And evolution explains that perfectly well. Any life forms that were disposed to throw themselves off cliffs would die out and be less likely to reproduce. The ones more likely to reproduce were the ones who acted in ways that kept them around long enough to reproduce.

I think But even at the most fundemental level it seems living things are geared towards sustaining life like with plants to sunlight and water, reneration of cells and tissues.

But I wouldn't say evolution can completely account for how living things behave especially humans. Socially and culturally humans can behave in ways that control their own evolution and are not passive players subject to being adapted to some environment through an outside force they have no control over. In that sense its not programmed and aribtrary as we are rational and moral beings.

 

[LightLoveHope]

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

There appears to be a problem in the definition of terms here.
Subjective - anything that relies on something else, ie a conclusion is only true if another fact or point is true.
Objective - the item in question is true irrespective of anything else.

The term in cultural terms is often used, subjective, anything I say about myself. Objective, anything I say about a third party that can be tested by others. Science tends to use this pragmatic definition of objective truth, except science admits everything it says is derived from theories that can be tested to be either true or false. Anything that has no test that can be applied is deemed a point of belief or faith.

So in this idea, everything stated is true until it is discovered through an experiment that shows another aspect previously not understood is now true. So we have dark matter and dark energy, which are point of faith, because galaxies can be seen rotating, but could only be held together in their observed form if there is a massive mass that is not seen being present. This is making the assumption the laws of gravity etc. are consistent across the universe etc as we see them in our solar system. The problem is tweaking a few equations, makes dark matter and dark energy disappear. Now you may say this is not relevant, except this affect accounts for 95% of all matter we believe exists.

We love certainty, as if our security is founded in knowledge. But in Jesus our faith is founded in who He is not our understanding. With all the advances we have made in technology, we cannot define if matter is made of particles or waves, or even what energy actually is. We know pragmatically how everything in our experience works to the level of living day to day.

So when anyone uses the term objective truth, they are coming out of a world where certainty was held as a faith position, rather than our understanding is pragmatic, and our focus is in Christ.
God bless you

 

[durangodawood]

There appears to be a problem in the definition of terms here.
Subjective - anything that relies on something else, ie a conclusion is only true if another fact or point is true.
Objective - the item in question is true irrespective of anything else.

The term in cultural terms is often used, subjective, anything I say about myself. Objective, anything I say about a third party that can be tested by others. Science tends to use this pragmatic definition of objective truth, except science admits everything it says is derived from theories that can be tested to be either true or false. Anything that has no test that can be applied is deemed a point of belief or faith.

So in this idea, everything stated is true until it is discovered through an experiment that shows another aspect previously not understood is now true. So we have dark matter and dark energy, which are point of faith, because galaxies can be seen rotating, but could only be held together in their observed form if there is a massive mass that is not seen being present. This is making the assumption the laws of gravity etc. are consistent across the universe etc as we see them in our solar system. The problem is tweaking a few equations, makes dark matter and dark energy disappear. Now you may say this is not relevant, except this affect accounts for 95% of all matter we believe exists.

We love certainty, as if our security is founded in knowledge. But in Jesus our faith is founded in who He is not our understanding. With all the advances we have made in technology, we cannot define if matter is made of particles or waves, or even what energy actually is. We know pragmatically how everything in our experience works to the level of living day to day.

So when anyone uses the term objective truth, they are coming out of a world where certainty was held as a faith position, rather than our understanding is pragmatic, and our focus is in Christ.
God bless you

Theres a lot in your post I would contest. But most fundamental to the topic are your understandings of "subjective" and "objective".

Subjective basically describes internal and personal matters. Experiences, opinions. Contingency (dependence on other truths), has nothing to do with it.

Dark matter is proposed as a hypothesis about objective reality. Its either out there doing its thing independent of human minds, or its not out there. Either fact would be called objective.

 

[Kylie]

Youre adding in all kinds of other values into the mix that I didnt mention.

I just said we objectively value being fed. And it is true.

If we don't add the stuff you didn't mention, then we are being fed that flavourless mush I spoke of.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you'd value something with flavour a whole lot more.

 

[Kylie]

Right, I agree. I'm saying the perception of value exists in the mind and the mind exists in objective reality, therefore the value exists objectively(in the mind). And yes that means it's subjective, but if your subjective perception aligns with reality, then your subjective perception is objectively correct. (a mouthful, I know)

That's not true.

If I take a photo and print it out, that photo objectively exists. That doesn't mean that the photo is therefore objectively good or bad.

Just because it is objectively true that things can exist which hold subjective opinions, it does not mean those subjective opinions become objectively true.

