Is there Objective Morality?

[VirOptimus]

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

Isnt it your position that such values are universal?

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).

Yes, most people think that life matters.

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 courts verdict is made by people, ie by definition not objective as its made by subjects.

You also dont seem to undersand what facts mean in the legal system.

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.

Witness evidence alone convicts people all the time. You should not speak about things you obviously have no clue how it works.

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.

This is not true, moral truths wary wildly.

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.

People do no such thing.

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.

People are not treating it as its objective, besides treating something lioke its objective doesnt make it so.

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.

Pointless statement is pointless.

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.

Define "justice". And "justice" for who? By what metric?

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

No, it really doesnt.

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.

Isnt punishment a part of your "objective morals"?

 

[stevevw]

Isnt it your position that such values are universal?

No. Absolute morality is different to objective morality.

Yes, most people think that life matters.

A courts verdict is made by people, ie by definition not objective as its made by subjects.

But people have the ability to determine the evidence based on the facts which are independent of people (the subject).

If you have a dispute about something the judge (Judge Judy lol) listens to all the facts and then makes a determination.

Witness evidence alone convicts people all the time. You should not speak about things you obviously have no clue how it works.

OK so I jump the gun on that one. But the eye witness testimony is based on telling the truth. They swear on a bible to tell the truth. In court that means something. Its a crime to not tell the truth. So its not just an opinion, its a qualified opinion. That a witness can cause an innocent person to be convicted speaks about an objective wrong as a consequence. Otherwise why make not telling the truth perjury.

This is not true, moral truths wary wildly.

No they don't. This is an exaggeration or a misunderstanding. people think disagreements over the facts of a matter mean they are disagreeing morally when they are not. There is a core of moral truths that don't vary at all ie Don't kill innocents, don't steal something thats not yours without permission, don't rape or sexually harass others. Keep promises, care for children rather than abuse them, be just, ect. There are more but they basically overlapp each other and all the core morals are hinged on the top value human "Life".

People do no such thing.

Ok so lets do the thought experiement I asked the other poster. Answer the question
if someone said I disagree with those core moral 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.
Not just wrong by yours or my opinion but wrong objectively.

People are not treating it as its objective, besides treating something lioke its objective doesnt make it so.

OK then the though experiemnet should show what I mean.

Pointless statement is pointless.

So you don't agree that people usually act out what they really believe inside.

Define "justice". And "justice" for who? By what metric?

I like this explanation of JUstice. It seems to cover all aspects.

Justice is a concept of moral rightness based ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity and fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, wealth, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice.
Justice

As it states its determined by rationality and is found in laws, ethics, Human Rights, civil rights, natural laws or inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and religion. Its linked with fairness, anti descrimination, equality. These all link back to human "LIfe" being valuable. So denying people or groups their value as humans is objectively wrong.

No, it really doesnt.

So if the determination of guilt was based on subjective opinions then we would be finding people guilty based on peoples personal opinions of them. That would make the legal system crazy.

Isnt punishment a part of your "objective morals"?

But that has nothing to do with the courts ability to determine the truth of guilt. Punishment is a seperate moral issue as to whetehr we should punish, what sort of punishment.[/quote]

 

[VirOptimus]

No. Absolute morality is different to objective morality.

Then if it isnt universal, where does it not apply?

But people have the ability to determine the evidence based on the facts which are independent of people (the subject).

You dont seem to grasp the definition of "objective".

If you have a dispute about something the judge (Judge Judy lol) listens to all the facts and then makes a determination.

Yes, a verdict, thats from the judge, and the judge is not an objective moral agent.

OK so I jump the gun on that one. But the eye witness testimony is based on telling the truth. They swear on a bible to tell the truth. In court that means something. Its a crime to not tell the truth. So its not just an opinion, its a qualified opinion. That a witness can cause an innocent person to be convicted speaks about an objective wrong as a consequence. Otherwise why make not telling the truth perjury.

Just admit that you are wrong, and read up on how the legal system works.

You again dont seem to even understand what "objective" means.

No they don't. This is an exaggeration or a misunderstanding. people think disagreements over the facts of a matter mean they are disagreeing morally when they are not. There is a core of moral truths that don't vary at all ie Don't kill innocents, don't steal something thats not yours without permission, don't rape or sexually harass others. Keep promises, care for children rather than abuse them, be just, ect. There are more but they basically overlapp each other and all the core morals are hinged on the top value human "Life".

So you assert, but when we look around the world and on history this is very obvious not the case.

Ok so lets do the thought experiement I asked the other poster. Answer the question
if someone said I disagree with those core moral 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.
Not just wrong by yours or my opinion but wrong objectively.

No, I dont.

OK then the though experiemnet should show what I mean.

No, its pointless.

So you don't agree that people usually act out what they really believe inside.

Believe what? People can certainly belive that things should be a certain way without believing this is the objective truth. I know because I am one of them.

I like this explanation of JUstice. It seems to cover all aspects.

Justice is a concept of moral rightness based ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity and fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, wealth, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice.
Justice

As it states its determined by rationality and is found in laws, ethics, Human Rights, civil rights, natural laws or inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and religion. Its linked with fairness, anti descrimination, equality. These all link back to human "LIfe" being valuable. So denying people or groups their value as humans is objectively wrong.

This is again, not something that all agree on, and its certainly not "objective".

So if the determination of guilt was based on subjective opinions then we would be finding people guilty based on peoples personal opinions of them. That would make the legal system crazy.

Ever heard of racial bias in the justice system?

But that has nothing to do with the courts ability to determine the truth of guilt. Punishment is a seperate moral issue as to whetehr we should punish, what sort of punishment.

Aha, so the courts are only objective when determining guilt but not in punishment?

 

[stevevw]

Then if it isnt universal, where does it not apply?

Well take kiling for example. Under absolute morality Killing wil always be wrong no matter what the relative view (context) is. But under objective morlaity there is always an objective moral truth that can be found that is beyond subjective thinking of the subject. So it is objectively wrong to kill an innocent child for fun. But that doesnt mean its always wrong to kill.

If that child has a gun to its head by a crazed gunman then it is objective right to kill the gunman. The greater moral wrong of not saving the child comes into play. You have a moral obligation to save the child.

You dont seem to grasp the definition of "objective".

Objective is grounded in something beyond humans (subjects). It can be argued that something is grounded beyond the human subjects. Non physical facts can be grounded beyond human subjects.

