Is there an absolute morality?

[Bradskii]

Ok, so lets take the "shoulds" out:
P1 Stealing Nancy's property causes unfair harm
P2 I won't cause unfair harm
C I won't steal Nancy's car

Now as far as I can tell P1 and P2 can be proven by acting them out, or in the case of P2, not causing unfair harm. So how is this not a valid and sound argument for objective morality?

This is so frustrating...

Let's not use the word 'steal' as it already implies an act which is wrong. Let's not prejudge an act by using abterm that could already be considered immoral. So let's say that you take Nancy's car. Is that immoral? We don't know. We need further information. So here are some objective facts:

Nancy didn't give permission for you to take it.
You intend to keep it.
You took it because you didn't want to buy one yourself.

Now all those are objective facts. But please take this on board. Because they are objective facts, that doesn't make the act objective. The act is relative to those facts.

 

[Chriliman]

This is so frustrating...

Let's not use the word 'steal' as it already implies an act which is wrong. Let's not prejudge an act by using abterm that could already be considered immoral. So let's say that you take Nancy's car. Is that immoral? We don't know. We need further information. So here are some objective facts:

Nancy didn't give permission for you to take it.
You intend to keep it.
You took it because you didn't want to buy one yourself.

Now all those are objective facts. But please take this on board. Because they are objective facts, that doesn't make the act objective. The act is relative to those facts.

But how is it not an objective fact that an act took place? IOW, how is an act not objective?

We use other objective facts relative to the objective act to determine objective morality. That’s how relativity can fit into objective morality.

Also, if you followed along at all, we decided to use the term “steal” because it’s important to know that Nancy would feel unfairly harmed by the act.

 

[Moral Orel]

That is quite an astonishing thing to say. I started this thread on the basis that morality is subjective. Every post I have written is based on the fact that it is subjective. Every argument I have presented is based on the fact that it is subjective. I haven't written anything that would give anyone the impression that I don't believe it's anything but subjective. I have never thought it is anything but subjective. I have given examples where it is proved to be subjective.

For you to say that I have come to the realisation it is so and that I believed that it was objective is quite simply the weirdest thing you could have posted. You seem not to have understood literally anything I have posted.

I know you say morality is subjective. But then you claim that moral statements can be facts. That's what an objectivist claims. That you believe there is any act that even could be "indeed immoral" shows that you view morality as objective. You just say it's subjective because you don't understand what that claim means.

Look at this quote from you:

But if I tell you that I am doing it because I like to cause pain, then we have enough info to make a determination. And it would be nonsensical to say we couldn't. Causing pain to a child simply for the enjoyment you would from their pain would be an immoral act.

If this is true, then morality is objective.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok, so lets take the "shoulds" out:
P1 Stealing Nancy's property causes unfair harm
P2 I won't cause unfair harm
C I won't steal Nancy's car

Now as far as I can tell P1 and P2 can be proven by acting them out, or in the case of P2, not causing unfair harm. So how is this not a valid and sound argument for objective morality?

It isn't an argument for objective morality because you haven't made a moral statement.

"Stealing Nancy's car is wrong"
"Stealing Nancy's car is immoral"
"I shouldn't steal Nancy's car"

Those are moral statements. If you prove they are facts, then you will have proven morality is objective. But that's the problem with proving something that can't be observed.

Lemme ask you this. Why would you even want to prove that stealing her car is wrong? Because you want to convince people not to do it, right? So use this argument:

P1 Most people who steal cars get caught.
P2 The penalty for stealing cars is years in prison.
P3 If you steal her car, you'll probably be caught.
C If you steal her car, you'll probably spend years in prison.

This isn't an argument for objective morality. It makes no statements explicitly or implicitly about morality at all. But this argument will cause a potential car thief to reconsider.

Here's another one:

P1 Victims of car theft experience stress.
P2 If you steal Nancy's car you will cause her to be a victim of car theft.
C If you steal Nancy's car you will cause her stress.

It sounds too clinical to really tug at anyone's heartstrings, but I wanted to make it an actually valid and sound argument. Getting people to associate their deeds with bad feelings makes them not want to do that deed anymore though, so this too would cause a potential car thief to reconsider without ever mentioning morality.

So what do you care if morality is objective or not for?

 

[Moral Orel]

But how is it not an objective fact that an act took place? IOW, how is an act not objective?