Yoiu have made this mistake several times now. I hope you don't make it again.

I would disagree slightly and say the subjective value is based on the objective existence of said thing.

I disagree. Something does not need to objectively exist in order for me to have an opinion of it. Mister Spock does not objectively exist, yet I still have an opinion about him.

That's a neat story, thanks for sharing.

And I hope it illustrates my point.

Right, I agree there's a difference between the objective thing and the minds representation of said thing, but I'm saying the minds representation is objective since the mind exists in objective reality.

That's not true.

A representation of a thing is not the same thing as the thing itself.

A photograph of an apple and an actual apple are two different things.

To me, that question is like looking at an ocean of apples and asking "If you can't measure how many apples there are, how do you know there's valuable apples here?" If someone highly values something, you don't have to know the exact measure in order to know that they value it.

But the idea that the apples are valuable is a subjective one. A different person might consider the apples as worthless.

I'm not confusing that, but I can see how you might think that based on my choice of words, sorry for any confusion. Hopefully more clear now.

It appears you are confusing it, since you made the same error again.

 

[durangodawood]

If we don't add the stuff you didn't mention, then we are being fed that flavourless mush I spoke of.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you'd value something with flavour a whole lot more.

Of course theres subjective values.

But you asked for an objective one, and I provided.

 

[Kylie]

Ok I think this is similar to the "harm and rape" example inhow you are citing the difference experiences of an objective event. I agree people will experience having to save others differently and we will want to try and save our own child first. But what happens if you hear the cries of a child and you go to them through the smoke and its not your child. Do you leave them there to die or try and get them out quickly and then go back in.

Honestly, I'd probably pick them up but not leave until I found my child.

The question then is why we don't want those things to happen to us or others.

because they cause hardship, and we generally want to avoid hardship.

As for HOW MUCH hardship is caused, that's an entirely subjective determination.

As I said "life"as being intrinsically valuable is a First Principle Truth. It doesn't need any other qualification to make it valuable. So what happens in life after this is subject to evaluation according to the circumstances that happen. We can derive some added value from this like human wellbeing, flourishing ect because if "Life" is valuable in itself then certain values can stem from this.

So you are just trying to define your position into being true.

For example the value of every person being born with natural rights is inalienable and no one can deny that of every person. That gives them rights regardless of age, gender, race, ability. But lifes circumstances may cause ethical dilemmas where we have to make decisions about "Lives" and their value. That doesn't mean we should give up the idea that every "Life" has natural rights as a value.

And you STILL haven't told me if all lives are worth the same.

I never said that. I said they don't just create ethical codes without any reason. Like its some indiscriminate arbitrary code they picked out of a hat.

If you notice ethical codes have the same core truths that Human Rights, and most nations laws and religions have. Its a common and universal core set of truths that are well recognised as the basis for society (norms). We understand the reasoning (basis) for these codes/laws/norms as being good for individuals and society.

And you miss the point that corporations do that ONLY because they are required to do so.

If they didn't have to do it, they wouldn't.

If the value of life was a subjective measure then we would have to say that there is no way to value "Life" as there would be no independent basis to know what Lifes value was. So we would end up with different and opposing views of value all conflicting and equal in status as a personal reason for value. That includes views about lifes value that we may think are abhorent.

The fact is we have reasoned a small set of principles that we based "Lifes" value on and these are inalienable and cannot be subject to subjective/relative views by Human Right and Law.

And that is exactly what we see. How many cultures have treated the life of a baby girl as less than that of a baby boy? And do you consider the life of an old man who is too weak to get out of a hospital bed to be equal to the life of a healthy five year old with their entire life ahead of them?

So whats your point. This doesn't negate that "life" is valuable. It just exposes that humans can be callous and uncaring. We implement a law to show that murder and rape is wrong but people still murder and rape. We know "water" as a resourse is valuable but we still waste water. Humans can be both good and bad, they have free will so have the ability to ignore laws and objectives values.

Once again you run and hide behind your black and whjite argument.

Because the natural value as recognised by laws like Human Rights are not subject to any additional value we put on them. They just are an inalienable natural born right that recognises the Right to a "Life" regardless. If we started valuing this by additional circumstances then we would be devaluing people based on their race, gender, geography ect.

But what happens after this is to a point in individual hands. If they end up in a horrible situation where they may have a less quality life we don't think they should be put out of their misery.

Once again you fail to actually answer my question.

There are two people:

1. A five year old girl
2. A ninety-five year old man

Whose life has more value? The little girl? The old man? Do their lives both have equal value? Show your OBJECTIVE working.