Yes, a verdict, thats from the judge, and the judge is not an objective moral agent.

The judge still has to consider the evidence. He can't just subjectively think that the evidence is irrelevant. This has to be proven beyond doubt. So the prosecution has the harder time to prove guilt and tahts why the system mostly works as it sets a high standard for guilt. The idea that a judge is subjectively determining guilt or innocence seems a bit scary.

Just admit that you are wrong, and read up on how the legal system works.

Ok it looks like the time to get independent support as we are just protesting each others claims. The fact the following article states that the Judge has to be independent and impartial shows he cannot allow his personal views to get in the way.

What are fair trial and fair hearing rights?
* that all persons are equal before courts and tribunals
* the right to a fair and public hearing before a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law.
Fair trial and fair hearing rights
And heres another that shows the Court system is designed to take the subjective opinions of people out and based things on facts.

The rules of evidence are designed to mitigate the combined difficulties of the uncertainty of the existence of a fact in issue and the subjectivity of the process of finding that fact in an adversarial system.
https://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/pu...ices/gagelerj/GagelerJ_Evidence_and_Truth.pdf

So you assert, but when we look around the world and on history this is very obvious not the case.

But you are using a logical fallacy. That just because we see differences in how people viewed moral sitiations through time, culture that this must mean morality is relative. It doesnt follow. Look at how the big world bodies like the UN and how most countries have similar laws and rights about these core morals. They all make them objective, that is they think that they are wrong no matter what people view.

Look at the US and the UN and how they claim certain countries are objectively wrong in their behaviour like female circumcision/mutilation in African tribes or treating women as 2nd class citizens in Muslim countries. They condemn such practices from afar. What right have they got to tell another culture they are morlaly wrong when at the same time they claim morality is relative. Surely they are acting mora like morlaity is objective, like they hold the truth to what is right and wrong.

No, I dont.

why then.

Believe what? People can certainly belive that things should be a certain way without believing this is the objective truth. I know because I am one of them.

I mean say you believed in womens rights. You can pretend you don't but then you are having to supress your belief. It may come out in the way you react when caught off guard.

This is again, not something that all agree on, and its certainly not "objective".

If its not objective then that means we have no grounds to protest injustices. Why protest if its just an opinion. It doesnt carry any weight. I think if any person was in a situation where they needed justice they would be wanting the very things that the link spoke about fairness, innocent until proven guilty and not guilty by association, race, or determined by anyones subjective ideas of justice. Otherwise we have no basis for JUstice at all.

Ever heard of racial bias in the justice system?

First its a logical fallacy to say that racial bias is the legal system. Second the fact that racial bias is called bias means that its a bias from something that is objective. Otherwise bias means nothing in this context. This shows that being racially bias is wrong compared to how Justice should be. That only makes sens e if we have an objective measure of Justice.

Aha, so the courts are only objective when determining guilt but not in punishment?

No their need to be objective on that one as well. Thats one of the core rights under Justice which is that the "Punishment fits the Crime". Don't worry I studied Law in helping my son get his diploma in Youth Justice.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well take kiling for example. Under absolute morality Killing wil always be wrong no matter what the relative view (context) is. But under objective morlaity there is always an objective moral truth that can be found that is beyond subjective thinking of the subject. So it is objectively wrong to kill an innocent child for fun. But that doesnt mean its always wrong to kill.

Ok, you still havent supported anything.

If that child has a gun to its head by a crazed gunman then it is objective right to kill the gunman. The greater moral wrong of not saving the child comes into play. You have a moral obligation to save the child.

Prove this.

Objective is grounded in something beyond humans (subjects). It can be argued that something is grounded beyond the human subjects. Non physical facts can be grounded beyond human subjects.

Nearly there.

The judge still has to consider the evidence. He can't just subjectively think that the evidence is irrelevant. This has to be proven beyond doubt. So the prosecution has the harder time to prove guilt and tahts why the system mostly works as it sets a high standard for guilt. The idea that a judge is subjectively determining guilt or innocence seems a bit scary.

You cant have a subject being something else than a subject.

Ok it looks like the time to get independent support as we are just protesting each others claims. The fact the following article states that the Judge has to be independent and impartial shows he cannot allow his personal views to get in the way.

What are fair trial and fair hearing rights?
* that all persons are equal before courts and tribunals
* the right to a fair and public hearing before a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law.
Fair trial and fair hearing rights
And heres another that shows the Court system is designed to take the subjective opinions of people out and based things on facts.

The rules of evidence are designed to mitigate the combined difficulties of the uncertainty of the existence of a fact in issue and the subjectivity of the process of finding that fact in an adversarial system.
https://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/pu...ices/gagelerj/GagelerJ_Evidence_and_Truth.pdf

https://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/pu...ices/gagelerj/GagelerJ_Evidence_and_Truth.pdf

Impartial and indipenendent is not the same as "objective".

You dont understand your own source or what "objective" means.

But you are using a logical fallacy. That just because we see differences in how people viewed moral sitiations through time, culture that this must mean morality is relative. It doesnt follow. Look at how the big world bodies like the UN and how most countries have similar laws and rights about these core morals. They all make them objective, that is they think that they are wrong no matter what people view.

Thats not how "objective" works.

Look at the US and the UN and how they claim certain countries are objectively wrong in their behaviour like female circumcision/mutilation in African tribes or treating women as 2nd class citizens in Muslim countries. They condemn such practices from afar. What right have they got to tell another culture they are morlaly wrong when at the same time they claim morality is relative. Surely they are acting mora like morlaity is objective, like they hold the truth to what is right and wrong.

No, thats just your assertion.

why then.

?

I mean say you believed in womens rights. You can pretend you don't but then you are having to supress your belief. It may come out in the way you react when caught off guard.

This is nonsense.

If its not objective then that means we have no grounds to protest injustices. Why protest if its just an opinion. It doesnt carry any weight. I think if any person was in a situation where they needed justice they would be wanting the very things that the link spoke about fairness, innocent until proven guilty and not guilty by association, race, or determined by anyones subjective ideas of justice. Otherwise we have no basis for JUstice at all.

This is also nonsense.

First its a logical fallacy to say that racial bias is the legal system. Second the fact that racial bias is called bias means that its a bias from something that is objective. Otherwise bias means nothing in this context. This shows that being racially bias is wrong compared to how Justice should be. That only makes sens e if we have an objective measure of Justice.

This is also nonsense.

