Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Depends how you express it....But if no statement about morality can be demonstrated to be objective, then there is no support for the claim "morality is objective."...
OK sorry. Then my other point still stands that even those who disagreed still though moral realism was a rational position. So even though they were anti moral realists they still agreed that moral realims was a reasonable position to take. That says something for the position being a logically and rational position to take.You really should actually read my posts before responding.
I was not saying that there was an equal number of people who disagree.
I said that the people who disagree were EQUALLY QUALIFIED.
Thats silly. We would hope that by sticking to the facts of the matter we can sort the feelings from facts. The fact is Miss Jones has been sacked. The facts around why she was sacked will also be there. Miss jones can react anyway she wants as subjetcive feelings are not right or wrong.That sounds like you are saying that we should ignore the feelings of people who react to something more than we think is justified.
"I'm sorry, Miss Jones. I know your boss yelled at you because you made a mistake in the report for the Johnson account, but my objective determination of the morality of his actions says that your response of breaking down into tears in the lunchroom is completely unjustified. So stop crying, toughen up and get back to work!"
BUt even objecting to the way this scenario can be measured shows that we need an objective measure and not base it on how people feel or personally view the situation.I've already talked about how this reduction of morality to "How many lives are saved/lost" is a terrible way to measure it.
So they all agree that cliamte change is a problem based on some facts. They don;t just say " I feel the weather in me bones and claimate change is real". The fact that people disagree around the fringes as to what exactly is climate change doesnt mean there is no further facts to discover. We may not havethe tech to know and may find more evdience that further suppirts the facts.And among the people actually qualified to know what they are talking about in those areas, how much disagreement is there? Virtually ALL climate scientists agree that climate change is a serious problem. I haven't looked at the statistics for the heart example, but I think it's safe to say that virtually ALL people who are trained in relevant fdields will agree with that statement as well.
Not really. Most experts agree that morality is a case of therehaving to be a right and wrong answer and that most people know and agree on the core moral truths. They just disagree what that represents. The same as climate change.Yet when we look at the people who are qualified in areas related to morality, we see a much larger disagreement.
I didnt ignore this if you remember I refuted it byAs I've said countless times (and you seem intent on ignoring), the agreement on moral issues is easily explained by our sense of morality stemming from the society we are raised in, and all of us in here were raised in broadly the same kind of society.
You seem to think because we cannot determine the exact amount or type of harm rape does that we cannot tell any facts about rape. We can know that rape causes certain harms and in light of that people may respond differently.But we can't determine objectively how much harm will be done. Some people have their entire lives destroyed by it. Other people are able to recover almost completely. It's impossible to say, "The act of rape causes X amount of harm."
So your saying theres no objective criteria for euthenasia. People can kill others if they subjectively feel that they want to end their life. Thats crazy.Of course it's going to be subjective, because the situation for each person who faces the choice is different.
Yes but thats not how it works. Person B can't just say they want to end their lives just like that and then kill themselves. Thats not what euthenasia but rather suicide. Euthenasia is a regulated practcie and illegal in many countries. But where legal it usually involves a controlled situation and usually by a doctor. Otherwise you could not say its euthenasia but some back street cowboy operation.Why do you think it's Person A deciding on whether Person B should die?
It's Person B deciding for themselves.
I have not said that there are specific points to measure morality. I have said there are degrees like severity. That doesnt have points but rather greater or lessor of something. Its the fact that there is a greater or lesser of something and taht we are moving away from one point towards another that shows that there are objective measures.I think your continued failure to do so works very much against you.
I mean, you've been arguing for a long time that there are specific points of right and wrong, and yet when it comes time to put your money where your mouth is, you refuse to step up and actually do it.
If your position really was as correct as you say, surely you can think of at least ONE example of it!
I just gave you 3 examples. Many scientific objectives are disagreed on. Gravity for one, how the universe began, whether there is a multiverse, diets. Even Einsteins law of relativity was dispute and seen differently by his contemproaries. Most scientific ideas are disagreed until they are proven. But the disagreements are based on assumptions made about reality and not subjective views.Please show me a single area of science that is claimed to be objective where there is widespread disagreement among those who are actually qualified to make comment on it.
So your saying theres no objective criteria for euthenasia. People can kill others if they subjectively feel that they want to end their life. Thats crazy.
Yes but thats not how it works. Person B can't just say they want to end their lives just like that and then kill themselves. Thats not what euthenasia but rather suicide. Euthenasia is a regulated practcie and illegal in many countries. But where legal it usually involves a controlled situation and usually by a doctor. Otherwise you could not say its euthenasia but some back street cowboy operation.
I have not said that there are specific points to measure morality. I have said there are degrees like severity. That doesnt have points but rather greater or lessor of something. Its the fact that there is a greater or lesser of something and taht we are moving away from one point towards another that shows that there are objective measures.
I have shown this with the different degrees of killing. How do we measure manslaughter from 1st degree murder. We do this by measuring it against what 1st degree murder is and how manslaughter is different, accidental and without intent. The same with most other morals.