No 2+2=4 just like rape = being wrong. If someone said 2+2=5 we can say they are mistaken. If someone says rape = being ok to do we can say they are mistaken. Its pretty simple and commonsense. I can't see why there is a problem. Do you really think a system that allows someone to say rape is good to do is real or allwable. Never and even if all the people in the world said it was ok to rape they would still be wrong.

I've been asking you to actually provide a PROOF of this, in the same way that mathematicians con provide a proof that 1+1=2, and you have ALWAYS failed to do so. You just repeat the same unsupported claim again and again and think that counts as proof for some reason.

I thought I already did. So we have an obvious Math example 1+1=2 is like straight out 1st degree killing. Theres no variables to consider to reach the answer.

Don't just say, "It's obvious," and then refuse to actually prove it. I can say it's obvious that morality is subjective and refuse to prove it just as easily, and such a claim would be just as valid as yours.

In any case, the claim 1+1=2 does have a proof, so even mathematicians don't just say, "It's obvious" and leave it at that.

As with the more complex Math example where we have to consider the variables (additional numbers to be calculated) to reach the objective answer of 2. A more complex moral situation of "killing in self defence" compared to the obvious 1st degree killing needs to consider the variables like additional numbers (the circumstances) such as non intentional killing to save your family.

And since different people place different values on those variables, there can never be any answer which everyone agrees is objective.

And theres your objective "they support a functioning society". If someone has the subjective view and disagrees that a "functioning society" is good then they are discounted. All subjective views are discounted and not allowed to negate the basis that a "functioning society" is the best way we can behave.

And the vast numbers of different cultures around the world shows that there are many differnt ways to achieve that. Again, there is no best version of what a functioning society is.

But you do want a system that will bring justice and prosecute those who do wrong. So indirectly you do support the perpetrators of wrongs being brought to justice and therefore the value of "Justice". Thats why we have things like neighbourhood watch because as a community we know that allowing unjust and wrong behaviour is not a good idea.

Yet you are still basing the idea on the concept of JUSTICE, which is subjective.

That's why you can have some people who think that justice can't be served unless the criminal is executed, and others who think that justice can be served in non-lethal ways.

 

[Kylie]

How do you know that you are not in some simulation that has programmed you to only think you are objectively seeing the apples.

.

Are you just trying to waste my time now?

 

[Moral Orel]

Of course theres subjective values.

But you asked for an objective one, and I provided.

Why are those "subjective values" and your example an "objective value"? What's the difference between those terms? It's true that I value being fed, and it's true that I value the flavor of chocolate ice cream. Both of those are objective facts, so they're both objective values, right?

 

[durangodawood]

Why are those "subjective values" and your example an "objective value"? What's the difference between those terms? It's true that I value being fed, and it's true that I value the flavor of chocolate ice cream. Both of those are objective facts, so they're both objective values, right?

Your personal values are not objectively accessible.

Again this discussion reveals the objective/subjective distinction as a lousy way to understand morality.

 

[Kylie]

Yet only one view was made law and imposed on all. I thouht all subjective views have equal status if there is no rational for why we go with one view or another. Like preferences for TV shows no view about which TV is best is more right or deserves special priveledge over another. It would be like legislating for people to be forced to like and accept Star Wars as the best TV show.

Oh, absolute garbage. No one is being forced to marry someone of the same sex if they don't want to, just like no one is being forced to like and accept Star Wars as the best TV show. All that's happened is the law was changed so same sex couples could marry if they wanted to, in just the same way that people who like Star Trek and not Star Wars can still watch Star Trek and never have to watch Star Wars if they don't want to.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

But you are obligated to allow and accept the equal status of that other view point within a subjective/relative system even if you disagree with it and thing is abhorent. Just like your obligated to accept people sitting at the dinner table who love foods you dislike.

Do you really think that all people must dedicate their lives to fighting everything they see as morally wrong? If I see Person A drop a $1 coin, and Person B sees this, and picks it up and keeps it, am I going to chase after Person A and tell them Person B stole a dollar from them? Probably not.

No subjective view of morality is wrong just like no preference for food is wrong in any truthful way in society or the world under a subjective/relative system

Yes.

But we can still have subjective views of morality that most people reject, and thus reject those who hold those views.

So what about Human Rights and other laws that are underpinned by morals. Are you saying these have not been reasoned as the rational and right thing to do. If you read up on "why" the specific Human Rights and national laws were chosen as opposed to any subjective view you will see they have good underpinning reasons that make them objective and inalienable.

