Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
- Nov 23, 2013
- 15,069
- 5,309
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
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.
Upvote
0