Is there Objective Morality?

[Kylie]

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.

If we cannot claim that a movie is objectively bad then its not bad at all.

And yet there are movies that we consider bad.

Do you see the flaw in your logic?

 

[Moral Orel]

But how does the feeling of hate equate to something actually being morally wrong.

It doesn't! Why aren't you listening to me?

 

[stevevw]

If we cannot claim that a movie is objectively bad then its not bad at all.

And yet there are movies that we consider bad.

Do you see the flaw in your logic?

Yeah you have made a contradictory statement. If a movie is objectively bad then its bad. I am not sure what you are saying here. You seem to be wanting to make out a movie can be objective and subjective at the same time. Perhaps that true. We can determine certain aspects of a film that is better than another such as acting, cinimatography, direction ect. We know this from the movie awards ie Best actoress and cinimatography awards.

But still your trying to use subjective thinking for morality. Remember tastes for films, food ect is not how we determine morality. When it comes to morality there needs to be a right and wrong answer. But with subjetcive preferences there is never a right and wrong answer.

 

[stevevw]

It doesn't! Why aren't you listening to me?

OK sorry, I did understand that this is what you said. I was just testing that as I find it hard to understand. If feelings like anger and fear ect don;t determine right and wrong morally then how can we ever be confident about ensuring we have a clear set of morals independent of peoples feelings.

What your saying is we can never really know what is right and wrong morally. We have no basis for any moral system.

 

[stevevw]

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.

That’s why we put those assumptions to the test to see if our intuition stands up. So your creating a straw man as moral truths are not just based on intuition. Intuition is just the starting point.

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.

Why what do they mean now.

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

But under subjective morality other people will view money as bringing happiness and that can harm others. So the system brakes down as there is no objective basis to measure what happiness is. It undermines itself.

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

Once again other people will think it makes them happy thus it cannot be the basis for morality as morality needs to have a clear basis to be able to define what is right and wrong. Otherwise there is no right and wrong but just subjective views.

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.

As I stated and is also recognised by most of the world that intrinsic value makes life naturally valuable a birth right. With that come certain defined inalienable rights/qualities that support life being naturally valuable. So it’s not any subjective qualities such as (any subjective view of happiness). But a qualified happiness that supports life being intrinsically valuable. That is the reasoned distinction from subjective valuing.

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

It’s not just absurd to me but to most people. That’s why Life itself is a right, with certain qualities because otherwise not valuing life this way leads to absurdities where people subjective value life allows for even immoral ideas to be determined as valuing human life.

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.

[/quote] Yes we know this is how subjective morality works. Its only about the individual in this case “You” are expressing your views. But under that same system someone else will have a different view that’s just as valid to hold. So therefore not caring allows others to undermine the overall system which will eventually affect you. Morality doesn’t happen in isolation.

I know what happiness feels like.

Yes I do not doubt that. I am saying others will have a different feeling or not even use feelings but rather preferences. So it’s when all these different subjective ideas come together under one system that the cracks begin. Morality is something that needs a right or wrong and having all these subjective ideas undermines that and opens the door for whoever or whatever to happen.

 

[Moral Orel]

That’s why we put those assumptions to the test to see if our intuition stands up. So your creating a straw man as moral truths are not just based on intuition. Intuition is just the starting point.

You've tried to cook up some post hoc rationalizations to justify your intuition. You have not tried to critically examine whether your intuition is accurate or not.

But under subjective morality other people will view money as bringing happiness and that can harm others. So the system brakes down as there is no objective basis to measure what happiness is. It undermines itself.

Then they reasoned poorly.

Once again other people will think it makes them happy thus it cannot be the basis for morality as morality needs to have a clear basis to be able to define what is right and wrong. Otherwise there is no right and wrong but just subjective views.

Then they reasoned poorly.

If we don't understand how people are made to be generally happier than other ways, then all of psychology is a farce. What causes happiness in humans is fact.

As I stated and is also recognised by most of the world that intrinsic value makes life naturally valuable a birth right.

Enough with the argument from popularity fallacy.

It’s not just absurd to me but to most people.

I said, enough with the argument from popularity fallacy.

Yes we know this is how subjective morality works. Its only about the individual in this case “You” are expressing your views. But under that same system someone else will have a different view that’s just as valid to hold. So therefore not caring allows others to undermine the overall system which will eventually affect you. Morality doesn’t happen in isolation.

