Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
One thing people seem to get stuck on is that they think morals should be measured like physical stuff with instruments or test tubes. Pro objectivists usually say morality can be understood like science but isn't science. Its just the analogies help explain things.
A moral truth stands independent of humans in value. This is evidenced by the way humans intuitively know certain things are wrong and how they act like morality is objective regardless of claims of beinga subjectivists. HUmans are witnesses for the prosecution that there are objective morals.
Makes sense."Ought" statements are not statements about how to achieve a goal, they are a prescription to do the thing that achieves your goal.
The "ought" is saying "this is the correct act to choose". Invoking a sense of duty would be an attempt to justify the "ought".Makes sense.
So the "ought" prescription is basically society saying you have a duty to other individuals, or to society generally, or to God, to behave in certain ways. Does that sound right?
After reading your post....
I recently voted "no" after a long time monitoring this thread. I hesitated, because I do think there are some underlying moral basics that could be called a "objective moral foundation" found throughout humanity, but no one on the "yes" side was *anywhere* near that sort of definition, so I've sided with the "no" crowd for now.
At least you acknowledge we all share a core of moral truths. Others on this thread won’t even go that far.
The research seems to show its more than that. Sure culture and upbringing influence our views but our knowledge of moral truths is there from a very early age.
There has to be a light source that emits the light for it to be measured in any level so yes there is either light or there’s not. But we can also measure the level of light with a meter. The light at midday will be stronger than the light at dusk.
That’s not too dissimilar to moral truths. Killing is morally wrong. But we can determine different levels (severity) of killing such as 1st degree and manslaughter.
What’s being vegan got to do with things.
Just because we intuitively know that killing is wrong doesn’t mean humans cannot kill. We all know the law and yet humans are constantly breaking the law.
The same way and tribunal or the courts do with different criteria for different levels of killing.
So are you saying that when they decide if someone has committed 1st degree murder or manslaughter they subjectively decide? They just say in my opinion or view is worse than the other. Are you saying theres no measure they use to determine worse.
So like I said are you saying that to tell the difference between all these levels of severity we just use subjective opinions and not some objective basis? Couldn’t the defendant say that he is being convicted by an opinion and it’s not correct in his opinion? Lol. Afterall its just one opinion against another.
So how do we decide that. With an opinion or with some objective measure like intent to kill and the facts.
Of course it makers it objectively wrong. Its wrong regardless of peoples opinions. Its wrong due to the facts. The facts show how the different levels of severity are determined anmd not opinions. We would be in a hossible situation if we went around accusing and blaiming people based on opinion.
Someones opinion might be that all Black people can't be trusted because of their personal experience. Are we to say that we should trust that opinion.
? Just more assertions w/o arguments.
Having defeated your claim with examples from biology/zoology, why would you think astrology/cosmology would be any different?
But that doesn’t make morality objective.But I think we can say that some of our laws are underpinned by morals/ethics.
But we have established the best way to behave, and it varies from society to society.By reasoning out the situation. Getting evidence as to whether smacking is harmful or not. Obviously each country has evidence and thinks their right. But both can't be right so the truth has to be established. JUst because we cannont establish what is the right way to behave at the time doesn't mean we can't determine whats better/best in the future.
This is done because killing is a subjective moral issue; not objective.Taking the circumstances into consideration is about looking at the differences between for example different Killing scenarios where it may be accidental, self defence, intentional.
The value of human life is completely subjective. If you disagree, provide objective proof that there is any value to Human life.Each circumstance will have actions, motives, which make a difference to how it is wrong, how severe it is ect. These things cannot be determined by personal opinion. Rather they are determined by forensics and people who use objective measures to establish the facts/truth of the matter. We can do that with morality. We can observe behavior, measure severity, catorgorize moral wrongs based on the value of Human "Life".
Changing weather circumstances on a Planet is not based on human thought, it’s based on factors outside of mankind.I am not quite sure what you mean by that. But if you mean as in the physical things it happens all the time. How you see and measure say a planet will depend on changing circumstances. If your looking for what is causing some activity on a planet then the changing weather circumstances may influence what is really going on or causing the activity or behaviour. It really doesnt matter.
Yes but once we figure it out, it never changes. Morality is constantly changingYes has to be grounded in some objective fact or truth outside the human. But that doesnt mean humans can't use their cognition to work whats a fact or truth.
So what objective proof do you have that killing innocent children is wrong?No it won't but an objective determination that allows us to say killing innocent children is objectively wrong. The gunman may have had all sorts of issues or mental problems even..
What, no counter-argument? Just something that kinda-sorta-looks-like a premise if you squint hard enough? That's all you got?But, since we exist in nature, we can study ourselves and intersubjectively arrive at objective truths about ourselves.
