Is there Objective Morality?

[Moral Orel]

I am not saying facts and logic sway people anymore remember I clarified that is not what I meant.

You can create as much feeling as possible but if the facts are non verified then that feeling cannot sustain when the facts are proven false.

Which is more likely to change someone's mind: salesmanship or a sound logical argument?

It depends on what you are talking about.

Then I haven't misrepresented you and my point stands. It does not depend on what you're talking about when you're persuading people.

 

[Moral Orel]

I ought to be happy.

No we don't.

we out to be happy

Your typo had some bad timing, but now my point stands. And yes, I know you have reasons that you think justifies, "We ought to be happy".

 

[Moral Orel]

No we don't. I don't base it on a subjective idea. As I have stated life having intrinisic value is something that is true regardless of human opinion. Its an inalienable truth and a natural born truth. Happiness can be subjective. What makes you happy may be different to someone else. You can certain believe it for yourself but thats where it stops. It cannot be a basis for morality.

Now that you've admitted you believe "One ought to be happy" is an objective fact, this is all wrong.

Then that isnt a basis for morality as then under your logic everyone can assume different things to be true.

Everyone can assume different things to be true. That's just a fact. The whole point of the word "assumption" is that things aren't necessary.

That makes the basis for right and wrong arbitray. Doesnt work for morality which needs to be normative.

Arbitrary and normative aren't mutually exclusive.

Except your reasons/assumptions are arbitrary and cannot be relied upon for a moral system.

Sure they can. I just showed how.

NO we can't as they are subjective also. Empathy and feelings are subjective so we cannot built any moral system which needs to be based on objectives outside peoples feelings and opinions. Otherwise it doesnt work.

Happiness is a feeling, and you believe "One ought to be happy" is objective, so this is all false.

No Its not sound. You have misprepresented my arguemnet.

I have not misrepresented your argument. You believe "One ought to be happy" is objectively true.

Except your arguemnet is invalid.

No, the argument is valid, it is not sound. You're using the word "invalid" wrong.

Yes but we can make assumptions based on some facts which allow us to act.

We can make assumptions based on nothing if we want. We can make assumptions based on lies if we want. We can assume whatever we want. That's the point of assumptions.

And you have made an error in reasoning. You cannot make subjective ideas the basis for morality.

I just did.

Try me, I am open to undersdtanding.

No, you're not.

 

[stevevw]

Then I haven't misrepresented you and my point stands. It does not depend on what you're talking about when you're persuading people.

So if you are trying to convince someone the moon isnt really there while the moon is right above you how does feelings overcome that fact. It can't. You can appeal to feelings all you want but the person you are trying to convince knows that the moon is really there as a fact and your appeals to feelings is just well just feelings. .

 

[Moral Orel]

So if you are trying to convince someone the moon isnt really there while the moon is right above you how does feelings overcome that fact. It can't. You can appeal to feelings all you want but the person you are trying to convince knows that the moon is really there as a fact and your appeals to feelings is just well just feelings. .

Just to be clear, I was never misrepresenting you. And you disagree with the science and experts that I even bothered to cite with a source.

 

[stevevw]

Just to be clear, I was never misrepresenting you. And you disagree with the science and experts that I even bothered to cite with a source.

I don't disagree with the scientists. They did find different behaviours in the studies. What I was pointing out was that you assumed what the "Different behaviour" represented. You assumed it meant that not all babies have an innate knowledge of morals when the difference may have represented other anomalies. I made the point because the same scientists claimed that

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.
The Moral Life of Babies

That they were saying all humans not 75%, not because 25% acted different in the test. The different behaviour found in the experiments did not negate their findings that "it is something we are all born with.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't disagree with the scientists. They did find different behaviours in the studies. What I was pointing out was that you assumed what the "Different behaviour" represented. You assumed it meant that not all babies have an innate knowledge of morals when the difference may have represented other anomalies. I made the point because the same scientists claimed that

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.
The Moral Life of Babies

That they were saying all humans not 75%, not because 25% acted different in the test. The different behaviour found in the experiments did not negate their findings that "it is something we are all born with.

Wrong study. I presented a source citing the psychological science that humans are more likely to be convinced by emotion than by reasoning and logic. You disagree with those experts.