Bias just shows that the justice system is prone to discrimination (like every human institution).

No their need to be objective on that one as well. Thats one of the core rights under Justice which is that the "Punishment fits the Crime". Don't worry I studied Law in helping my son get his diploma in Youth Justice.

I very much doubt that you have studied law in any meaningful way as you certainly dont understand any of the basics.

 

[Kylie]

How have I made that claim.

When you said, "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." Post 1991

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).

because you've strongly implied that morality is the harm or good done to people. Thus, if taking a life is morally bad, then taking two lives is morally worse, and taking five lives is morally worse still. Wasn't this the basis for the "genocide is worse than murder" argument? And so, if the more lives taken means it is morally worse, then the only objectively correct solution to any situation where loss of life is inevitable is to make sure that the loss oif life is reduced as much as possible.

And the trolley problem is such a situation.

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.

You don't actually believe that, do you?

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.

Yes, and yes.

But moral truth means its not subjective.

Yes, it can be subjective. Both I and my daughter think Star Trek is a great show. We think "Star Trek is a great show" is a true statement. Does that mean it's not subjective?

I went on to say that people share these core moral truths regardless of where they are brought up.

But that's not true. There are plenty of moral viewpoints that some people hold to be true that other people hold to be false.

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.

And once again you resort to using situations that most people will agree with. If your idea of moral objectivity is correct, then surely this will apply to ANY moral situation, right? So why do we see exactly the kind of disagreement you speak of around moral issues such as abortion and euthanasia?

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.

Oh rubbish. Someone acting like their subjective opinion is really an objectivev fact does not make it an objective fact. This is not the first time I've had to say this.

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.

If that were true, everyone would have all the same moral viewpoints.

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.

If it was built on objective facts, how could it find an innocent person guilty? what fact could possibly show the guilt of an innocent man?

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

Facts are not a unit of measurement. Severity is a subjective opinion.

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.

So what? We are talking about morality in this thread, aren't we? And this whole discussion of how we establish guilt is, I think, getting off topic.

 

[stevevw]

When you said, "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." Post 1991

Ok yes thanks for reminding me. How am I going to get out of this one lol.

OK that was based on the claim that every knows the core moral truths in their own way. They just have a different understanding of how this is applied due to their circumstances. For example scientists thought Eskimos were cruel to leave a baby out in the elements to die. But when they realized that they did this to save the rest of the family due to lack of food it aligned with western morality that human "Life" is important and valuable.

See what your saying is that "we cannot possibly know or comment of why the tribe kills". But we can reason why it is likely the tribe are killing outsiders because they percieve a threat or that it is for some good reason. Otherwise we are then reducing "Life" to the value of "who knows and cares" because we cannot say that even lost tribes can have good reason to kill and not just kill arbitrarily by a subjective feel or view.

because you've strongly implied that morality is the harm or good done to people. Thus, if taking a life is morally bad, then taking two lives is morally worse, and taking five lives is morally worse still. Wasn't this the basis for the "genocide is worse than murder" argument? And so, if the more lives taken means it is morally worse, then the only objectively correct solution to any situation where loss of life is inevitable is to make sure that the loss oif life is reduced as much as possible.

And the trolley problem is such a situation.

Yes, so you have just made a case for objective morality.

You don't actually believe that, do you?

What that evidence cannot be altered by subejctive opinion. Of course I do.

Yes, and yes.
Yes, it can be subjective. Both I and my daughter think Star Trek is a great show. We think "Star Trek is a great show" is a true statement. Does that mean it's not subjective?

But as I have said peoples subjective views of a TV show is not the same a morality. Morality is a matter that requires a right or wrong answer. A right or wrong behaviour. No one is behaving wrongly for liking Star Trek. See how it doesn't translate to morality.

But that's not true. There are plenty of moral viewpoints that some people hold to be true that other people hold to be false.

I disagree. On the core morals which there are only a few I would say everyone thinks much the same. Like I said find anyone who thinks "torturing a child for fun" or "stealing an old ladies handbag" is morally ok and we can tell them they are objectively wrong. Otherwise we are conceding that there is no morality.

And once again you resort to using situations that most people will agree with. If your idea of moral objectivity is correct, then surely this will apply to ANY moral situation, right? So why do we see exactly the kind of disagreement you speak of around moral issues such as abortion and euthanasia?

Like I have said an arguement from moral disagreement doesnt mean morality is subjective or that there are no objective morals.

Quite often the differences are exaggerated and when we peel back the different understandings we find a common set of morals. So give me an example and I will show you.

Oh rubbish. Someone acting like their subjective opinion is really an objectivev fact does not make it an objective fact. This is not the first time I've had to say this.

So do you think those on Facebook and protesting out in the streets, to governments and corporations about moral behaviour such as sexual harrassment, unfair pay, descrimination, HR think that their protests are only based on an opinion and not about a truthful wrong.

When it comes to morality you cannot be subjective. There has to be a right or wrong behaviour. Otherwise we are not talking about morality or that there is no such thing as right or wrong morally.

If that were true, everyone would have all the same moral viewpoints.

Why would that follow. People may know the moral truths but that doesn't mean they can't choose to deny them or rationalize them away.

If it was built on objective facts, how could it find an innocent person guilty? what fact could possibly show the guilt of an innocent man?

I'm not the one bring up that an innocent peson can be found guilty, you are.

Facts are not a unit of measurement.

Yes exactly. I have been saying this. So why do you keep asking for units of morals when I said this already.

Severity is a subjective opinion.

No its not when it comes to morality. The fact that some things can be more severe than others shows there needs to be an objective basis for measuring what is more severe and what is less severe.

So what? We are talking about morality in this thread, aren't we? And this whole discussion of how we establish guilt is, I think, getting off topic.

Yes I agree.

 

[Kylie]

Ok yes thanks for reminding me. How am I going to get out of this one lol.

OK that was based on the claim that every knows the core moral truths in their own way. They just have a different understanding of how this is applied due to their circumstances. For example scientists thought Eskimos were cruel to leave a baby out in the elements to die. But when they realized that they did this to save the rest of the family due to lack of food it aligned with western morality that human "Life" is important and valuable.

See what your saying is that "we cannot possibly know or comment of why the tribe kills". But we can reason why it is likely the tribe are killing outsiders because they percieve a threat or that it is for some good reason. Otherwise we are then reducing "Life" to the value of "who knows and cares" because we cannot say that even lost tribes can have good reason to kill and not just kill arbitrarily by a subjective feel or view.

