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.
I dont care, its still not objective.subjective (adj.)I reject your post Kantian interpretation.
c. 1500, "characteristic of one who is submissive or obedient," from Late Latin subiectivus "of the subject, subjective," from subiectus "lying under, below, near bordering on," figuratively "subjected, subdued"(see subject (n.)). In early Modern English as "existing, real;" more restricted meaning "existing in the mind" (the mind as "the thinking subject") is from 1707, popularized by Kant and his contemporaries; thus, in art and literature, "personal, idiosyncratic" (1767). Related: Subjectively; subjectiveness.
Involuntary experiences we experience, involuntarily, as wrongs, are no less objective phenomena than pain.
Where do the ”wrongs” exist? What are they made off? Who/what judged them wrong? By which authority?Except that wrongs exist as objective phenomena, there is simply no reason to bother with morality at all.
Where do the ”wrongs” exist? What are they made off? Who/what judged them wrong? By which authority?
Ok, if you cant answer that then the logical conclusion is that morality isnt objective.Where do phenomena exist? What are they made of?
The reason why we seem to struggle with this in morality appears to be motivated.
Ok, if you cant answer that then the logical conclusion is that morality isnt objective.
Nope, thats not how it works.That's rationalism at work. Moral rationalism need not be the case, necessarily, for objective morality.
Objective things are. That, simply, is what it means to be objective -- an object, a thing that is.
Because you exist as a conscious, sentient entity whose will can be violated in an unwarranted manner means you can be wronged.
Solipsistic tendencies excluded, if you and a potential perpetrator against you are objects, morality is objective. It exists as a consequence of us, and all such living entities are the basis for all morality and moral reasoning.
Nope, thats not how it works.
Thsts just a lot of meta-physical blather.
Again, where is this objective morality? By which authority? What is it made of? How do we find it?
Except that wrongs exist as objective phenomena, there is simply no reason to bother with morality at all.
'Except that beauty exists as an objective phenomenon, there is simply no reason to bother with the arts at all.'
It's just not persuasive. Perceived beauty and perceived injustices really do matter. They matter to us, the subjects who behold it.
Stanford's encyclopedia defines morality to be used as follows:
In either case, my argument assumes that codes of conduct are useless unless they solve some moral problem.
- descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
- normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people.
I'll take that further, using the definitions provided in my previous post.
P1: an objective reality exists.
P2: it is this same objective reality which defines all real moral problems.
P3: the effectiveness of any possible code of conduct as a solution to any real moral problem is defined by the same objective reality that defines all real moral problems.
C: there must exist a set of possible codes of conduct which could serve as optimal solutions to real moral problems, and because they are defined by an objective reality, the set can be described as an "objective morality."
Well thats a bit ilogical don't you think. How can some be wrong about liking a TV show when its an opinion or preference.
We do have but you don't recognise it. But at the very least it may stop people from claiming it doesnt exist and that subjective morality is all that exists when they cannot possibly know.
But those reasons are logical fallacies and Ive shown you that.
It doesnt show its right either. So your claim that you have shown subjective morality is true is also wrong.
They can make objective claims but supporting that is a different story. The point I am making is that you want me to provide evdience for my objective claim but you don't seem to apply the same criteria to yourself when you mak ethose objective claims that there is no objective morality.
But we are not talking about any facts but whether there is objective or subjective morality. You claimed there was no objective morality. Thats an objective claim meaning you are right and hold the truth on this matter and everyone else is wrong. Yet you provide no support.
So what about other ways of supporting facts and truth like with Math or with logical arguements like I have shown. They are still facts and truths.
For example do you think your partner loves you. How do you know this is a fact. You have nothing physical to hold that you can measure yet people think its a fact or truth that they love their partner and their partner loves them.
So for example when you reply to my posts with an arguement for subjective morality and I decide to reply you will assume that epistemic duties must be present in our debate. You will asume that I ought not misrepresent your arguement and not use logical fallacies. That I should be honest and not lie. You will prescribe these epistemic duties and believe they should be kept and abided by.
But thats the point. Why should I abide by these, whey should anyone if morality is subjetcive. So people assume that epistemic truths are binding in a debate. So you are prescribing that honesty should be objectively binding in out discussion. However, this epistemic virtue is tied to our moral virtue of honesty so you cannot moral realism (objectivisty).
You cannot reject moral realism if you wish to debate your position and assume it is wrong for me to misrepresent your argument. Since we agree there are epistemic duties and values used in discussions we therefore agree moral duties and facts are objective.