 

[stevevw]

Now that you've admitted you believe "One ought to be happy" is an objective fact, this is all wrong.

I am not saying we ought to be happy. I am saying happiness is subjective and cannot be the basis for moral truths.

I am saying because life is intrinsically valuable human happiness is one of the qualities that help make life valuable. If we do not have happiness then we devalue life and eventually will not exist.

Everyone can assume different things to be true. That's just a fact. The whole point of the word "assumption" is that things aren't necessary.

Yes to begin with. Assumptions are not completely unjustified. We make assumptions based on observations of what we think to be real but then it becomes necessary to test that assumption to see if it stands up.

Arbitrary and normative aren't mutually exclusive.

No but thats why its important to have some anchor so that you can measure things and sort it all out. As we know when it comes to morality its complicated. Theres a lot of emotion, opinion, frustration, anger, going on which can cloud things.

Sure they can. I just showed how.

But like I said we can only assume so far and then we need to test it especially for morality. You assume happiness can be the basis for morality. You begin to live like that. But then you start to come up against moral situations where that bssumption doesnt work. You begin to question things and find happiness is too subjective/arbitrary to use as the basis for morality.

Happiness is a feeling, and you believe "One ought to be happy" is objective, so this is all false.
I have not misrepresented your argument. You believe "One ought to be happy" is objectively true.
No, the argument is valid, it is not sound. You're using the word "invalid" wrong.

Like I said I don't use happiness as the basis for morality so you are misrepresenting my arguement. Happiness is something humans need as part of valuing life. It stems from life being valuable.

But because its about the qualities that sustain life it is a qualified happiness, not just any happiness but happines from valuing life. So human "Life"is sort of the basis for happiness.

We can make assumptions based on nothing if we want. We can make assumptions based on lies if we want. We can assume whatever we want. That's the point of assumptions.

Yes I know and thats why I said we need to test them. Like if we assume there are moral truths because of our intuition then we need to test them through reason. Do they stand up and support life as being intrinsically valuable.

I just did.

Like I said an assumption can only be the basis intially and then you need to test this for morality.

 

[stevevw]

Wrong study. I presented a source citing the psychological science that humans are more likely to be convinced by emotion than by reasoning and logic. You disagree with those experts.

Sorry, I just went back and checked. OK so I don't disagree with the experts that emotions can play a role in convincing people more than facts and reason sometime.

I said that we also need facts and reason with that emotion. Emotions without facts and reason is not the best way to determine an important issue like right and wrong morally. This relates to the original point that we need to have an objective basis to measure morality. To sort out fact from fiction so to speak.

This quote from your article sums it up
Even if you have all the facts, you may not convince others to agree with your argument.

So the experts are acknowledging that we need facts and reason as well as emotion sometimes but not all the time. But I agree that we can argue to where blue in the face sometimes about obvious facts but some people just don't buy into that.

Appealing to their senses works. Look at the government ads for stop smoking for example or AIDS. They used scarey pics which evoked fear of consequences.

But let me clarify something. Are you saying that what is right and wrong morally can be determined by feelings alone.

 

[Moral Orel]

I am not saying we ought to be happy.

we out to be happy

It's a waste of time to lie on an internet forum. I'll just use the quote feature.

Like I said I don't use happiness as the basis for morality so you are misrepresenting my arguement.

I never said it was the basis. It doesn't have to be. I actually explicitly stated repeatedly that I know you think you have reasoning to support it. All that matters is that you stated "We ought to be happy" as an objective fact.

But let me clarify something. Are you saying that what is right and wrong morally can be determined by feelings alone.

No. I've been saying right and wrong can't be factually determined at all. What you can do is convince someone that things are factually right or wrong using emotion.

 

[stevevw]

No. I've been saying right and wrong can't be factually determined at all. What you can do is convince someone that things are factually right or wrong using emotion.

But if you convince someone that morality is right and wrong by feelings arent you being deceptive when you just said right and wrong cannot be determined factually. Your more or less saying this cannot be proven but I will convince you its true anyway.

 

[Moral Orel]

But if you convince someone that morality is right and wrong by feelings arent you being deceptive when you just said right and wrong cannot be determined factually. Your more or less saying this cannot be proven but I will convince you its true anyway.

