Is there Objective Morality?

[Kylie]

thats a strange thing to say considering it would knock out just about everyone on this thread. First I disagree that I don't have any education in a relevant field. Second why can't we get those educated opinions from those in the field.

Perhaps you'd like to share with us what educational credentials you have in a field related to this topic.

Most people agree that killing innocent people is wrong. Those who don't are wrong and we can show they are wrong. Thats the point.

And killing is wrong because it does harm, right?

So morality all comes down to whatever does the most harm is the most morally wrong thing?

Are you saying that a person can be convicted of murder based on someones subjective view of the facts.

Yes, that can - and does - happen.

If that happened in science we would not have any facts. Imagine the shape of the earth depended on someones personal view.

Exactly. SO that goes to show that science is objective (at least, as objective as possible) and morality is subjective.

Yes but in most other cases the evdience is clear and guilt is established. Just because it may have been impossible to find someone guilty doesnt mean the courts are useless in finding the truth/facts of a matter. Any subjective views of witnesses for example are tested and weighed up against other evidence.

How can they find the truth of the matter if, as you said, there was insufficient evidence?

I never said it was about the best show. It is about the evidence, the facts of the matter. Proving whether a wrong was done. The fact that its about prosecuting and defending a wrong being done shows that a right or wrong answer/verdict needs to be objectively established. Either they did it or didnt do it.

Do you really think that lawyers do NOT try to make their most persuasive case? A lawyer is not trying to get the truth, they are trying to win. The lawyer representing a man accused of murder is not trying to get the truth of the matter, he is trying to make sure his client gets the least punishment possible.

So therefore there has to be some objective measure of what is justice and what is not justice.

And unfortunately, what is considered justice by one person may be not be considered justice by another. This is not what we would expect if it was objective.

I have already explained this so I have given an answer many times. You just dont like it or understand it. We don't measure morals in degrees like with a protractor. Its more a matter of severity. I used the word degrees as it can also apply epistemically. We know that things vary not just in physical measurements.

So we can know that say genocide is more severe or worse than manslaughter or that stealing a persons lifes savings is worse than a kid taking a candy bar. Thoughboth are wrong.

Theres no test tube that we can use to prove thats a moral truth (objective) but we do know that this is a moral wrong and it matters that we are able to say thats its objectively wrong and cannot be open to be changed by anyones subjective view or opinion.

So its sort of self evident. Because we intuitive know this is our way of showing that the sense or recognition of those moral truths has been given the green light or in the case of a moral wrong throw up the red flag. What is considered morlaly right and wrong has been processed already and analysed and our intuition is the recognition of that. It meets all the requirements for supporing something objectively like in science.

No it doesn't. You keep speaking as though it's a given, but it is not. You agree that some things are morally worse than others, but that can't really be measured objectively. You have to resort to the old "Use extremes" technique to make your point, using two examples from extreme ends of the spectrum. Genocide and a kid taking a candy bar. You haven't SHOWN that genocide is worse, you've just taken two examples and you are relying on the shared moral guidelines our society instills in us to try to trick us into thinking that just because we agree with you, you have objectively proven it.

If morality really WAS objective as you say, then you would be able to use any two moral situations and be able to show that one is objectively worse than the other, no matter how similar they were. After all, I can objectively show which flagpole is the tallest, even if they differe by only the smallest amount. Yet if I present two moral situations that are very similar and ask which is worse, I'm going to get some people saying one and other people saying the other one.

You are also incapable of describing the difference between the two in relative terms. How many times worse is genocide than stealing a candy bar? How many candy bars do I need to steal in order to make it just as bad as a single act of murder?

You'll no doubt say that this is nonsensical - no matter how many candy bars I steal, it will NEVER be as bad as murder. Yet this proves my point. It's essentially saying that murder is infinity times worse that candy bar theft. And that's a nonsensical answer.

But your highlighting an outliner and saying that this represents how things normally are. Its a logical fallacy. The court finds a clear right guilty verfict 99% of the time. Saying that they occassionally get it wrong or can't find the truth doesnt mean ther system is not capable and designed to find the truth. That is one of the great qualities of a western legal system as its "innocent until proven guilty" and thats also in the UN Human Rights.