I just gave you 3 examples. Many scientific objectives are disagreed on. Gravity for one, how the universe began, whether there is a multiverse, diets. Even Einsteins law of relativity was dispute and seen differently by his contemproaries. Most scientific ideas are disagreed until they are proven. But the disagreements are based on assumptions made about reality and not subjective views.
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.
Agreed. But morally relevant objective facts are not enough to make the morality of the situation itself objective.
Have you got a source to back up the claim that a doctor doesn't bother with the subjectivity of a pain response? Because for many conditions, the type of pain (stabbing, aching, shooting, etc) and how bad the pain is can be a useful diagnostic tool. And doctors are generally concerned with reducing the pain levels in patients. When my husband cut his finger open while making dinner, we went to the hospital and they glued the cut shut, but not before they gave him some local anaesthetic injections.
Then tell me how does it work. There must be someobjective measure.Thats not how it works.
Yeah but its controlled and has to meet a certain criteria. Thats usually an objective one.Euthanasia is a kind of suicide.
Well for killing there are degrees determined by facts about the severity and intention. So obviously a planned kill in cold blood is worse than manslaughter where someone accidently kills someone. This is relected in different penalties. Its the same for all moral truths. Its usualy decided by the facts. The fact is killing an innocent person for fun or some other subjective reason is wrong. The facts can show the person did the act.What measures? In what quantity? Who gets to decide?
But acts like killing are based on morals. We can use the same logic and reasoning for how one type of killing is worse than another even without the legal system.Legal laws are not the same as morals. You seem to confuse the legal system with objective morals.
But they all make killing wrong and will have different degrees of killing. If they don't then we in the west who claim to be the moral conscience of the world will say its an injustice that someone gets the same penalty for accidental killing as a cold blodded killer. So someone is claiming an objective moral truth here.And the legal system is very different around the world.
However it works scientists do disagree despite there being objective facts.Thats not how science works.
One of the first things a Doctor will ask about pain is to rate it on a scale of 1 to 10. That itself shows they use some objective measure to determine whats actually happening.
They would have had 1,000s of cases where there were different pain levels. They would know that a person screaming and writhering on the ground in agony over a splinter is a bit much and someone just sitting there with a broken leg calmly must have a good pain threshold.
But the fact they know this shows they are using some objective measure. Otherwise it would be like whoever screams loudest is in the most pain.
Why has there h´got to be a objective measure?Then tell me how does it work. There must be someobjective measure.
Yeah but its controlled and has to meet a certain criteria. Thats usually an objective one.
Well for killing there are degrees determined by facts about the severity and intention. So obviously a planned kill in cold blood is worse than manslaughter where someone accidently kills someone. This is relected in different penalties. Its the same for all moral truths. Its usualy decided by the facts. The fact is killing an innocent person for fun or some other subjective reason is wrong. The facts can show the person did the act.
But acts like killing are based on morals. We can use the same logic and reasoning for how one type of killing is worse than another even without the legal system.
But they all make killing wrong and will have different degrees of killing. If they don't then we in the west who claim to be the moral conscience of the world will say its an injustice that someone gets the same penalty for accidental killing as a cold blodded killer. So someone is claiming an objective moral truth here.
So if a country did not penalize killers at all we would say thats an injustice. We cannot know injustice unless we know what justice is to measure that. So we are left with saying nothing. That another cultures barbaric acts are not really wrong because morality is subjective and not about anything truthful. That would be counter intuitive and absurd.
However it works scientists do disagree despite there being objective facts.
Actually I think the burdon of proof is on the skeptic.I think there is a burden of proof issue. We know that we have opinions and preferences about moral issues, just as we do about aesthetic issues. That much is obvious.
If there is some moral meterstick beyond human preferences, it is incumbent on the supporters of that idea to prove it. It is not my job to demonstrate its nonexistence, particularly since the supporters haven't been able to suggest where such a thing might exist.
Actually I think the burdon of proof is on the skeptic.
-snip-[/MEDIA]
Actually I think the burdon of proof is on the skeptic.
Moral values and duties are self-evidence and intuitive.
So is how Brussels sprouts taste. It is immediate to our experience, just as is our experience of moral outrage when something happens in our presence. This does not make it objective.
Stubbing your toe is immediate to your experience. It doesn't make the pain non-real or imaginary.
The pain is in your head, and only accessible to the subject who experiences it. This is not to say pain doesn't exist, but it doesn't exist the same way that Sheboygan exists.
Its not objective.I agree that pain exists. It is a real phenomenon.
Once we get beyond the common conception of subjective to take a look under the hood so to speak, what becomes clear is that, as with the other senses, pain is imposed upon the self. We don't will pain to exist directly. We can cause it, but we can't imagine it to be so. Its origin is outside of the self, the internal observer. Opinion, interpretation, fabrications, etc, are all to some degree subject to the self. Pain, and likewise, involuntary experiences which we cannot will to perceive as anything other than wrongs, are imposed upon the observer from outside the internal self. It's not quite as "subjective" as common consensus would have us to believe.
Its not objective.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?