But that doesnt exaplin why something is wrong. It only describes how we come to know morality.It's obvious that we do. Most people would agree that murder is bad, rape is bad, theft is bad, and that kindness is good.
I just say that this is because we have evolved to live in social groups, and these traits benefit such social groups.
Yeah sureWould you share this research?
I'm not suree what you mean.We still have to measure it to know that it's at a non-zero level.
But I never said killing is wrong regardless of circumstances.If killing is wrong regardless of circumstances, then killing animals to eat them is wrong. Thus, I assume you are a vegan.
I guarentee that within that tribe they will regard human "Life"as important, sacred even of value. They just happen to have some belief that outsiders are wrong, maybe something to do with them bringing in evil spirits or something like that. Or their just nasty people lol. But of course under a subjective/relative moral view they wouldn't be doing anything wrong.Yeah, they didn't seem to kill him with reluctance. That tribe has always violently and aggressively reacted to outsiders. That's why there a big fat "Leave them alone" rule to make sure no one ever goes there.
Of course it does. The court has to decide based on the facts who is right and who is wrong.Yeah, that doesn't determine objective facts.
I have been and you fail to see it. Comparing 1st degree murder with manslaughter or killing in self-defense.Well, let's look at a specific hypothetical example.
They can investigate to see if theres any other evidence that will help discover the truth. Like a secret girlfriend or a secret life lol. They may find something that helps. But to say that we should not be concerned that the husband was fiddling with the brakes just before she has an accident where the brakes failed.A man has been working on the car, fixing the brakes. After he is done, his wife takes the car to do the shopping, but the brakes fail and the car crashes and she dies. Investigations show that the brake line wasn't reconnected properly, and it failed when she put on the brakes, causing the crash. The husband claims it was an accident, but the wife's family claim it was deliberate so the husband could get the life insurance payout.
Now, was it premediated murder, or an accident? The physical cause is known, all that stands between "murder" and "manslaughter" is the husband's intentions. How do you determine that? You can't, not unless you have a telepath handy. So whatever the jury's verdict is will be based, at least partially, on subjective opinion.
But that doesnt exaplin why something is wrong. It only describes how we come to know morality.
Yeah sure
Research shows toddlers understand right from wrong at just 19 months
Scientists have found that babies aged between 19 and 21 months understand fairness and can apply it in different situations.
They say it is the first time that having a sense of fairness has been identified in children at such a young age.
Research shows toddlers understand right from wrong at just 19 months
Psychologists say babies know right from wrong even at six months
The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state," but new research contradicts this view. The researchers have found babies as young as six months old already make moral judgments, and they think we may be born with a moral code hard-wired into our brains.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2010-05-psychologists-babies-wrong-months.html
The Moral Life of Babies
Babies possess certain moral foundations — the capacity and willingness to judge the actions of others, some sense of justice, gut responses to altruism and nastiness. Regardless of how smart we are, if we didn’t start with this basic apparatus, we would be nothing more than amoral agents, ruthlessly driven to pursue our self-interest. But our capacities as babies are sharply limited. It is the insights of rational individuals that make a truly universal and unselfish morality something that our species can aspire to.
The Moral Life of Babies (Published 2010)
I'm not suree what you mean.
But I never said killing is wrong regardless of circumstances.
I guarentee that within that tribe they will regard human "Life"as important, sacred even of value. They just happen to have some belief that outsiders are wrong, maybe something to do with them bringing in evil spirits or something like that. Or their just nasty people lol. But of course under a subjective/relative moral view they wouldn't be doing anything wrong.
Of course it does. The court has to decide based on the facts who is right and who is wrong.
I have been and you fail to see it. Comparing 1st degree murder with manslaughter or killing in self-defense.
They can investigate to see if theres any other evidence that will help discover the truth. Like a secret girlfriend or a secret life lol. They may find something that helps.
But to say that we should not be concerned that the husband was fiddling with the brakes just before she has an accident where the brakes failed.
We can surely say that the husband bears some responsibility even if its a failed duty of care. He can be found guilty of manslaughter because it was his responsibility to make sure he put the brakes in working order being that he worked on them.
So at the very least he is guilty of a less severe cause of death. But that doesnt mean we cannot find out of he is guilty of a more severe moral wrong like intentional killing. Certainly fiddling with the brakes before the wife dies due to failed brakes will have the law asking questions.
I agree that doesnt in itself. But is one of many supports that show there are objective morals. People intuitive know there are moral truths. They act and react like there are moral truths. Sometimes if it talks and walks like a duck chances are its a duck. At least we should go with that until something better defeats it.But that doesn’t make morality objective.
Thats more about relative morality. Different cultures/societies will have different beliefs, cultural norms that influence how they see things. But all cultures have similar core moral values, like "Life" is precious or we should care for our children and not abuse them.But we have established the best way to behave, and it varies from society to society.