You know, sometimes there comes a time when one must just admit that their position was incorrect instead of trying to find a way to justify it.

Yes, so you have just made a case for objective morality.

No, I was stating what must be the case IF (and that's a big if there) morality is objective.

Of course, morality doesn't work that way, and there's a lot more to it than simply the number of lives saved or lost, even in a situation like this.

What that evidence cannot be altered by subejctive opinion. Of course I do.

The evidence that puts an innocent man in jail for a crime he didn't commit.

But as I have said peoples subjective views of a TV show is not the same a morality. Morality is a matter that requires a right or wrong answer. A right or wrong behaviour. No one is behaving wrongly for liking Star Trek. See how it doesn't translate to morality.

Special pleading.

I disagree. On the core morals which there are only a few I would say everyone thinks much the same. Like I said find anyone who thinks "torturing a child for fun" or "stealing an old ladies handbag" is morally ok and we can tell them they are objectively wrong. Otherwise we are conceding that there is no morality.

You say you disagree that there plenty of moral viewpoints that people don't agree on, and then in the very next sentence you say that there are only a few that people DO agree on?

You realise you are agreeing with me here, right?

Like I have said an arguement from moral disagreement doesnt mean morality is subjective or that there are no objective morals.

Yes, you've said that many times.

You haven't SHOWN it, but you've said it.

Quite often the differences are exaggerated and when we peel back the different understandings we find a common set of morals. So give me an example and I will show you.

You ask me for an example of a morali situation where people have disagreement?

I just gave you TWO! Abortion and euthanasia!

So do you think those on Facebook and protesting out in the streets, to governments and corporations about moral behaviour such as sexual harrassment, unfair pay, descrimination, HR think that their protests are only based on an opinion and not about a truthful wrong.

And here you go again, using examples that most people would agree with in order to try to trick people into thinking subjective opinion is objective fact.

Why don't you try the same argument with the examples I used before, abortion and euthanasia? See if you reach the same conclusion.

When it comes to morality you cannot be subjective. There has to be a right or wrong behaviour. Otherwise we are not talking about morality or that there is no such thing as right or wrong morally.

Argument from incredulity. "There has to be a right or wrong behaviour! I can't imagine that there is no objective right or wrong, so there just HAS to be objective morality!"

Why would that follow. People may know the moral truths but that doesn't mean they can't choose to deny them or rationalize them away.

And that's about as rational as, "People may know Star Trek is better than Star Wars, but that doesn't mean they can't be drawn in by flashy lightsaber fights."

I'm not the one bring up that an innocent peson can be found guilty, you are.

And you're the one who has argued that what the courts delivery is some kind of objective morality.

Yes exactly. I have been saying this. So why do you keep asking for units of morals when I said this already.

Because you keep claiming that morality is objective, yet you refuse to explain how we can determine the difference in morality between two different moral situations.

No its not when it comes to morality. The fact that some things can be more severe than others shows there needs to be an objective basis for measuring what is more severe and what is less severe.

If you agree that there needs to be an objective basis for measuring morality, why don't you tell us what it is? I've been asking this for AGES now.

 

[stevevw]

You know, sometimes there comes a time when one must just admit that their position was incorrect instead of trying to find a way to justify it.

Who says I am incorrect and trying to justify things. My position is the majority and rational according to them. It is you who needs to rethink things.

But heres the ironoc contradiction of your claim. You are claiming a truth (objective) that I am incorrect in the same way you object to me claiming a truth that morality is objective and you cannot see this. You cannot see its logically inconsistent.

You protest I havnt provided support for my claim and yet your quite happy to make objective claims without support. It only goes to show that one of us is wrong and therefore there is an objective to this matter.

So therefore there is a truth that we both acknowledge is there. Yet it is not a physical truth. It goes to show that some truths are non-physical and still stand as truths in certain matters. The only way we know these truth exist is because we live like that truth matters.

No, I was stating what must be the case IF (and that's a big if there) morality is objective.

Of course, morality doesn't work that way, and there's a lot more to it than simply the number of lives saved or lost, even in a situation like this.

Tell what more is there.

The evidence that puts an innocent man in jail for a crime he didn't commit.

Then the evidence was wrong if the person is innocent. These are exceptions and not the rule.

Special pleading.

How is it speaciall pleading. Usually when peoiple make an unsupported assertion they are wrong and have run out of answers because they would have supported their assertion ion the first place. .

You say you disagree that there plenty of moral viewpoints that people don't agree on, and then in the very next sentence you say that there are only a few that people DO agree on?
You realise you are agreeing with me here, right?

How is that agreeing with you.

Yes, you've said that many times.
You haven't SHOWN it, but you've said it.

I don't need to show it. If you know what a logical fallacy is then its self evident. If you applied that same reasoning to science then we would have to discount many objective claims of scientists because different cultures disagree.

The disagreement objection:
To have genuine disagreements about moral issues, we need accepted standards for distinguishing correct from incorrect moral judgments, and facts must influence our judgments.
Disagreement about a topic isn’t itself a reason to think that there’s no truth there. People disagree about physics, especially between cultures, but nobody takes that to be a reason to doubt physics. Most people - or everyone - could just be wrong.
Besides genuine disagreement under subjectivity is impossible.
If subjectivism is true and ethical claims express nothing more than our own attitudes about a particular act or behavior, then genuine ethical disagreement would be impossible.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhiloso..._there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/
This argument, which we will now refer to as the “cultural differences argument” (Ibid), should be considered logically problematic and implausible.
The reasons for this are two-fold. Firstly, the conclusion of this argument does not follow from its premise. The premise of this argument (a) concerns what people believe, whilst its conclusion (b) concerns “what is really the case” (Ibid), a truth. These two observations are independent from each other and cannot be used to justify either statement correspondingly. This logical inconsistency, in turn reveals a major flaw in moral relativism (or subjectivism my add): that this conclusion about the relativity of morality is derived purely from the fact that different cultures (or people) disagree about particular topics (Rachels 24).
https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/countering-moral-relativism/

You ask me for an example of a morali situation where people have disagreement?
I just gave you TWO! Abortion and euthanasia!

Like I said with abortion the issue is basically is the Fetus a human life. So the moral is about the possibility of taking a human life. But anti abortionists don't think the fetus is human life. So the real disagreement is about whether the fetus is a life and not whether abortion is right or wrong. If anti abortionists thought that abortion was taking a human life they would not have an abortion. So we all actualy agree that human life is valuable and we should not take an innocent life.