Well, no act took place. Remember the conclusion was "I won't steal Nancy's car". So nothing happened, there was no act. It doesn't make any sense to say that "an act is not objective" or that "an act is relative". Someone might say, "The goodness of an act is objective or relative".

We use other objective facts relative to the objective act to determine objective morality. That’s how relativity can fit into objective morality.

Again, you're correct. "Relative" and "objective" are not at odds. I think there was some old nerd with wacky hair about 80 years ago that wrote something about that.

It's like this:

Objective vs Subjective.
Relative vs Absolute.

Also, if you followed along at all, we decided to use the term “steal” because it’s important to know that Nancy would feel unfairly harmed by the act.

Again, correct. You may believe that all stealing is wrong (which would be a matter of absolutes) but the word "steal" only describes an act; it doesn't imply moral judgement. Even when I used to believe morality could be objective, I would still have said, "Stealing a loaf of bread to feed starving children is a moral thing to do".

 

[Bradskii]

Look at this quote from you:

'But if I tell you that I am doing it because I like to cause pain, then we have enough info to make a determination. And it would be nonsensical to say we couldn't. Causing pain to a child simply for the enjoyment you would from their pain would be an immoral act.'

If this is true, then morality is objective.

It's true for me. But what if I thought that causing pain to a child was perfectly ok? If I re-wrote that statement based on that opinion, would that make my morality objectively true as well? If you think it's wrong and I think it's OK then it can't be objectively right for the both of us.

That's obviously an extreme example and we wouldn't disagree that it's wrong. But what if we do disagree on something? What basis would you use to argue that you are right and I am wrong? I would use harm as the determinant: 'It's causing distress to tbe child for no good reason. Your pleasure at the pain does not grant you the right to cause it'.

What what you use to convince me that an act is objectively wrong?

 

[o_mlly]

Accidently causing someone's death is evil? Well, if you want to redefine the word, I suppose it could be. Is there a definition you could supply that shows it being used in that sense?

Why would one have to redefine the word? As our sole apologist for the "good rape", pray do tell us how the act that kills an innocent person is a "good kill", a just kill, you know, the right kinda thing to do.

 

[Bradskii]

Why would one have to redefine the word? As our sole apologist for the "good rape", pray do tell us how the act that kills an innocent person is a "good kill", a just kill, you know, the right kinda thing to do.

You've stated that innocently causing the death of someone is 'evil'. Where is this definition to be found? You're using it - we need to know.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's true for me. But what if I thought that causing pain to a child was perfectly ok? If I re-wrote that statement based on that opinion, would that make my morality objectively true as well? If you think it's wrong and I think it's OK then it can't be objectively right for the both of us.

Statements are either true or they are false. Period. I honestly have no idea what "true for me" means.

If it is true, it is a fact. If it is not a fact, then it is false.

 

[Bradskii]

Statements are either true or they are false. Period. I honestly have no idea what "true for me" means.

If it is true, it is a fact. If it is not a fact, then it is false.

Don't be naive. There are many positions that people take where the veracity of their position is indeterminate. Where the veracity of any statement they make is based on personal opinion. Objective facts are true - by definition. But is it an objective fact, for example, that people at the age of 16 are capable of making decisions in regard to sex? Is it true that any given boy or girl at that age are capable? Or is it your decision that they can or cannot? Is it mine? Is it theirs? What makes it objectively true one way or the other?

 

[Moral Orel]

Don't be naive.

Speak more precisely.

There are many positions that people take where the veracity of their position is indeterminate.

You said that you determined "Causing pain to a child for fun is indeed immoral".

Are you expressing belief in a fact that you are unsure of?

Is it theoretically possible to know that statement is true?

If I was omniscient, could I know that statement is a fact?

 

[Bradskii]

Speak more precisely.

You said that you determined "Causing pain to a child for fun is indeed immoral".

Are you expressing belief in a fact that you are unsure of?

Is it theoretically possible to know that statement is true?

If I was omniscient, could I know that statement is a fact?

In my opinion, it is immoral. Because I believe that causing harm to someone for no other reason than I enjoy it is wrong. I'm certain of that. I'm sure you are as well. But just because we agree on something doesn't make it right. So if there is an act that you think is wrong that I think is OK, how do you persuade me that you are right? If morality is objective then we both can't be right.