No, my point is that if it was objective as you say, there would never be any outliers!

Thats because youve been looking in all the wrong places and not understand how moral realism works. The fact that most people agree and think there is a core moral truths that we all must follow and are not subject to subjective change speaks volumns that humans are actually witnesses for the prosecution that there are objective morals. Why acknowledge there are moral truths if you dont really believe that. Seems strange.

Argument from popularity.

Thats a logical fallacy that doesnt follow. I have mentioned this before ut you seem to repeat it. That you don't know its a falalcy shows that you don't really understand the issue.

I disagree. I find your arguments for objective morality lacking, and subjective morality explains everything we see. Occam's razor, then, indicates morality is subjective.

 

[Ken-1122]

No thats not how morality works and thats the point to show how silly using food tastes is as a way to describe how morality works under a subjective system.

You said truth can be regarded as fact. I’m asking you to either show me the facts, or admit truth cannot always be regarded as fact.

Thats sill. Its always a moral issue and the moment we don't make it a moral issue then we have become robots or insects maybe. Its a moral issue whetehr we like it or not.

What is a moral issue to some people may not be a moral issue to others. Example; premarital sex, and Gay marriage is a moral issue for some people, but it is not for me. It would be absurd to suggest it has to be a moral issue to me just because it is for other people; whom I may disagree with

Yes so when I say "Make objective" that isn't made objective by human subjective opinions. Its made objective by humans using rational and logical thinking to find the facts and truth outside humans about what is the better/best way to behave morally.

If “X” was objective before humans got involved, it was not MADE objective due to human involvement.

But you can only act like something is subjectively true to yourself. It doesnt apply to others.

You are wrong. When you believe something is (subjectively) wrong, you apply that not only to yourself, but to everybody else as well. Nobody thinks of an act as subjectively wrong or objectively wrong, they just call it wrong; the subjective/objective issue is not even a part of the thought process when making that determination.

No your thinking of social behaviour which is more about group dynamics, co-operating and surviving. If bears have morals then we need to lock bears up. Protecting cubs is a animal instinct not a moral act.

If animals didn’t have morals, it would be difficult to train them. My dog knows to stay out of the kitchen, and you can tell when he does something wrong by the sorry look on his face.

But that just makes no sense at all for whether something progressing towards something better. People don't use the morals have changed arguemnet just to show how morals are different. They use it to show how bad we were in the past because we were ignorant and now we have progressed to be more moral.

But people don't speak and act about morality changing like its just different. They claim things have improved. They use the slavery example of how people use to think enslaving humans was OK. Now we are much better and have put a stop to slavery. But like I said improving morality means there has to be an objective to measure the improvement.

What about the transgender issue of today? People think it’s okay for men to have access to the women's public restroom just because they identify as female. Is this better? What about racism? Critical Race Theorists say it is okay to label all white people as racist based on what their ancestors did and that we should separate people according to race; is this okay? Not everything is better, some things are worse; the only constant is moral beliefs are constantly changing.

Most nations have constitutions and treaties that support human "Life "being valuable. They even make it a "Human Right" a "Natural born Right" and give it "Intrinsic value". Evolution makes "Life" valuable and so does the social sciences and they are sciences so are independent from subjective views..

Social Science is not a Natural Science. The Natural Sciences are Biology, Chemistry, and Physics which is objective. Philosophy, Sociology, even Math is under the category of “Abstract/Theoretical Science which is subjective. Social Sciences are an Abstract/Theoretical science thus subjective.

 

[Moral Orel]

I asked for a reason to believe this, you don't have one. So I do not hold that belief because I have no reason to. However, you believe this for literally no reason at all.

Of course you don't. That's why we must dismiss your posts as a non-serious.