And here you go again, using examples that most people would agree with in order to try to trick people into thinking subjective opinion is objective fact.

Why don't you try the same argument with the examples I used before, abortion and euthanasia? See if you reach the same conclusion.

Its the same for those things people disagree. Like I said the disagreement isnt over morality with abortion and euthanasia. Its more about disagreement over the facts about the topic like "Is the fetus a human life. The fact is the majority of people agree on the majority of morals and those they don't the disagreement isnt over morals but the facts.

Like slavery. People thought blacks were 2nd grade humans like animals. But when they learnt they were humans just like them those who opposed it beghan to relaise they also humans and had no justification. It wasnt because they just decided to try something different.

Argument from incredulity. "There has to be a right or wrong behaviour! I can't imagine that there is no objective right or wrong, so there just HAS to be objective morality!"

But its fact acknowledged by ethicists. Morality is about right and wrong. When you say x is wrong your not saying it maybe wrong or I think its wrong. Your saying it is wrong.

Of an act such as Lucy slugging her brother Linus as and when she feels crabby, it can be said that the act is wrong. A statement that Lucy’s act is wrong is not merely a statement about Linus’s belief or Lucy’s feeling of guilt. It involves a claim about the properties of Lucy’s action — a claim that can be true or false. If two persons disagree about whether Lucy is wrong to slug Linus whenever she feels like it, one of them is wrong.
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4088&context=sol_research

And that's about as rational as, "People may know Star Trek is better than Star Wars, but that doesn't mean they can't be drawn in by flashy lightsaber fights."

No its not, its completely different. What I have said is a fact. Just because something is true or real doesnt mean people have to acknowledge it. Look at climate change. But comparing peoples subjective views about Star Trek and Star Wars is not about facts and nor can there be a right and wrong view rationally argued because preferences can never be right or wrong.

Because you keep claiming that morality is objective, yet you refuse to explain how we can determine the difference in morality between two different moral situations.

I have already provided that as you know. You just don't agree with it. But then you have never provided an arguement as to why only fallacies.

If you agree that there needs to be an objective basis for measuring morality, why don't you tell us what it is? I've been asking this for AGES now.

And I have already given it. Like I said you just ignore it. Refer back to our discussion I have explained this many times.

 

[Kylie]

Who says I am incorrect and trying to justify things. My position is the majority and rational according to them. It is you who needs to rethink things.

Not a very large majority though... [Source]

But heres the ironoc contradiction of your claim. You are claiming a truth (objective) that I am incorrect in the same way you object to me claiming a truth that morality is objective and you cannot see this. You cannot see its logically inconsistent.

How does that follow? Being able to make an objective statement about one thing does not mean that all thigns are objective.

The objectivity of my claim as to the truth/untruth of your statement and the objectivity of your statement are not connected.

You protest I havnt provided support for my claim and yet your quite happy to make objective claims without support. It only goes to show that one of us is wrong and therefore there is an objective to this matter.

I have provided plenty of support for my position.

And you have committed a logical fallacy, the false dichotomy. You assume that one of us must be wrong while ignoring the possibility that both of us could be wrong.

So therefore there is a truth that we both acknowledge is there. Yet it is not a physical truth. It goes to show that some truths are non-physical and still stand as truths in certain matters. The only way we know these truth exist is because we live like that truth matters.

How many times do I need to say this?

Living like something is objective does not mean it really is objective!

Tell what more is there.

How about age, for a start.

Whose life is more valuable? A 95 year old man or an 8 year old girl?

Then the evidence was wrong if the person is innocent. These are exceptions and not the rule.

Irrelevant.

Your argument here is nothing more than, "The evidence is always right, except when it isn't."

How is it speaciall pleading. Usually when peoiple make an unsupported assertion they are wrong and have run out of answers because they would have supported their assertion ion the first place. .

Because you are claiming that subjective opinions are governed by different rules based on no reason whatsoever. You claim that morality REQUIRES a right/wrong answer whereas liking a TV show doesn't.

How is that agreeing with you.

I literally told you. "You say you disagree that there plenty of moral viewpoints that people don't agree on, and then in the very next sentence you say that there are only a few that people DO agree on?"

I don't need to show it.

You don't need to show it!

That's hilarious.

Of course you need to show why disagreement about morality is not evidence that morality is subjective.

If you know what a logical fallacy is then its self evident. If you applied that same reasoning to science then we would have to discount many objective claims of scientists because different cultures disagree.

The disagreement objection:
To have genuine disagreements about moral issues, we need accepted standards for distinguishing correct from incorrect moral judgments, and facts must influence our judgments.
Disagreement about a topic isn’t itself a reason to think that there’s no truth there. People disagree about physics, especially between cultures, but nobody takes that to be a reason to doubt physics. Most people - or everyone - could just be wrong.

Ah yes, we need to accept standards! SO we can make objectively determined statements about how different moral situations compare!

I've been asking for this for ages and no one seems to want to tell me what such standards could be!

It's almost like such standards are impossible to provide because they don't exist.

Besides genuine disagreement under subjectivity is impossible.
If subjectivism is true and ethical claims express nothing more than our own attitudes about a particular act or behavior, then genuine ethical disagreement would be impossible.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhiloso..._there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/
This argument, which we will now refer to as the “cultural differences argument” (Ibid), should be considered logically problematic and implausible.
The reasons for this are two-fold. Firstly, the conclusion of this argument does not follow from its premise. The premise of this argument (a) concerns what people believe, whilst its conclusion (b) concerns “what is really the case” (Ibid), a truth. These two observations are independent from each other and cannot be used to justify either statement correspondingly. This logical inconsistency, in turn reveals a major flaw in moral relativism (or subjectivism my add): that this conclusion about the relativity of morality is derived purely from the fact that different cultures (or people) disagree about particular topics (Rachels 24).
https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/countering-moral-relativism/

It's impossible to have a genuine disagreement about things that are subjective?

Wow, you've never seen the hate between Star Trek fans and Babylon 5 fans, have you?

Or Canon shooters and Nikon shooters.

Or Ford against Holden.

Like I said with abortion the issue is basically is the Fetus a human life. So the moral is about the possibility of taking a human life. But anti abortionists don't think the fetus is human life. So the real disagreement is about whether the fetus is a life and not whether abortion is right or wrong. If anti abortionists thought that abortion was taking a human life they would not have an abortion. So we all actualy agree that human life is valuable and we should not take an innocent life.