How do you decide?

 

[Moral Orel]

In my opinion, it is immoral. Because I believe that causing harm to someone for no other reason than I enjoy it is wrong. I'm certain of that.

Okay, so "Causing harm to someone for no other reason than to enjoy it is wrong". That is a fact? That is true? You say you are "certain" of this, so you are expressing belief in a fact that you know is true.

 

[Bradskii]

Okay, so "Causing harm to someone for no other reason than to enjoy it is wrong". That is a fact? That is true? You say you are "certain" of this, so you are expressing belief in a fact that you know is true.

It's my personal opinion. What's yours?

 

[Moral Orel]

It's my personal opinion. What's yours?

How does one be "certain" of a personal opinion?

 

[Bradskii]

How does one be "certain" of a personal opinion?

Don't be flippant. If I've made my mind up on any given matter then until somone convinces me otherwise, I'll maintain that I am right. So yet again...how do you convince me that you are right and I am actually wrong. How do you reach your opinion on moral matters? What do you consider in deciding if an act is immoral?

 

[o_mlly]

You've stated that innocently causing the death of someone is 'evil'. Where is this definition to be found? You're using it - we need to know.

Your insistence on having this issue explained repeatedly demonstrates the point made earlier: the error of the one who holds that morality is subjective is twofold: 1) he will not or cannot separate the act from the actor and, 2) (this is new and follows from 1) he holds that only the intention of the actor determines the morality of his act.

So in painfully plain terms:

• We judge the morality of a human act by its proximate effects.
  
• Is the death of an innocent person an effect to be avoided? Yes.
  
• Do we not regard outcomes we will to avoid as evil? Yes.
  
• Is the human act that causes only an evil outcome judged an evil act? Yes.

The invincibly ignorant do not render truth to be unobtainable to the rational mind. That just one "flat earther" cannot be persuaded to see the light does not throw the shape of the planet into epistemological oblivion.

 

[Bradskii]

Your insistence on having this issue explained repeatedly demonstrates the point made earlier: the error of the one who holds that morality is subjective is twofold: 1) he will not or cannot separate the act from the actor and, 2) (this is new and follows from 1) he holds that only the intention of the actor determines the morality of his act.

So in painfully plain terms:

• We judge the morality of a human act by its proximate effects.
  
• Is the death of an innocent person an effect to be avoided? Yes.
  
• Do we not regard outcomes we will to avoid as evil? Yes.
  
• Is the human act that causes only an evil outcome judged an evil act? Yes.

The invincibly ignorant do not render truth to be unobtainable to the rational mind. That just one "flat earther" cannot be persuaded to see the light does not throw the shape of the planet into epistemological oblivion.

So again, if you could show me where it is described as evil when someone is accidently killed, I'd appreciate it.

 

[Chriliman]

It isn't an argument for objective morality because you haven't made a moral statement.

Wait, before we go down the semantics rabbit hole again, how is what you will and won't do, based on unfair harm, not moral behavior?

Here's another one:

P1 Victims of car theft experience stress.
P2 If you steal Nancy's car you will cause her to be a victim of car theft.
C If you steal Nancy's car you will cause her stress.

It sounds too clinical to really tug at anyone's heartstrings, but I wanted to make it an actually valid and sound argument. Getting people to associate their deeds with bad feelings makes them not want to do that deed anymore though, so this too would cause a potential car thief to reconsider without ever mentioning morality.

This is more inline with what I'm trying to get at. This why we can say in ALL cases, if you know stealing a car causes unfair stress(bad) and you want to behave well(good), then you won't do it.

So what do you care if morality is objective or not for?

I care because when I rationalize it out, its clear to me that morality is objective, yet others thinks it's clear to them that it isn't, so trying to figure out how to get to an agreed truth of the matter is interesting to me.

 

[o_mlly]

So again, if you could show me where it is described as evil when someone is accidently killed, I'd appreciate it.

Tranquil spectators of your brothers’ wreck,
Unmoved by this repellent dance of death,
Who calmly seek the reason of such storms,
Let them but lash your own security;
Your tears will mingle freely with the flood.
When earth its horrid jaws half open shows,
My plaint is innocent, my cries are just.
Surrounded by such cruelties of fate,
By rage of evil and by snares of death,
Fronting the fierceness of the elements,
Sharing our ills, indulge me my lament.