I personally wouldn't try to convince someone of that specific thing. So I dunno what you're asking.

Let's say X is not true.

If I know X is not true, and I convince you X is true, I'm being deceptive.

If I believe X is true, and I convince you X is true, I'm not being deceptive. But I probably used fallacious reasoning to convince myself that it is true, and I'm going to use that same fallacious reasoning to convince you.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes to begin with. Assumptions are not completely unjustified.

Some are.

We make assumptions based on observations of what we think to be real but then it becomes necessary to test that assumption to see if it stands up.

Sometimes. And sometimes we assume things that we know we can never know to be true.

But like I said we can only assume so far and then we need to test it especially for morality.

Why?

You assume happiness can be the basis for morality. You begin to live like that. But then you start to come up against moral situations where that bssumption doesnt work. You begin to question things and find happiness is too subjective/arbitrary to use as the basis for morality.

No, go on. Tell me more about what you know about my life experience that I don't know. <--Sarcasm

Like I said I don't use happiness as the basis for morality so you are misrepresenting my arguement.

I never said you used it as the basis.

Yes I know and thats why I said we need to test them.

Why?

Like if we assume there are moral truths because of our intuition then we need to test them through reason.

And you have yet to give a reasoned argument that we ought to value life. I know you're trying. But I would expect that you already knew what it was if you needed to do it.

Do they stand up and support life as being intrinsically valuable.

And that's your assumption. We have to assume that without a reason why it is intrinsically valuable for morality to be objective.

Like I said an assumption can only be the basis intially and then you need to test this for morality.

I have tested, I know that "I ought to be happy" is not an objectively true statement, and I don't care. What now? I also know that "I ought not be happy" is not an objectively true statement, so I have no reason to care.

We can and do value subjective things. We can and will act to promote the things we value even when they're subjective. If you suddenly realized that morality really is subjective, you aren't going to go out and murder someone just because we can't say that it is really and factually wrong because doing so would make you unhappy that you made others unhappy. Just like most humans.

 

[stevevw]

I personally wouldn't try to convince someone of that specific thing. So I dunno what you're asking.

So if someone says abusing kids is OK you would not try to convince them that they are objectively wrong. That abusing kids is never right regardles of subjetcive feelinsg or views.

Let's say X is not true.

If I know X is not true, and I convince you X is true, I'm being deceptive.

If I believe X is true, and I convince you X is true, I'm not being deceptive. But I probably used fallacious reasoning to convince myself that it is true, and I'm going to use that same fallacious reasoning to convince you.

Exactly and thats why I am saying feelings or and subjective thinking cannot determine what is true.

But morality is something that needs a true or false answer. So how can you really convince anyone that your feelings about morality are ultimately true.

You can't so you run the risk of relaying some falsehood. You are in a difficult situation of having to show that moral values are true while trying to maintain there is no moral truths.

 

[stevevw]

Some are.
Sometimes. And sometimes we assume things that we know we can never know to be true.

yes thats morality or our intuition of morality anyway. We have a sense that it is true or should be true but because its non-physical there is no way to test this apart from living it out.

Its because we assume our physical world "Is what it is" and not some simulation where anything could happen that allows us to venture outside and live. It is our intuition of morality that allows us to venture outside and live otherwise we would be too scared of even stepping outside our door.

Why?

Because assumptions can only go so far in certain situation. Like I said if you assume subjective morality then there will come situations that contradict this which should be a sign that your assumption may be wrong. Its like in science. We can assume that reality is material but then we can find that this assumption doesnt work for some situations and therefoie we have to consider if the assumption is wrong. Dark matter and consciousness comes to mind for science.

No, go on. Tell me more about what you know about my life experience that I don't know. <--Sarcasm

lol, but its not just your experience. I am talking generally that we know for example money and material things don't bring true happiness. Thats a well recognised fact.

So if you assume happiness as a general rule that can be misleading. You would then have to promote material wealth as a source of happiness because it does make people superfically happy. But we also know the persuit of material things causes many problems and unhappiness.

And you have yet to give a reasoned argument that we ought to value life. I know you're trying. But I would expect that you already knew what it was if you needed to do it.