Man, that's funny. Requiring facts to be justified by evidence is a joke, and believing things for literally no reason is serious business. Ya know, the point of this thread is for you Moral Objectivists to prove that morality is objective; the central claim of which is that there are indeed moral facts. But in order for you to do so, you need us to accept for no reason at all that there are moral facts. And to top it all off, anyone who requires evidence to accept claims you call "irrational". Your arguments essentially are this:

p
p->q
q->r
r->s
s

But s is only true if p is true, and you have no reason at all to justify p! So who cares about the rest of it?! It's all just one big red herring to hide the fact that there's nothing to ultimately justify any of it. Here's what your argument boils down to:

"Agree with me for no reason or you're irrational."

I don't think you understand what "irrational" means.

 

[o_mlly]

Man, that's funny. Requiring facts to be justified by evidence is a joke, and believing things for literally no reason is serious business. Ya know, the point of this thread is for you Moral Objectivists to prove that morality is objective; the central claim of which is that there are indeed moral facts. But in order for you to do so, you need us to accept for no reason at all that there are moral facts. And to top it all off, anyone who requires evidence to accept claims you call "irrational".

No need to defend your feelings.

I say morality isn't a rational sort of thing, it's an emotional kind of thing

I cannot argue with how you feel so I won't. The thread is, for you, an emotional issue. Often those who are confronted with the irrationality of their feelings become irritated. No need to get stressed out.

I want to know if there is an objective moral fact with which you disagree.

Paraphrased to disclose just how disingenuous the question is: I want to know a fact about reality with which you disagree.

So morality all comes down to whatever does the most harm is the most morally wrong thing?

? So, with your tape measure you claim you can determine the morality of a human act. A spouse is in and adulterous relationship but deceives his spouse by lying about it. Hey, no harm no foul. Good to go on that adultery + lying combo.

You just said that all faithful Catholics would reject assisted suicide. Which is a tautology ...

You should look up the meaning of "tautology". So back to your strawman argument, you didn't read about euthanasia in Evangelium Vitae, did you?

 

[Moral Orel]

I say morality isn't a rational sort of thing, it's an emotional kind of thing

I cannot argue with how you feel so I won't. The thread is, for you, an emotional issue. Often those who are confronted with the irrationality of their feelings become irritated. No need to get stressed out.

Awww.... so cute! Now you're resorting to making strawmen to distract from the fact that you believe things for no reason. Why do you believe things without reason? How is it rational to form conclusions without any reason whatsoever?

 

[Bradskii]

Paraphrased to disclose just how disingenuous the question is: I want to know a fact about reality with which you disagree.

Thanks for the reminder. And as noted earlier those would be easy for you. Evolution, age of the planet etc.

And you've been asked if you agree it's a fact that it's 4.75 billion years old as an example of your position. This is the second time of asking.

 

[Kylie]

? So, with your tape measure you claim you can determine the morality of a human act. A spouse is in and adulterous relationship but deceives his spouse by lying about it. Hey, no harm no foul. Good to go on that adultery + lying combo.

Yeah, I don't see how this answers my question.

I have NEVER said that morality can be objectively measured.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[stevevw]

Perhaps you'd like to share with us what educational credentials you have in a field related to this topic.

Why, is everyone else required to do so they are eligible to speak on this topic? As far as I can see everyone else has made claims on this topic as well and their credentials are not being questioned.

And killing is wrong because it does harm, right.
So morality all comes down to whatever does the most harm is the most morally wrong thing?

That’s also part of it. You would think that not harming humans would be part of an objective morality if human "LIfe" is valuable.

Yes, that can - and does - happen.

Yeah but that’s an exception and an injustice. The legal system is designed to convict based on the facts/truth and not subjective opinions.

Exactly. SO that goes to show that science is objective (at least, as objective as possible) and morality is subjective.

You’re missed the point. Supporters of subjective morality say that morals are like preferences for food or feelings for something. Yet at the same time they admit that there are some core moral truths that we all know and cannot be changed by subjective views just as you have acknowledged.

So therefore to establish that those core morals stand up and we can tell those who disagree that they are objectively wrong we need to treat those core morals as objective. Otherwise if they are really like preferences for food or feelings for something then we have no grounds to claim they are truly wrong because food tastes are never wrong. Can you see the logic?