Thats silly. The fact that they have certain criteria for what is 1st degree murder and what is killing in self-defence is not decided subjectively. Subjective morality is compared to "Likes and Dislikes" or personal opinions and views. This may be affected by personal experiences in life which can skew and bias the way a person sees things. So subjective feelings or opinions cannot be relied upon to determine such an important matter in which at times someones life is on the line in going to jail.This is done because killing is a subjective moral issue; not objective.
All of the laws, conventions which most countries have signed up for, treaties, UN Human Rights, US declaration and many countries constitutions all make Human "LIfe valuable above all else. Entire nations are built on this.The value of human life is completely subjective. If you disagree, provide objective proof that there is any value to Human life.
Nothing changes objectively due to beliefs, or opinions. Where talking about finding the truth of a matter. Subjective thinking won't find the truth or facts.Changing weather circumstances on a Planet is not based on human thought, it’s based on factors outside of mankind.
Again; name something objective that changes based on human thoughts, beliefs, or opinions.
What do you mean morality is constantly changing.Yes but once we figure it out, it never changes. Morality is constantly changing
Well if human "LIfe" is acknowledged by humans as valuable then obviously preserving life is part of that. As mentioned it doesnt matter what domain you look at they all converge on "Life"being valuable in some way. So thats a pretty core moral value.So what objective proof do you have that killing innocent children is wrong?
-snip-
Well if human "LIfe" is acknowledged by humans as valuable then obviously preserving life is part of that. As mentioned it doesnt matter what domain you look at they all converge on "Life"being valuable in some way. So thats a pretty core moral value.-snip-
Yes that is true and that is part of it. Not harming humans should be part of an objective moral as it is about valuing human "Life". But thats not all that supports objective morality. Its also our intuition of it and how we live like morals are objective. Its how we can reason out moral truths (better/best ways to behave morally) to find and test that truth.Because things like murder, rape, theft, etc, harm the social community.
I've explained this many times now.
The problem is it doesn't matter what environment it happens in be it atheist, religious and also what religion, culture. All young children even at 6 months which is very little time to be influenced by parents or adults have this knowledge like their are wired that way aboy right and wrong.That's after almost two years. Babies have picked up a LOT in that time. And they certainly would have been exposed to morality by that point.
its more rudiment than that. They can setup age appropriate tests based on child development stage models to see how babies respond/react. The beauty of this is that such a young child has hardly had any time to be encultured so is really showing innate behaviour.Your own sources contradict themselves. This source is from 2010, yet your first source was written two years LATER and says it is the first such source. That suggests that this source may have been retracted. In any case, I think it's a stretch to conclude that the babies chose those characters because they approved of their morality.
Sorry it wasnt the last time I looked. The other one should be OK in fact from memory I think its about the same article but a commentary of it by Daily Mail. But the one by Bloom should give you all the info. He is the leading researcher in this field.This is behind a paywall. If you want me to read it, buy me a subscription.
OK so in measuring something to see that its zero we have established its zero light. That is similar to morality. It can either be right or wrong (light or dark) but it can also be measurements of varying levels of light and dark like there can be degree of killing.I don't see how you can not see what I mean. You need to measure a thing in some way to know that it is not a zero.
Yes but thats intuitively. When we see a women being assaulted in the street we intuitive know something is wrong. We may not know the circumstances from a distance but we know something is wrong. Then we can get to know what the circumstances are and determine the moral truth.Yes you did. Post 1912. You said, and I quote, "Second we intuitively know killing is wrong regardless of the circumstances."
Yes and that is why I pointed out that all of the domains converge into making human 'Life" valuable. Whether its the US declaration, countries laws, UN rights and conventions, social sciences, religious belief, biology, anthropology, archeology it doesnt matter. They all say, behave and make explicit that human "LIfe"is valuable.If its from humans then its not objective.
Yes that is true and that is part of it. Not harming humans should be part of an objective moral as it is about valuing human "Life".
But thats not all that supports objective morality. Its also our intuition of it and how we live like morals are objective. Its how we can reason out moral truths (better/best ways to behave morally) to find and test that truth.
Under subjective morality using harm as the measure of why something is wrong doesnt work because then we can say the meaning of harm is also subjective. What one person calls harm another calls non harmful. There needs to be an anchor outside humans to make any protest against moral wrong really wrong in the world.
So we could say that under a subjective moral system murder, rape, theft, etc, is not really wrong in any factual or truth way beyond humans and therefore there really is no right and wrong morally.
