Is there an absolute morality?

[Kylie]

I would disagree and say just because somethings objective doesn’t mean it has to be correct. The fact that someone tells a lie doesn’t mean the lie is correct. So a request can be objective without being correct.

And again you make the same mistake.

What is objectively correct is that a lie was told. The objectivity of that has no bearing at all on the truthfulness of the claim that was made. The lie existing is not the same thing as what the lie said.

If you are going to continue to make such basic mistakes, then it will be hard to have a meaningful discussion about this with you.

 

[Chriliman]

The word "valid" means that IF it were true, it would support your argument. You also have to prove it's actually true.

Well, its not hard to prove hair gets shorter when cut, or that Jimmy likes Billy's hair longer. So according to what you just said, we should agree these are valid reasons.

"I don't want you to" is not a valid reason any more than "It will be shorter". You're just describing something else.

If it's true that "I don't want you to" and it's true that "It will be shorter", then these are valid reasons according to your own words above, and I quote "The word "valid" means that IF it were true".

Because you believe "One shouldn't cause harm" to be true. Can you justify that belief?

Yes, it would be justified by the valid fact that someone whom you intend to harm, does not want to be harmed.

The only way it is wrong to bother someone is IF it's wrong to cause harm. So now you have to prove it's wrong to cause harm.

I did prove that by acknowledging the fact that someone does not want to be harmed.

My claim isn't a moral position. A moral position is a claim about how one should behave.

Morality has to do with all right and wrong, including arguments. Look it up.

So far, one things for certain, we're both failing at convincing the other of our positions, lol.

 

[Chriliman]

And again you make the same mistake.

What is objectively correct is that a lie was told. The objectivity of that has no bearing at all on the truthfulness of the claim that was made. The lie existing is not the same thing as what the lie said.

If you are going to continue to make such basic mistakes, then it will be hard to have a meaningful discussion about this with you.

I agree with this, we are saying the same thing, just differently.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well, its not hard to prove hair gets shorter when cut, or that Jimmy likes Billy's hair longer. So according to what you just said, we should agree these are valid reasons.

If it's true that "I don't want you to" and it's true that "It will be shorter", then these are valid reasons according to your own words above, and I quote "The word "valid" means that IF it were true".

Yes, it would be justified by the valid fact that someone whom you intend to harm, does not want to be harmed.

No, they are true statements, but they are not valid reasons. Just because they're true doesn't mean that your conclusion is true. Just because hair will be shorter if you cut it, doesn't prove that you shouldn't cut hair.

You can't just point to any old true statement and use it to prove any claim. They have to be connected to one another.

Here's a simple test. If you claim "One ought to X" then any reasoning you provide must contain the word "ought". If you claim "Such and such behavior is wrong" then any reasoning you provide must contain the word "wrong". If you aren't even doing that, then you aren't even close to offering a valid reason.

I did prove that by acknowledging the fact that someone does not want to be harmed.

Again, not a valid reason. Go back and reread my post where I broke everything down into formal logic.

Morality has to do with all right and wrong, including arguments. Look it up.

No, it doesn't. "2+2=5" is wrong and morality has nothing to do with it. "The Earth is flat" is wrong and morality has nothing to do with it.

 

[Chriliman]

No, they are true statements, but they are not valid reasons. Just because they're true doesn't mean that your conclusion is true. Just because hair will be shorter if you cut it, doesn't prove that you shouldn't cut hair.

It would prove that you shouldn’t cut hair if you don’t want it to be shorter.

No, it doesn't. "2+2=5" is wrong and morality has nothing to do with it. "The Earth is flat" is wrong and morality has nothing to do with it.

I’m going by this definition:
mo·ral·i·ty
/məˈralədē/

noun

1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

It clearly says “right and wrong” in there and I presume that to mean anything that can be right and wrong.

Besides, by your view, someone could be completely convinced that their illogical argument is right and be convincing others it’s right, but you wouldn’t say they’re morally wrong for doing that?

 

[Noxot]

Are acts wrong in themselves? Or does it depend on the context?

only divine love is good

 

[Moral Orel]

It would prove that you shouldn’t cut hair if you don’t want it to be shorter.

Nope. See my simple test for making a valid argument in my previous reply.

I’m going by this definition:
mo·ral·i·ty
/məˈralədē/

noun

1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

It clearly says “right and wrong” in there and I presume that to mean anything that can be right and wrong.

Allow me to parse that for you:

Principles concerning the distinction between right behavior and wrong behavior, or good behavior and bad behavior.

No, morality is not concerned with math problems.

Besides, by your view, someone could be completely convinced that their illogical argument is right and be convincing others it’s right, but you wouldn’t say they’re morally wrong for doing that?

Correct. It's important to note that I wouldn't say they're morally right for doing it either.

 

[Chriliman]

Nope. See my simple test for making a valid argument in my previous reply.

Allow me to parse that for you:

Principles concerning the distinction between right behavior and wrong behavior, or good behavior and bad behavior.

No, morality is not concerned with math problems.

Correct. It's important to note that I wouldn't say they're morally right for doing it either.

I agree that a true statement doesn’t necessarily make your conclusion true, but if it’s true that you want long hair, then the conclusion follows that you shouldn’t cut it. I don’t understand why you think that logic is invalid.

I also agree that morality isn’t concerned with math problems, but I disagree that someone misleading others with an illogical argument isn’t morally responsible. If they were unintentionally misleading others, it’s possible they’d feel bad after realizing it was illogical.