So actually it doesn’t show that morals are subjective. It actually shows the hypocrisy and impossibility of using subjective morality for morals.

How can they find the truth of the matter if, as you said, there was insufficient evidence?

That’s only in the rare cases that there is not enough evidence. But that doesn’t negate the 99% of cases where they find justice.

Do you really think that lawyers do NOT try to make their most persuasive case? A lawyer is not trying to get the truth, they are trying to win. The lawyer representing a man accused of murder is not trying to get the truth of the matter, he is trying to make sure his client gets the least punishment possible.

But lawyers can't misrepresent things to get their client off or minimize their punishment. Pleading for the least punishment means they are acknowledging guilty. It doesn’t negate that innocence or guilt is determined by facts not subjective opinions.

The fact that the lawyer wants to minmize the punishment means he wants to minimize the severity which menas there needs to be an objective basis to measure that severity.

And unfortunately, what is considered justice by one person may be not be considered justice by another. This is not what we would expect if it was objective.

If guilt or innocence is determined by the evidence and facts then it cannot come down to people’s personal opinions as they are not facts. Usually people’s opinions about justice are based on what they know of the facts. They may be wrong about the facts but they don’t just base justice on preferences or feelings.

Imagine if people were found guilty because someone feels they don’t like the person because of a personal trait they have. We would be wrongly accusing people all the time.

 

[stevevw]

And that didn't answer the question either. I guess you actually didn't answer it earlier because, as you say, you misunderstood the question. I don't want to know how you determine morality. I don't want to know what you intuitively determine. I want to know if there is an objective moral fact with which you disagree.

I wasnt answering directly because I knowe it was a silly and irrelevant question based on a logical fallacy. BUt I will go along with your game. The answer is I cannot think of any moral truths I disagree with.

 

[stevevw]

There is nothing "non-physical" interacting with human beings.

I don't think thats true, for example Love, fairness, dark matter, consciousness, intuition, belief, abstract ideas like art, colours and Math, logical arguements (syllogism) can determine facts and truths.

 

[stevevw]

I didn't receive any answer as far as I know. If you did reply, then do you mind giving a brief precis of what your response was? And nobody is suggesting that any answer you give leads to a proof that morality is objective or not. I want to investigate the consequences of it being objective.

But what your asking will not determine that. Thats why I thought it was a silly question. It doesn't determine anything.

If morality is objective then what is right or wrong constitutes facts about the world. X is wrong - it doesn't matter what you think. [/quote] Yes but I keep getting this sneeking suspecion that you are still thinking morality is measured as a physical object which it is not. Thats why I asked earlier "Do you think there are facts and/or truths that are non-physical.

So, can you think of a moral act that is factually wrong but with which you disagree? That is, it is objectively wrong but in your personal opinion it is morally acceptable. And I'm not going to tie you down to certain acts - you have an infinity of them to ponder.

Like I said its a silly question because if the morals are facts like you say then my disagreement doesnt disprove objective morality because you have already said they were facts.

If there isn't one then that will mean that you are in agreement with all objective moral facts. So if we have a moral problem then you will know the answer. You'll effectively be omniscient.

O_mlly couldn't think of a single act with which he'd disagree. How about you?

See this is why your little thought experient is silly and a logical fallacy of an "either and or". There can be another reason why people cannot think of any objective morals they disagree with. Because they don't know all the possible moral scenarios so they can only answer the question from what they know. From the moral situations they know they cannot find any they disgree with. But there may be some moral situations people dont know about that they may possibly disagree with.

But heres another reason why I think its a silly question. Even non religious people can say that they cannot find any moral objectives they disagree with. Thats because we are talking about the moral truths and not the due punishment. There are only a small number of moral truths and everyone already knows them all. All the rest stem from these core morals.

 

[Bradskii]

See this is why your little thought experient is silly and a logical fallacy of an "either and or"... From the moral situations they know they cannot find any they disgree with. But there may be some moral situations people dont know about that they may possibly disagree with.