The problem is it doesn't matter what environment it happens in be it atheist, religious and also what religion, culture. All young children even at 6 months which is very little time to be influenced by parents or adults have this knowledge like their are wired that way aboy right and wrong.
its more rudiment than that. They can setup age appropriate tests based on child development stage models to see how babies respond/react. The beauty of this is that such a young child has hardly had any time to be encultured so is really showing innate behaviour.
Sorry it wasnt the last time I looked. The other one should be OK in fact from memory I think its about the same article but a commentary of it by Daily Mail. But the one by Bloom should give you all the info. He is the leading researcher in this field.
OK so in measuring something to see that its zero we have established its zero light. That is similar to morality. It can either be right or wrong (light or dark) but it can also be measurements of varying levels of light and dark like there can be degree of killing.
Yes but thats intuitively. When we see a women being assaulted in the street we intuitive know something is wrong. We may not know the circumstances from a distance but we know something is wrong. Then we can get to know what the circumstances are and determine the moral truth.
Yes and that is why I pointed out that all of the domains converge into making human 'Life" valuable. Whether its the US declaration, countries laws, UN rights and conventions, social sciences, religious belief, biology, anthropology, archeology it doesnt matter. They all say, behave and make explicit that human "LIfe"is valuable.
All these different areas of convergence don't rely on subjective thinking to determine why human life is valuable. Rather they rely on rationality and logic which makes those facts/truths independent of humans. They don't rely on human personal opinions. They are determiened by qualified opinion based on facts and truths established that show human "LIfe" is valuable.
Otherwise then we are to say that all the areas that have forced their view that human "LIfe" is important on everyone have no justification to do so. Its just their personal opinion. Someone with an opposing opinion is not wrong compared to them. They are just different.
No but I can read up on it. I have read extensively but I cannot say I have read a lot about anthropology. The problem is as most of the other domains support the idea that humans know there are certain moral truths I would think that anthropologists would also agree.So you know more than actual anthropologists, do you?
They have but that doesn’t mean that the verdict was subjectively reached. It may be there was insufficient evidence, that the defence presented a poor case, any number of things that may have gone wrong. The point is the court is there to find justice even if it goes wrong sometimes. Let me ask you this. Would it be regarded as an injustice if someone innocent was found guilty?Then the courts have NEVER found an innocent man guilty, have they?
Why not. I think its a very good match. It explains how something can objectively determined as right or wrong (either they killed or they didnt). And how that act of killing can vary (severity) with the different degrees of killing. But we dont need that system anyway. We intuitively know it on the streets. The courts are just adjudicating be it in a more formal manner.Yeah, I saw it. It doesn't show what you think it does.
Your missing the point. It may or may not be about a secret lover and that may not be relevant on its own. The point is we can investiagte a matter to see if there is any guilt or innocence and we do that be the evdience and facts and not personal opinion.Irrelevant. People have had secret partners and secret lives without killing their spouses before.
What does that mean other than the husband would be the prime suspect in any investiagtion. That doesnt mean he's guilty but the investigators will want to find out why he was messing around with the brakes prior. I am not sure what your point is.Yes...? This sounds like half a sentence...
But that doesnt make it useless overall. It say that because we cannot determine what really happened and therefore investigating to find the truth or facts is a useless endeavour doesnt follow.But what is the OBJECTIVE morality here? How morally bad is it? That would seem to determine on whether he did it intentionally or if it was just an accident, and there's no way to tell, is there? Your moral objectivity seems to be quite useless in this situation!
Is that because you have little to say on what I said. Tell me should we investigate the husband to try and find out what happened. Is he at least guilty of culperable death in that he was respensible for ensuring the brakes were in good order.Many words, little result.
OK fair enough well what can we do then. But the logic that because I havent presented evdience to your liking for objective morality therefore theres no objective morlaity doesnt follow.HOW do you determine objective morality? That has NEVER been answered. And it never can be answered because objective morality does not exist.
They are objective in that each area makes either arguements or have scientific evidence for why "LIfe" is valuable. For example the US declaration makes the right to Life a natural right. This has been argued as a right from who humans are. Or take social sciences. They all can investigate human behaviour and find the harm or positive effects certain behaviours have. This is based on science so its not written by humans subjectively. Or take evolution. Biologists agree thatAgain, its written by humans, by definition not "objective".
But you do understand that humans are capable of rational and critical thinking. We can determine facts/truths with this kind of thinking. Those deetrmined facts/truths are independent of human subjective thinking because they are based on established facts outside humans.No, its all built on human thought, therefore not objective.
Its not wishful. So if we can still debate argue moral positions then this implies that there is a right or wrong answer. It implies we can change our morals, improve our morals. But none of that can be done without an objective morality because otherwise "what are you debating/arguing about".Yes, different views exist. We can still debate them. Every moral position can be argued.
This wishful thinking about moral objectivity does not help your case.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?