 

[Moral Orel]

I agree that a true statement doesn’t necessarily make your conclusion true, but if it’s true that you want long hair, then the conclusion follows that you shouldn’t cut it. I don’t understand why you think that logic is invalid.

Because "want" and "should" are completely different propositions. They don't mean the same thing. The same way we can't prove that I "will" do something simply because I "can" do something. The words "will" and "can" are completely different propositions.

Seriously, go back and reread my post about how to prove these things formally. We speak about things differently in casual conversation, and we fill in gaps without explicitly stating them. But when we write it out formally we can see that those hidden assumptions need to be stated for our arguments to be valid. And it's those hidden assumptions that we have no real reason to believe are true.

I also agree that morality isn’t concerned with math problems

Okay, then you see how my argument isn't self defeating because it isn't a moral position.

 

[Amittai]

Then show me something which is completely subjective and yet at the same time completely objective.

This is because what is around us, requests our respect. Degrees of inference are something we should each be doing all the time, on every matter.

 

[Amittai]

... They will eventually figure out again the average distance between the Earth and the sun, and it will be the same value that we have today.

This will not happen with morality.

In every field eventually yes - and probably not quite all the same fragments for a very long time. Likewise, morality is recovered in fragments. Because methods vary, and because it is personal, doing so is all the more more emotionally fraught and subject to circumstance.

This is why I keep using the word approximation. Approximations are immensely realistic and of huge practical value. As people keep on pooling inferences, not only are rough parameters seen, but more detail and structure. Knowledge is tested tentatively and provisional findings lead to even more inferring.

 

[Amittai]

we have no real reason to believe are true

- or in some cases do have real such reason for examination and whatever action singly or jointly, as the case may variously be, which doesn't conflict with those cases you have in mind where we don't.

 

[Chriliman]

Because "want" and "should" are completely different propositions. They don't mean the same thing. The same way we can't prove that I "will" do something simply because I "can" do something. The words "will" and "can" are completely different propositions.

But you can prove that you "will" do something, simply by doing it. Just because "will" is a different proposition than "can" doesn't mean it's not provable. Same with "should". Sorry, you're not making much sense to me and maybe that's ok.

Seriously, go back and reread my post about how to prove these things formally. We speak about things differently in casual conversation, and we fill in gaps without explicitly stating them. But when we write it out formally we can see that those hidden assumptions need to be stated for our arguments to be valid. And it's those hidden assumptions that we have no real reason to believe are true.

Okay, then you see how my argument isn't self defeating because it isn't a moral position.

You're saying your argument is mathematical? How so?

 

[Moral Orel]

But you can prove that you "will" do something, simply by doing it. Just because "will" is a different proposition than "can" doesn't mean it's not provable. Same with "should". Sorry, you're not making much sense to me and maybe that's ok.

You can't formulate a valid argument with a "will" conclusion by using only "can" premises.
You can't formulate a valid argument with a "should" conclusion by using only "want" premises.

Do you get why those two statements are both true for the same reason? You're jumping around too much. Just stick to the one point at a time, please.

You're saying your argument is mathematical? How so?

No, I thought you understood morality is about behavior. My argument isn't about the behavior itself, so it isn't a moral position.

 

[Bradskii]

only divine love is good

So helping the poor is not?

 

[Chriliman]

You can't formulate a valid argument with a "will" conclusion by using only "can" premises.
You can't formulate a valid argument with a "should" conclusion by using only "want" premises.

Do you get why those two statements are both true for the same reason? You're jumping around too much. Just stick to the one point at a time, please.

But earlier we established that all somethings needs to be valid is to be true and provable, and we(at least I) established that "will" is provable by simply acting out the will. This seems obvious to me, not sure why you don't agree.

No, I thought you understood morality is about behavior. My argument isn't about the behavior itself, so it isn't a moral position.

Again, how someone uses logic is a behavioral issue, because if their logic is sound and true then thats good behavior, but if their logic is not sound and true then thats bad behavior, that should be corrected. I'm not sure why you don't agree, but at this pint I'll concede that I'm just not smart enough to determine why.

 

[Moral Orel]

But earlier we established that all somethings needs to be valid is to be true and provable

No, that's not what it means for something to be valid. A reason is valid if it leads to a conclusion. If the conclusion must be true whenever the reason is true, then the reason is valid. You can give a reason that is both false and valid. Your argument works when the reason is both valid and true. So do you see how the following statements are both true for the same reason?

You can't formulate a valid argument with a "will" conclusion by using only "can" premises.
You can't formulate a valid argument with a "should" conclusion by using only "want" premises.

 

[Chriliman]

No, that's not what it means for something to be valid. A reason is valid if it leads to a conclusion. If the conclusion must be true whenever the reason is true, then the reason is valid. You can give a reason that is both false and valid. Your argument works when the reason is both valid and true. So do you see how the following statements are both true for the same reason?

You can't formulate a valid argument with a "will" conclusion by using only "can" premises.
You can't formulate a valid argument with a "should" conclusion by using only "want" premises.

Nope. Honestly, this sounds like nonsense to me. Are you a moral nihilist?

 

[Moral Orel]

Nope. Honestly, this sounds like nonsense to me. Are you a moral nihilist?

This is the basics of logic. This still isn't even the topic of morality.

 

[Kylie]

I agree with this, we are saying the same thing, just differently.

It does not seem like we are saying the same thing. It seems like what you are saying is confusing the existence of an opinion with what the opinion is.