Then formulate one. It surely cannot be beyond you to conceive a moral problem which is an objective fact but with which you disagree. If you can't then we'll have to assume that there aren't any. In fact, I will quite definitely state that 'Steve cannot even conceive a moral problem which is an objective fact but with which he disagrees'. And that will remain a fact unless you refute it.

But heres another reason why I think its a silly question. Even non religious people can say that they cannot find any moral objectives they disagree with.

I'm not asking if atheists or religious people disagree with what you consider to be moral acts that are objectively wrong. I'm asking if people who consider morality to be objective (which includes you) disagree with any moral act that they consider to be objectively wrong.

That is, acts that you know to be objectively wrong (because you say that morality is objective so it includes all moral acts) but you think are not.

You've already stated that you can't even conceive of one. That's your view until you think of an example which counters it. We'll take your ability to know all answers to moral problems and see what it implies in due course.

 

[VirOptimus]

I think the way we humans uphold human life as the peak of importances we can be justified to make it an objective. At the very least a guide in how to treat humans. I was pointing out how even in evolution "Life" is important. All areas of science as well as religions make the value of "LIfe" important to preserve and respect.

No, you havent supported that "life" is an objective value. If its objective its independendant of humans.

Try again.

Yes there would. Codifying is just writing an existing objective morals into law/code. It lets society know clearly what the standard of behaviour should be. Some laws are underpinned by morals like "Don't Kill" was an objective truth before it was made a law. People know the law before the law was written.

No, people dont know the law before it was written, people arent psychic.

You do know that laws are written by humans right? Then by definition not "objective".

Not in the scientific way that a materialist wants.

Then in what way?

I have made the arguement for moral realism. Thats all I can do. People then have to defeat that arguement and so far I havent seen anything that would cause me to doubt my moral intuitions and reasoning that morals are facts, truths, Real.

Yes I know you dont doubt your own arguments, thats because of Dunning-Kruger probably.

For humans, the ones who think morality matters. If they think it matters then it is right to find the truth of why it matters. Its decided by logic and rationality. That makes it independent of humans. The authority is in the weight and value placed in the moral value itself by humans. Humans made "Life" valuable so they live like its valuable which means they have held up that moral value as an objective law or fact. So theythe moral carries their its authority. It is valuable in and of itself.

If humans are the autorithy, then its not "objective". Do you understand what authority means when it comes to morals?

You can't keep making unsupported replies to the argument that I have posted. You have made an objective claim in saying "that’s patently false" in fact you’re claiming it’s clear and without doubt that I am wrong and you are right and know the truth of this matter. So technically you are relying on a truth to hold up your rejection of moral "Truth".

I rely on understanding the subject.

I was pointing out that moral disagreement and wanted to improve moral values only makes sense if there is an objective morals to measure them against. To see how much has improved, to disagree to say there is a right and wrong answer. That means the right answer is the moral truth if people are arguing a truth.

No its the other way around. If one believes in objective morals then there are no reason to ever change them because they are objectively "right". See Sharia laws, 10 commandements etc.

(Although its a bit weird arguing objective morality as a christian as morality changed by the coming of christ in your religion).

As moral situations matter and we want to find the truth of the matter arguing and a case/proposition would mean there having to be facts, objectives to measure that evidence. If subjective morality is the same as peoples tastes for food I cannot see people arguing because it really matters what flavour is the right one somehow.

You cant? You never been on the internet then?

But all of those examples are implying some objective basis for what is "Beautiful", 'Strongest" and who will win the fight. There will be rationals for why they think one is better.

You think beauty is objective? And that fictional things are objective?

And I don't think you can really argue something like beauty. Thats a subjective abstract thing. I can't see that it really matters too much if people have different views on whats beautiful. If its subjective and there is no objective to find then why "argue" about beauty because then we are only talking about differences.

Heh, people argue about beauty all the time and beauty may start wars (see the Illiad).

 

[Hans Blaster]

dark matter,

You interact with dark matter? Cool.