Its the same for those things people disagree. Like I said the disagreement isnt over morality with abortion and euthanasia. Its more about disagreement over the facts about the topic like "Is the fetus a human life. The fact is the majority of people agree on the majority of morals and those they don't the disagreement isnt over morals but the facts.

Even if I grant that (which I don't), you completely ignored the euthanasia situiation. And what about other morally contentious issues that don't involve death, such as premarital sex or marriage equality?

Like slavery. People thought blacks were 2nd grade humans like animals. But when they learnt they were humans just like them those who opposed it beghan to relaise they also humans and had no justification. It wasnt because they just decided to try something different.

I know many black people who would find this comment hilarious. You think coloured people are treated equal to white people today?

But its fact acknowledged by ethicists. Morality is about right and wrong. When you say x is wrong your not saying it maybe wrong or I think its wrong. Your saying it is wrong.

Of an act such as Lucy slugging her brother Linus as and when she feels crabby, it can be said that the act is wrong. A statement that Lucy’s act is wrong is not merely a statement about Linus’s belief or Lucy’s feeling of guilt. It involves a claim about the properties of Lucy’s action — a claim that can be true or false. If two persons disagree about whether Lucy is wrong to slug Linus whenever she feels like it, one of them is wrong.
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4088&context=sol_research

Then by the same logic, when I say, "Jurassic Park is a better movie than Battlefield Earth," I'm not saying I think it is better. I'm saying it's objectively better.

No its not, its completely different. What I have said is a fact. Just because something is true or real doesnt mean people have to acknowledge it. Look at climate change. But comparing peoples subjective views about Star Trek and Star Wars is not about facts and nor can there be a right and wrong view rationally argued because preferences can never be right or wrong.

But there is evidence for things like climate change that will convince any rational person. The same can not be said for morality.

I have already provided that as you know. You just don't agree with it. But then you have never provided an arguement as to why only fallacies.

You've never provided any explanation for how we can determine which of two moral issues is worse other than by falling back on the assumption that we share certain moral viewpoints in common (for reasons I have already explained do not involve them being objectively true) and hoping that we'll just assume that they are objective because they are so widespread.

You are incapable of doing it with any moral issue where there is no such widespread agreement.

For example, which is worse, polyamory (consensually having multiple romantic relationships with different people at the same time) or premarital sex?

Explain to me which one of those is objectively worse, and provide a clear explanation of your answer.

And I have already given it. Like I said you just ignore it. Refer back to our discussion I have explained this many times.

No you haven't. All you've done is talk about moral value in terms of Human life. I await your answer to my earlier question about whether the life of a 95 year old has the same value as that of an 8 year old. And that criteria fails completely in situations where life is not at risk, such as my question just now about polyamory/premarital sex.

 

[stevevw]

Not a very large majority though... [Source]

Actually those who support objective morality are double those who are anti- objectivists so it is more than a slight majority when it comes to moral realism.

How does that follow? Being able to make an objective statement about one thing does not mean that all thigns are objective.

The objectivity of my claim as to the truth/untruth of your statement and the objectivity of your statement are not connected.

That doesnt make sense. I say theres objective morals, you say theres not. How are they not connected. If you are right then I am wrong. If I am right then you are wrong. The difference is you demand I supply evidence and that you don't demand that same evidence for yourself.

I have provided plenty of support for my position.

So where is it. Like you asked me whats the metric measure.

And you have committed a logical fallacy, the false dichotomy. You assume that one of us must be wrong while ignoring the possibility that both of us could be wrong.

WE both cannot be wrong. Either morality is subjective or its objective.

How many times do I need to say this?

Living like something is objective does not mean it really is objective!

You keep forgetting that its not just living like morality is objective. It is actually claiming there is no other way to live when it comes to morality except by objectiveity. Thats a step beyond just living like morality is objective. Its actually making it real and the only option.

How about age, for a start.
Whose life is more valuable? A 95 year old man or an 8 year old girl?

Yes but all this just feeds into an objective morality. We wouldnt need to worry about age and health and all the considerations as to which lives are the most valuable to save if there was no objective morals. Under subjective morality none of that matters as there is no reason to determine who is most deserved. IT doesnt matter who you kill under subjective morality.

Irrelevant.

Your argument here is nothing more than, "The evidence is always right, except when it isn't."

Thats a Strawman. Where did I say that. I said the evdience is important in the determination of guilt not the evdience is infallible.

Because you are claiming that subjective opinions are governed by different rules based on no reason whatsoever.

Yes when it comes to morality it is. Morality is a bout something being right or wrong. Preferences for a TV show are about your subjective views which cannot be right or wrong. So your comparing 2 completely different things and its irrelevant. You need to completely forget aboiut using the TV show example for morality. It doesn't work.

You claim that morality REQUIRES a right/wrong answer whereas liking a TV show doesn't.

But preferences for a TV is not the same as morality. Your example that "you liking Star Trek" being a truth statement is only true when applied to you. But that says nothing about whether the TV is right or wrong morally beyond you. Nor does it say Star Trek is a great show in any truthful way.

I literally told you. "You say you disagree that there plenty of moral viewpoints that people don't agree on, and then in the very next sentence you say that there are only a few that people DO agree on?"

Thats because the small core set of morals can be applied to many related but different moral situations. For example stealing relates to anything from armed robbery, shoplifting, fraud, being slack at work ect. Each situation is different and needs to be reasoned as to why they are wrong. So one core moral can relate to many different moral situations.

You don't need to show it!

That's hilarious.

Of course you need to show why disagreement about morality is not evidence that morality is subjective.

No I don't because it doesnt follow that moral disagreements mean morals are subjective. Your asking me to treat your fallacy like its not a fallacy. We should never have to answer a logical falalcy because they are irrelevant.

yes, we need to accept standards! SO we can make objectively determined statements about how different moral situations compare!
I've been asking for this for ages and no one seems to want to tell me what such standards could be!

I have already supplied that info. The standards we use are there for us to see, ie don't kill, don't lie, don't rape ect. These things cannot be wrong unless there is a standard to measure them. OTherwise we would have to say we don't know how to act morlaly.

It's almost like such standards are impossible to provide because they don't exist.

Lets say they are impossible for them to show to your requiremnet. In not being able to see those standards does that mean there are no standards considering the article said we have to have standards to measure morality. What you saying is a logical falalcy. That if we cannot see these standards then there must not be any standards.