I have given my arguemnet. I just find it hard grammatically to put it into0 a formal arguement.

IE life is intuitively valuable and this is recognised by humans making certain qualities of life inalienable and not subject to peoples subjective views. These qualities of life need to be lived out for humans to be humans and exist. If we do not uphold life as intrinsically valuable then we won't exits.

And that's your assumption. We have to assume that without a reason why it is intrinsically valuable for morality to be objective.

Not just assume, there is a good reason which I eexplained above and in other posts. Its like any moral, like murder. We must assume murder is objective wrong as any alternative is absurd. We must assume life is intrinsically valuable because of our natural ability to rationalize morality and that reasoning shows that any alternative is absurd. Thats what most of the worlds governing bodies have found.

I have tested, I know that "I ought to be happy" is not an objectively true statement, and I don't care. What now? I also know that "I ought not be happy" is not an objectively true statement, so I have no reason to care.

So saying you don't care and don't want to make sure your assumption is right only opens the door for allowing situations that are not morlaly good because its based on subjetcivity.

For example if you believe "I ought to be happy" then you have no criteria for what makes up happy. So if making money at the expense of others makes you happy then you are actually harming others to achieve that happiness. Whereas by checking that assumption we can say OK thats not working out so well. My assumption allows for bad behaviour so I must rethink things.

We can and do value subjective things. We can and will act to promote the things we value even when they're subjective.

Its not just promoting subjective morals but enforcing thyem onto others like they arte objective. That is a contradiction and illogiocal. Like I said morality is something that we need to have a right and wrong answer to and not leave up to subjective views.

If you suddenly realized that morality really is subjective, you aren't going to go out and murder someone just because we can't say that it is really and factually wrong because doing so would make you unhappy that you made others unhappy. Just like most humans.

But thats the point that the fact that people make murder objectively wrong and say that subjective views to the contrary are mistaken shows that even though we claim morality is subjective we act like it is objective.

This shows that what peoiple claim as subjetcive is actually objective and has to be. So people act like murder is wrong even under subjectivity. We have no choice. You cannot say I personally think murder is wrong or I feel murder is wrong as thats not definite enouh. We need clear objectives for morality.

 

[Moral Orel]

So if someone says abusing kids is OK you would not try to convince them that they are objectively wrong. That abusing kids is never right regardles of subjetcive feelinsg or views.

I'd convince them to stop and not do it again.

Exactly and thats why I am saying feelings or and subjective thinking cannot determine what is true.

But morality is something that needs a true or false answer. So how can you really convince anyone that your feelings about morality are ultimately true.

You can't so you run the risk of relaying some falsehood. You are in a difficult situation of having to show that moral values are true while trying to maintain there is no moral truths.

No, I don't have to convince anyone that moral values are true.

 

[Moral Orel]

yes thats morality or our intuition of morality anyway. We have a sense that it is true or should be true but because its non-physical there is no way to test this apart from living it out.

Its because we assume our physical world "Is what it is" and not some simulation where anything could happen that allows us to venture outside and live. It is our intuition of morality that allows us to venture outside and live otherwise we would be too scared of even stepping outside our door.

You can assume things are objectively true based on faulty human intuition, or I can assume they're true knowing that they are not. Doesn't matter.

Because assumptions can only go so far in certain situation. Like I said if you assume subjective morality then there will come situations that contradict this which should be a sign that your assumption may be wrong. Its like in science. We can assume that reality is material but then we can find that this assumption doesnt work for some situations and therefoie we have to consider if the assumption is wrong. Dark matter and consciousness comes to mind for science.

I've proven that objective morality can't be justified using reason. To prove morality is objective words like "valuable" and "ought" would require entirely new meanings.

lol, but its not just your experience. I am talking generally that we know for example money and material things don't bring true happiness. Thats a well recognised fact.

If it doesn't bring happiness, then I won't reason that it will make me happy, so I won't do it.

So if you assume happiness as a general rule that can be misleading. You would then have to promote material wealth as a source of happiness because it does make people superfically happy. But we also know the persuit of material things causes many problems and unhappiness.

If it makes me unhappy, then I won't reason that it makes me happy, and I won't do it.