 

[stevevw]

You interact with dark matter? Cool.

Well considering its suppose to be everywhere then I guess humans can't help but interact with it. Thats if it actually exists. But still it is given factual status because it helps balance the materialist view of reality.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well considering its suppose to be everywhere then I guess humans can't help but interact with it. Thats if it actually exists. But still it is given factual status because it helps balance the materialist view of reality.

Dark matter is identified by its interaction with galaxies and larger structures. Are you a galaxy?

If dark matter is particles the interaction rate with ordinary matter is very low, lower than neutrinos. It is quite possible that no dark matter particle has ever interacted with you. I don't know the current rate and cross section limits.

Dark matter wasn't proposed to keep "materialism" functioning, but rather to explain unsourced astronomical phenomena.

The rest of the things you mentioned are products of thought, people, and societies and thus tied to the material world.

 

[Kylie]

Why, is everyone else required to do so they are eligible to speak on this topic? As far as I can see everyone else has made claims on this topic as well and their credentials are not being questioned.

You literally made a claim that you could not possibly have known, specifically, how the members of the North Sentinelese triber viewed Human life. I don't see anyone else making such claims.

That’s also part of it. You would think that not harming humans would be part of an objective morality if human "LIfe" is valuable.

But that's not all of it, is it? Because if it were, then we wouldn't have things like the trolley problem.

Yeah but that’s an exception and an injustice. The legal system is designed to convict based on the facts/truth and not subjective opinions.

And yet it doesn't. Because it can't do so, not perfectly. Because when it comes to the morality of the situation, there is going to be a subjective aspect, meaning the morality can't be objective. Thus supporting my point.

You’re missed the point. Supporters of subjective morality say that morals are like preferences for food or feelings for something. Yet at the same time they admit that there are some core moral truths that we all know and cannot be changed by subjective views just as you have acknowledged.

I have never agreed that there are any core moral truths that are objective.

I have only ever said that there are certain moral viewpoints that most people share - and I've explained each and every time how those viewpoints can come about through socialisation, and that the fact most people share them does NOT mean that they are objective.

So therefore to establish that those core morals stand up and we can tell those who disagree that they are objectively wrong we need to treat those core morals as objective. Otherwise if they are really like preferences for food or feelings for something then we have no grounds to claim they are truly wrong because food tastes are never wrong. Can you see the logic?

I see the logic you are trying to use, but it fails. Treating shared moral viewpoints as objective does not make them objective.

That’s only in the rare cases that there is not enough evidence. But that doesn’t negate the 99% of cases where they find justice.

Ah, but it falls apart. We are not talking about cases where there was insufficient evidence and thus they couldn't find the person guilty. WSe are specifically talking about the cases where there was not enough evidence to reach a guilty verdict and yet the defendent was found guilty anyway! I clearly specified this in post 1992 where I specified we were talking about instances where the court found innocent people guilty.

But lawyers can't misrepresent things to get their client off or minimize their punishment. Pleading for the least punishment means they are acknowledging guilty. It doesn’t negate that innocence or guilt is determined by facts not subjective opinions.

The fact that the lawyer wants to minmize the punishment means he wants to minimize the severity which menas there needs to be an objective basis to measure that severity.

Okay, and what objective measure do we use to make such a measurement?

If guilt or innocence is determined by the evidence and facts then it cannot come down to people’s personal opinions as they are not facts. Usually people’s opinions about justice are based on what they know of the facts. They may be wrong about the facts but they don’t just base justice on preferences or feelings.

Imagine if people were found guilty because someone feels they don’t like the person because of a personal trait they have. We would be wrongly accusing people all the time.

But this is NOT the case. There are some people who think the death penalty is a morally appropriate punishment for some crimes, and other people who do not.

 

[stevevw]

You literally made a claim that you could not possibly have known, specifically, how the members of the North Sentinelese triber viewed Human life. I don't see anyone else making such claims.

Not that my credentials ahve anything to do with this. How have I made that claim.