 

[Kylie]

Actually those who support objective morality are double those who are anti- objectivists so it is more than a slight majority when it comes to moral realism.

I said, only a very slight majority. I provided a source to back it up.

That doesnt make sense. I say theres objective morals, you say theres not. How are they not connected. If you are right then I am wrong. If I am right then you are wrong. The difference is you demand I supply evidence and that you don't demand that same evidence for yourself.

Oh, hang on, you're trying to pull a fast one here.

Your correctness about morality is not in itself a moral claim.

So where is it. Like you asked me whats the metric measure.

Are you seriously claiming you don't see where I have provided my arguments for moral subjectivity?

I've done it in just about every post I've made in this thread.

WE both cannot be wrong. Either morality is subjective or its objective.

I would ask that you prove to me that it MUST be one of them, but that would take us off topic.

You keep forgetting that its not just living like morality is objective. It is actually claiming there is no other way to live when it comes to morality except by objectiveity. Thats a step beyond just living like morality is objective. Its actually making it real and the only option.

Living as though morality is objective anmd claiming that morality is objective does not actually make it objective.

Yes but all this just feeds into an objective morality. We wouldnt need to worry about age and health and all the considerations as to which lives are the most valuable to save if there was no objective morals. Under subjective morality none of that matters as there is no reason to determine who is most deserved. IT doesnt matter who you kill under subjective morality.

Stop trying to avoid the issue.

You claim that objective morality is real, therefore you must be able to provide an answer to the question.

Thats a Strawman. Where did I say that. I said the evdience is important in the determination of guilt not the evdience is infallible.

You've said that courts deal with objective facts to determine who is right and who is wrong (1991). And you've said that courts are not controlled by subjective things, like which lawyer makes the most persuasive arguments (1999). And yet these courts that look at only objective facts and are told objective statements, with no room for subjectivity at all (according to you), sometimes find innocent people guilty, which you agreed to in post 1999.

Yes when it comes to morality it is. Morality is a bout something being right or wrong. Preferences for a TV show are about your subjective views which cannot be right or wrong. So your comparing 2 completely different things and its irrelevant. You need to completely forget aboiut using the TV show example for morality. It doesn't work.

Sorry, but just saying it's different isn't enough to show that it's different. And you are also using your conclusion (that morality is not subjective) as a premise.

But preferences for a TV is not the same as morality. Your example that "you liking Star Trek" being a truth statement is only true when applied to you. But that says nothing about whether the TV is right or wrong morally beyond you. Nor does it say Star Trek is a great show in any truthful way.

Likewise, me saying that the moral issue of premarital sex is morally acceptable says nothing about whether premarital sex is acceptable beyond me. Likewise, me saying that the moral issue of marriage equality is morally acceptable says nothing about whether marriage equality is acceptable beyond me.

Thats because the small core set of morals can be applied to many related but different moral situations. For example stealing relates to anything from armed robbery, shoplifting, fraud, being slack at work ect. Each situation is different and needs to be reasoned as to why they are wrong. So one core moral can relate to many different moral situations.

And you have been utterly incapable of showing that people can use reason to reach the same moral conclusion. Give ten people the same moral situation and they'll come to ten different moral viewpoijnts. Objective things do not work that way!

No I don't because it doesnt follow that moral disagreements mean morals are subjective. Your asking me to treat your fallacy like its not a fallacy. We should never have to answer a logical falalcy because they are irrelevant.

You say it doesnt follow that moral disagreements mean morals are subjective. Prove it.

I have already supplied that info. The standards we use are there for us to see, ie don't kill, don't lie, don't rape ect. These things cannot be wrong unless there is a standard to measure them. OTherwise we would have to say we don't know how to act morlaly.

So killing is NEVER justified?

Lets say they are impossible for them to show to your requiremnet. In not being able to see those standards does that mean there are no standards considering the article said we have to have standards to measure morality. What you saying is a logical falalcy. That if we cannot see these standards then there must not be any standards.

I would say that we create our own personal standards. And most people happen to have very similar standards for most issues because those standards are influenced by the society in which we live, and we all live in pretty much the same society.

And you seem to have ignored the entire last half of my post. I shall post it again so you can properly respond to it.

Besides genuine disagreement under subjectivity is impossible.
If subjectivism is true and ethical claims express nothing more than our own attitudes about a particular act or behavior, then genuine ethical disagreement would be impossible.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhiloso..._there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/
This argument, which we will now refer to as the “cultural differences argument” (Ibid), should be considered logically problematic and implausible.
The reasons for this are two-fold. Firstly, the conclusion of this argument does not follow from its premise. The premise of this argument (a) concerns what people believe, whilst its conclusion (b) concerns “what is really the case” (Ibid), a truth. These two observations are independent from each other and cannot be used to justify either statement correspondingly. This logical inconsistency, in turn reveals a major flaw in moral relativism (or subjectivism my add): that this conclusion about the relativity of morality is derived purely from the fact that different cultures (or people) disagree about particular topics (Rachels 24).
https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/countering-moral-relativism/

It's impossible to have a genuine disagreement about things that are subjective?

Wow, you've never seen the hate between Star Trek fans and Babylon 5 fans, have you?

Or Canon shooters and Nikon shooters.

Or Ford against Holden.

Like I said with abortion the issue is basically is the Fetus a human life. So the moral is about the possibility of taking a human life. But anti abortionists don't think the fetus is human life. So the real disagreement is about whether the fetus is a life and not whether abortion is right or wrong. If anti abortionists thought that abortion was taking a human life they would not have an abortion. So we all actualy agree that human life is valuable and we should not take an innocent life.

Its the same for those things people disagree. Like I said the disagreement isnt over morality with abortion and euthanasia. Its more about disagreement over the facts about the topic like "Is the fetus a human life. The fact is the majority of people agree on the majority of morals and those they don't the disagreement isnt over morals but the facts.

Even if I grant that (which I don't), you completely ignored the euthanasia situiation. And what about other morally contentious issues that don't involve death, such as premarital sex or marriage equality?

Like slavery. People thought blacks were 2nd grade humans like animals. But when they learnt they were humans just like them those who opposed it beghan to relaise they also humans and had no justification. It wasnt because they just decided to try something different.

I know many black people who would find this comment hilarious. You think coloured people are treated equal to white people today?