I have given my arguemnet. I just find it hard grammatically to put it into0 a formal arguement.

IE life is intuitively valuable and this is recognised by humans making certain qualities of life inalienable and not subject to peoples subjective views. These qualities of life need to be lived out for humans to be humans and exist. If we do not uphold life as intrinsically valuable then we won't exits.

Your argument works the same if we argue for "valuing things subjectively" as I showed in another post. We need to value life to exist. Life doesn't need to be valuable to exist. We can value things that are not in fact valuable.

Not just assume, there is a good reason which I eexplained above and in other posts. Its like any moral, like murder. We must assume murder is objective wrong as any alternative is absurd. We must assume life is intrinsically valuable because of our natural ability to rationalize morality and that reasoning shows that any alternative is absurd. Thats what most of the worlds governing bodies have found.

I know you assume those things because believing the alternative feels absurd to you.

So saying you don't care and don't want to make sure your assumption is right only opens the door for allowing situations that are not morlaly good because its based on subjetcivity.

I know that my assumption is not true. The opposite isn't true either, so I have no reason to care.
There are no situations that are morally right or wrong.

For example if you believe "I ought to be happy" then you have no criteria for what makes up happy.

I know what happiness feels like.

So if making money at the expense of others makes you happy then you are actually harming others to achieve that happiness. Whereas by checking that assumption we can say OK thats not working out so well. My assumption allows for bad behaviour so I must rethink things.

P1 Harming others causes them to feel bad
P2 Other people feeling bad causes me to be unhappy
P3 I ought to be happy
C I ought not harm others

Valid argument, just unsound. P3 isn't true, but the opposite "I ought not be happy" isn't true either, so I don't have a reason to care. I will act in the way that causes me to be happy, so will you.

Its not just promoting subjective morals but enforcing thyem onto others like they arte objective.

P1 Person X harming Person Y causes Person Y to feel bad
P2 Person Y feeling bad causes me to be unhappy
P3 I ought to be happy
C I ought to stop Person X from harming Person Y

Valid argument, just unsound. P3 isn't true, but the opposite "I ought not be happy" isn't true either, so I have no reason to care. I will act in the way that causes me to be happy, so will you.

Like I said morality is something that we need to have a right and wrong answer to and not leave up to subjective views.

No we don't need to, and I demonstrated it.

But thats the point that the fact that people make murder objectively wrong and say that subjective views to the contrary are mistaken shows that even though we claim morality is subjective we act like it is objective.

Some people act like it's objective, that doesn't make it objective. A long time ago people made maps as though the Earth was flat. They were wrong.

This shows that what peoiple claim as subjetcive is actually objective and has to be. So people act like murder is wrong even under subjectivity. We have no choice. You cannot say I personally think murder is wrong or I feel murder is wrong as thats not definite enouh. We need clear objectives for morality.

We act like we hate murder, that doesn't make murder objectively wrong.

 

[stevevw]

I'd convince them to stop and not do it again.

So as part of that convincing would you tell them that they are objectively wrong.

No, I don't have to convince anyone that moral values are true.

So if a person said its OK to torture kids you would not say that what they are doing is truely wrong for your and them and everyone.

 

[Moral Orel]

So as part of that convincing would you tell them that they are objectively wrong.

Nope. I'd probably commit an Appeal to Emotion fallacy because that would be the most persuasive method.

So if a person said its OK to torture kids you would not say that what they are doing is truely wrong for your and them and everyone.

I'd say that I hate anyone who does, and most people hate anyone who does.

 

[stevevw]

Nope. I'd probably commit an Appeal to Emotion fallacy because that would be the most persuasive method.

So your admitting that you have no basis that abusing a child is morally wrong. You are saying you cannot confirm to the other person that it is always wrong to abuse a child. Your only way of convincing them is by your feelings that its wrong.

So let me ask you if someone felt that stealing was morally Ok and convinced others then would that be classed as moraly right.

I'd say that I hate anyone who does, and most people hate anyone who does.

But how does the feeling of hate equate to something actually being morally wrong. It doesn't logically follow. If we cannot claim that a immoral act is objectively wrong then its not morally wrong at all. That means that people can make what we would consider immoral morally OK. This doesn't make sense as a moral system.