But that's not all of it, is it? Because if it were, then we wouldn't have things like the trolley problem.

How does the trolly problem negate that human "Life" is valuable. The fact that there is a dilemma over which way the trolly can go as to avoid or minimize the cost to human "Life" shows that human "Life" is being regarded as valuable (matters).

And yet it doesn't. Because it can't do so, not perfectly. Because when it comes to the morality of the situation, there is going to be a subjective aspect, meaning the morality can't be objective. Thus supporting my point.

No if you speaking about the courts then there is no subjective determination. Its based on the facts. Did the person kill another without justification. Justification has a criteria being "self defence". The fact that the person killed is a fact (theres a dead body). It is then only a matter of determining guilt and that is based on evidence (facts) and not peoples personal opinion.

A witnesses testimony can be a subjective opinion but it can never convict a person alone. Thats because it can be subjective. So it falls back on the facts. Prints on a gun, at the scene of the crime, motive, DNA ect. That cannot be altered by subjective opinion.

I have never agreed that there are any core moral truths that are objective. I have only ever said that there are certain moral viewpoints that most people share - and I've explained each and every time how those viewpoints can come about through socialisation, and that the fact most people share them does NOT mean that they are objective.

You actually said you agreed there was a core set of moral truths everyone agreed on #1926. You then clarified this by saying its because people are brought up in the smae society. But moral truth means its not subjective. I went on to say that people share these core moral truths regardless of where they are brought up.

But the point is people treat these core moral truths like they are true for everyone and subjective views are not allowed to change them. So with that said if someone said I disagree with those core truths and that its OK to steal an old ladies handbag do you think that we can say that the person claiming its OK is objectively wrong.

I see the logic you are trying to use, but it fails. Treating shared moral viewpoints as objective does not make them objective.

You missed the point. By people treating them as objective they are making them objective. They are actually living out a consistent objective moral position because they are saying these are moral truths than no subjective reason can change.

So their actions speak louder than their words. There is a trueism in that you are what you eat or you are whats in your heart and mind. So if we know moral truths we cannot helpo but live them out.

Ah, but it falls apart. We are not talking about cases where there was insufficient evidence and thus they couldn't find the person guilty. We are specifically talking about the cases where there was not enough evidence to reach a guilty verdict and yet the defendent was found guilty anyway! I clearly specified this in post 1992 where I specified we were talking about instances where the court found innocent people guilty.

And whats your point. The same logic applies. A rare injustice which finds an innocent person guilty doesnt negate the 99% of other cases that has found justice. The system works most of the time and rare injustices or lack of justice doesnt negate that they base guilt on facts and not subjective opinions.

Okay, and what objective measure do we use to make such a measurement?

The facts (evidence). Was the client guilty and to what degree (severity). This only makes sense with an objective basis for measuring things.

But this is NOT the case. There are some people who think the death penalty is a morally appropriate punishment for some crimes, and other people who do not.

But thats about punishment and not whether we can determine the truth or a case in court to establish guilt in the first place. Your talking about a completely different morla isse of whetehr the death penalty is a justified penalty for a wrong thats already been admitted.

 

[stevevw]

Dark matter is identified by its interaction with galaxies and larger structures. Are you a galaxy?

If dark matter is particles the interaction rate with ordinary matter is very low, lower than neutrinos. It is quite possible that no dark matter particle has ever interacted with you. I don't know the current rate and cross section limits.

Dark matter wasn't proposed to keep "materialism" functioning, but rather to explain unsourced astronomical phenomena.

The rest of the things you mentioned are products of thought, people, and societies and thus tied to the material world.

As far as I understand the Dark Matter dectectors are underground. So they think Dark Matter is everywhere and going through the earth and everything on it.

The ironic thing is the way scientists think Dark Matter should be has been theorised by the current scientific theories. Dark Matter has to be some particle so weak called weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). Yet be able to hold galaxies in place. These detectors have not been able to find any WIMPS as yet after billions of $ and many years. They are beginning to concede that Dark Matter must be some other kind of particle. But what if its not even a particle. What then.