But its fact acknowledged by ethicists. Morality is about right and wrong. When you say x is wrong your not saying it maybe wrong or I think its wrong. Your saying it is wrong.

Of an act such as Lucy slugging her brother Linus as and when she feels crabby, it can be said that the act is wrong. A statement that Lucy’s act is wrong is not merely a statement about Linus’s belief or Lucy’s feeling of guilt. It involves a claim about the properties of Lucy’s action — a claim that can be true or false. If two persons disagree about whether Lucy is wrong to slug Linus whenever she feels like it, one of them is wrong.
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4088&context=sol_research

Then by the same logic, when I say, "Jurassic Park is a better movie than Battlefield Earth," I'm not saying I think it is better. I'm saying it's objectively better.

No its not, its completely different. What I have said is a fact. Just because something is true or real doesnt mean people have to acknowledge it. Look at climate change. But comparing peoples subjective views about Star Trek and Star Wars is not about facts and nor can there be a right and wrong view rationally argued because preferences can never be right or wrong.

But there is evidence for things like climate change that will convince any rational person. The same can not be said for morality.

I have already provided that as you know. You just don't agree with it. But then you have never provided an arguement as to why only fallacies.

You've never provided any explanation for how we can determine which of two moral issues is worse other than by falling back on the assumption that we share certain moral viewpoints in common (for reasons I have already explained do not involve them being objectively true) and hoping that we'll just assume that they are objective because they are so widespread.

You are incapable of doing it with any moral issue where there is no such widespread agreement.

For example, which is worse, polyamory (consensually having multiple romantic relationships with different people at the same time) or premarital sex?

Explain to me which one of those is objectively worse, and provide a clear explanation of your answer.

And I have already given it. Like I said you just ignore it. Refer back to our discussion I have explained this many times.

No you haven't. All you've done is talk about moral value in terms of Human life. I await your answer to my earlier question about whether the life of a 95 year old has the same value as that of an 8 year old. And that criteria fails completely in situations where life is not at risk, such as my question just now about polyamory/premarital sex.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Actually those who support objective morality are double those who are anti- objectivists so it is more than a slight majority when it comes to moral realism.

I guess we'll just vote and tally everyone's preferences, and then we'll know the objective fact of the matter. /eyeroll

 

[stevevw]

I guess we'll just vote and tally everyone's preferences, and then we'll know the objective fact of the matter. /eyeroll

The point is more about how epople say that taking an objective moral position is irrational. I am saying if its so irrational then why do double the philosophers support it as a rational position. That may not prove objective morality itself but it sure lends support that its a position that seems to make sense and that lends support that its more likely true.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The point is more about how epople say that taking an objective moral position is irrational.

Is anyone? I confess I haven't read a lot of the long back and forths. I'm just saying it's wrong, not irrational. And supporters of the idea seem to be at a complete loss to demonstrate the objectivity of any moral statement.

 

[Moral Orel]

Is anyone? I confess I haven't read a lot of the long back and forths. I'm just saying it's wrong, not irrational.

According to Steve, if you are wrong, then you reasoned incorrectly, and are therefore irrational. Personally, I agree with that use of the word "irrational". So he's calling us irrational, and we're calling him irrational. But so what?

And supporters of the idea seem to be at a complete loss to demonstrate the objectivity of any moral statement.

That's because it's logically impossible as my argument showed. And the demonstration of that fact is playing out in the thread on "Absolute Morality".

 

[Kylie]

The point is more about how epople say that taking an objective moral position is irrational. I am saying if its so irrational then why do double the philosophers support it as a rational position. That may not prove objective morality itself but it sure lends support that its a position that seems to make sense and that lends support that its more likely true.

First of all, argument from popularity.

Second of all, I suspect those who hold that morality is objective do so because there are many moral viewpoints that everyone seems to have in common. They see these commanalities and conclude that the commonalities exist because they are somehow built into the very fabric of the universe, like the speed of light, or the value of pi. But, as I've explained, these commonalities can be explained in a differnt way, that as Humans started living in societal groups, we needed a way of interacting with others in a way that did not damage the social structure of the group, and that's why we have such shared moral viewpoints. Not because they are objectively true, but because we live in social groups where those viewpoints are beneficial.

Thirdly, the idea of objective morality doesn't explain why there are so many situations where moral viewpoints are widely varied. Is premarital sex morally good or not? Is it morally acceptable for a woman to be topless in public? And other issues like euthanasia, marriage equality, and many others. If there really was an obnjective morality, then there would be much more widespread agreement about these issues, just as we see widespread agreement on the issue "Murder is wrong." And yet we don't.

 

[Kylie]

Well, I shut this thread up, didn't I?

 

[TheWhat?]

First of all, argument from popularity.

Second of all, I suspect those who hold that morality is objective do so because there are many moral viewpoints that everyone seems to have in common. They see these commanalities and conclude that the commonalities exist because they are somehow built into the very fabric of the universe, like the speed of light, or the value of pi. But, as I've explained, these commonalities can be explained in a differnt way, that as Humans started living in societal groups, we needed a way of interacting with others in a way that did not damage the social structure of the group, and that's why we have such shared moral viewpoints. Not because they are objectively true, but because we live in social groups where those viewpoints are beneficial.

Thirdly, the idea of objective morality doesn't explain why there are so many situations where moral viewpoints are widely varied. Is premarital sex morally good or not? Is it morally acceptable for a woman to be topless in public? And other issues like euthanasia, marriage equality, and many others. If there really was an obnjective morality, then there would be much more widespread agreement about these issues, just as we see widespread agreement on the issue "Murder is wrong." And yet we don't.

"Threeness" is a property of a group of three. It's part of reality. Because a social group is involved, doesn't mean it's imaginary.

Also, I laid out a series of propositions for the existence of an objective morality that have not been contradicted.

 

[stevevw]

Is anyone? I confess I haven't read a lot of the long back and forths. I'm just saying it's wrong, not irrational.

Well yes people on this thread have actually said objective morality is a irrational position. They were so confident that they were right that they make aan objective claim.

And supporters of the idea seem to be at a complete loss to demonstrate the objectivity of any moral statement.

But thats a logical fallacy to say then it follows that there must be no objective morals because people cannot explain this. The same logic can be used in science and shows its illogical.

But another point. Those who make this claim that there is only subjective morlaity and no objective morality also cannot demostrate that this is objectively true. So its seems that they are doing exactly the same and yet think that this is enough to show they are correct.