I think all moral wrongs come down to a harm done to humans in one way or another because morality happens between people.
So who is right. Surely on such an important issue we must know. We cannot possibly be ending someones life based on someones subjetcive opinion. We have objective measures now for things like this. Doctors are able to state the facts, that the person is suffering, cannot ever be made better ect.
If someone still wants to die then that is their subjetcive view I guess and has nothing to do with whether it is objectively right or wrong. In fact people would say that someone who wants to dies for no objective reason is not really in their right mind and should be stopped.
I have already gone through this. Obviously we will never have the type of evdience that science uses (physical). But as I said we can reason truths. IE we see an old lady being robbed we can say that the act of stealing her money is wrong and anyone who says its OK is just mistaken. We know this is true because the alternative which is to say that stealing old ladies handbags is morlaly OK is irrational and causes a lot of harm for human " LIfe".
The evidence is there. The old lady will be traumatised as it personally affects humans. Stealing destroys societies, hurts people, creates disorder. Science show us the effects it has on humans. We don't allow subjecti8ve opinions when it comes to these core moral truths.
They are just wrong, no subjective views are allowed to change this and anyone who disagrees is just plain wrong. Its reflected in laws, Human Rights, Decalrations, Treaties, ethical codes ect. People protest the behaviour, condemn it, make it a moral truth and tell everyone that stealing is objective wrong.
Before you say but people acting that way doesnt make it objective. Remember they are not just acting that way. They are making everyone act that way. There is no choice or room for subjetcive views. That is differnt to acting that way. They are actually saying its the only way to act when it comes to morality.
Depends how you express it.
You can say: a world where we kill our neighbor in their sleep would be miserable to live in and so, because we hate misery, we should call that behavior "wrong".
Seems objectively true and demonstrable. And its also a moral statement, just not expressed the typical shorthand way.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I didnt ignore this if you remember I refuted it by
1) People from different cultures and social setting agree with the same core morals throughout the world.
2) They also say that those who disagree are objectively wrong.
3) Evidence shows that young children well before being able to be encultured know these core moral truths as well.
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 responding differently to a violation doesnt mean there is no violation. It doesnt mean there is no measures we can find to determine that its a violation and does harm to humans.
The facts is no matter how you look at it rape causes some harms which are not good for humans. Put it thisd way, if someone said they subjectively felt that being rape is ok would not get a rapist off. All these objections are logical fallacies.
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.
I'm aware a doctor will want to know if you're experiencing any pain -- this is part of my argument. They probably don't want to be manipulated for a prescription, and they aren't concerned with opinion on what pain is. But they are not going to ignore the pain as non-real or irrelevant because it is "in the mind."
Subjective doesn't mean non-real. Likewise, there exists a set of experiences each person may go through involuntarily that each has no choice but to consider wrongs when experienced. That they are involuntary experiences and not subject to opinion is relevant. That the mind has anything to do with this is useful only to confound the matter, especially given Kant's motives in response to Hume's moral sense theory and attack against rationalism.
We know enough to know that pain can and should be treated as real. That we're still stuck in Kantian thought when it comes to morality is a matter of convenience, for some.
This seems to contradict your earlier statement, "A doctor doesn't bother herself with the subjectivity of a pain response in a patient..."
If she did, you could be in the worst pain of your life, your doctor could know that and still tell you "we've determined that the experience of your pain exists only in the mind, you're fine." This is not what doctors do. I'm saying doctors don't concern themselves with the subjectivity of pain experiences like philosophers evidently concern themselves with the subjectivity of the experience of being wronged, since Kant.
But a person's experience of the pain is subjective. What is agony to one person may be tolerable to another. And a doctor is going to look after the person who is experiencing the worst pain first in many cases, yes?
Sure. The articles mention that a patients subjective experi4ence of pain is unreliable so its important to have some way to objectively deetrmine pain so that better and more 9individualized treatments can be given.Show us this objective pain meassurement.
But taste for food is different to morality for a number of reasons. People will experience the taste of something (sprouts) subjectively. So people won't intuit the taste of Brussel Sprouts the same.
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.
But taste for food is different to morality for a number of reasons.
So people won't intuit the taste of Brussel Sprouts the same.
Intuition is based on our experience of something and for morality that means how it works with other people as well. As there are moral truths we will see the same type of moral behaviour in others as well. You can't do that with food as its subjective and there will be different behaviours that would make our intuition ambigious.
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?