That means they are protected against subjective/relative determinations.

Human rights are the bedrock principles which underpin all societies where there is rule of law and democracy. Since the end of World War II, the core importance of human rights has been universally acknowledged.
Today, against a backdrop of multiple conflicts, humanitarian emergencies and severe violations of international law, it is all the more essential that policy responses be firmly grounded in human rights, and that States comply with the binding obligations they have contracted when ratifying international human rights treaties.
https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/handbookparliamentarians.pdf

Haven't I already dealt with this? Are you going to keep making me explain the same things over and over?

Unfortunately promoting polgamy is probably off limits as a debate topic as well.

I didn't say polygamy, I said polyamory.

Maybe go back to your "stealing a candy bar example". I don't think we could say that this is an extreme example. So petty crime is still wrong. It comes down to whether petty crime is right or wrong behaviour to do. We could say that anyone who claims stealing small things is just mistaken and objectively wrong ie Petty crime = being wrong to do.

Okay, you've made the claim that stealing a candy bar is morally wrong. Prove it.

Its also not assuming there isn't one which is a proper way in which we should investigate anything if we are to be justified in our belief and position on something.

However, you position is clearly assuming that there is an objective morality, and you've never yet been able to prove it.

So its good practice to maximize our efforts to investigate things to see if there is a better/best way to behave rather than just rely on poor efforts and slopy investigations which may cause us to miss something and give us second best outcomes even worse false outcomes.

And what is the best way to behave? There are so many variables to take into account, and so many of them are based on personal preference, that there's no way to conclude that there is one objective best way to behave.

Exactly so why should we look back and say they were wrong if there is no objective way to measure what is morally wrong and its just about different subjective/relative views that cannot be wrong.

Subjective/relative morality is self-defeating because on the one hand you want to claim morlaity is subjective/realtive so there is no objective truth but rather many subjective truths. Yet at the same time want to protest past wrongs "we know better today"because we know the truth.

The fact that morality is subjective doesn't change the objective fact that it can cause harm. That in itself does not make morality objective.

It's like I can add something to water to give it flavour, but the fact that the water now objectively has flavour doesn't mean the flavour is objectively pleasant.

Ok so all your doing is building a case for objective ethical codes that force employees to conform and relinquish their subjective views over to the corporation. Now why should employees be forced to conform to someone elses subjective view.

I still think your psoition is a bit cynical. Union representation has fallen dramatically. Companies aremuch more in tune with their employees nowadays. Sure we need laws to keep people in line but if we look at most laws relating to ethics they are for good reasons we all agree on. The fact that there may be some nasty unethical company bosses out there doesn't reflect on the ethical system and its basis for treating people with respect and equality.

Many companies now see for example equality/ diversity in the workforce brings benefits from a wider group of people. They see being interested in employees brings greater productivity. There is good reasoning behind the ethical codes as well. Those reasons are a good basis for why they matter.

I don't know what in the world you are talking about, but I never made that argument at all.

Well obviously its based on human "Life" being intrinsically valuable. With that comes certain other values such as with Human Rights. So I guess the first place to look for a definition is there.

And again I will ask you to tell me, whose life has great value? A five year old girl, or a ninety year old man?

And you didn't answer my question. I asked you to show your working for how you reached your conclusion, and you give me some vague wishy-washy mumbo jumbo about where you might possibly start looking for an answer.

But I wouldn't say evolution can completely account for how living things behave especially humans. Socially and culturally humans can behave in ways that control their own evolution and are not passive players subject to being adapted to some environment through an outside force they have no control over. In that sense its not programmed and aribtrary as we are rational and moral beings.

And why do you think evolution can't account for this?

 

[Chriliman]

That's not true.

If I take a photo and print it out, that photo objectively exists. That doesn't mean that the photo is therefore objectively good or bad.

Just because it is objectively true that things can exist which hold subjective opinions, it does not mean those subjective opinions become objectively true.

Yoiu have made this mistake several times now. I hope you don't make it again.



I disagree. Something does not need to objectively exist in order for me to have an opinion of it. Mister Spock does not objectively exist, yet I still have an opinion about him.



And I hope it illustrates my point.



That's not true.

A representation of a thing is not the same thing as the thing itself.

A photograph of an apple and an actual apple are two different things.



But the idea that the apples are valuable is a subjective one. A different person might consider the apples as worthless.



It appears you are confusing it, since you made the same error again.

I agree that our subjective perceptions or morals aren’t necessarily correct just because they exist in objective reality, but if your subjective perception or morals align with the facts then they are objectively correct.