I care what other people's views are because it will affect my happiness. Morality doesn't happen in isolation, that's why its handy that most people prefer to be happy, most people prefer things to be fair, and most people feel empathy. Most people believing something doesn't make it objectively true like you keep claiming, but it does make the whole system work.

Yes I do not doubt that. I am saying others will have a different feeling or not even use feelings but rather preferences.

I'm using preferences. I prefer to be happy. Everyone uses preferences because that's all there is. The vast majority of people share the same basic preferences, and that makes the whole thing work.

So it’s when all these different subjective ideas come together under one system that the cracks begin.

There are cracks already. People disagree all the time about all sorts of stuff.

Morality is something that needs a right or wrong and having all these subjective ideas undermines that and opens the door for whoever or whatever to happen.

No, it doesn't. As long as most people share my premise, whether they believe it's true or not true, correctness is irrelevant.

You seem to think that if everyone realized morality was just subjective preferences then people are going to go out raping and murdering and stealing. That's ridiculous. The vast majority of people simply desire to be nice. And the vast majority of people prefer that everyone be nice, so they get together and enforce it with laws. It doesn't make them right, but it makes the whole thing work.

 

[Kylie]

Yeah you have made a contradictory statement. If a movie is objectively bad then its bad. I am not sure what you are saying here. You seem to be wanting to make out a movie can be objective and subjective at the same time. Perhaps that true. We can determine certain aspects of a film that is better than another such as acting, cinimatography, direction ect. We know this from the movie awards ie Best actoress and cinimatography awards.

But still your trying to use subjective thinking for morality. Remember tastes for films, food ect is not how we determine morality. When it comes to morality there needs to be a right and wrong answer. But with subjetcive preferences there is never a right and wrong answer.

Did you even read my post?

I never said any movie was objectively bad. Whether a movie is good or bad is a purely SUBJECTIVE viewpoint.

Please read my post again and don't use strawman arguments against me.

 

[stevevw]

Did you even read my post?

I never said any movie was objectively bad. Whether a movie is good or bad is a purely SUBJECTIVE viewpoint.

Please read my post again and don't use strawman arguments against me.

Obviously I read your post as its only 3 sentences long. Ive just misnderstood it. As to your post it seems you are equating "Bad" two different ways. You are assuming the "Bad" under a subjective systemn is the same as an objetcive one which is not the case. So its actually your logic that is faulty.

 

[stevevw]

You've tried to cook up some post hoc rationalizations to justify your intuition. You have not tried to critically examine whether your intuition is accurate or not.

Then you have misunderstood intuition. Intuition is our initial sense and starting point about whether something is right or wrong and is self-evident. Its the end result of processed moral experience already analysed.

We may be wrong about our intuition but that would only be after we reasoned it so. So intuition will usually come close to identifying moral truths even after accounting for personal biases. But even so we are stil reasoning things out and taking all that into account.

Intuition or gut feelings are also the result of a lot of processing that happens in the brain.
Intuitions occur when your brain has made a significant match or mismatch (between the cognitive model and current experience), but this has not yet reached your conscious awareness.
Many take the division between analytic and intuitive thinking to mean that the two types of processing (or “thinking styles”) are opposites, working in a see-saw manner. However, a recent meta-analysis has shown that analytic and intuitive thinking are typically not correlated and could happen at the same time.
Is it rational to trust your gut feelings? A neuroscientist explains

In fact philosophers are more likely to believe a theory based on intuition than one thats not. So this shows how important intuition is in ethics.

According to Haidt’s (2001) social intuitionist model, moral judgements are caused by rapid moral intuitions, which are accompanied by post-hoc moral reasoning. Sonenshein (2007) also argues that people facing an ethical issue make intuitive judgements instantaneously and that these judgements are followed by explanations and justifications. Therefore, as Mikhail (2007) states, it is necessary to build on the models and arguments that accord intuition an important role in EDM processes.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328613870_Is_intuition_associated_with_ethical_decision-making

most philosophers use intuitions as evidence for their philosophical theories: they are more confident in their theories when they take themselves to have intuitions that propositions supporting those theories are true.
Intuitions are Used as Evidence in Philosophy

If we see a child getting tortured, we don’t think that is how other people see the world and we should move on. No, we all think that must be stopped and justice must be done. That’s because the idea of moral facts and duties are real and objective, is self-evident and is our intuitive starting point.
The burden is on the sceptic to show that our intuitions are wrong not the moral realist. So even if we didn’t have any other arguments for moral realism this point on moral intuition would remain.

 

[stevevw]

Then they reasoned poorly.

reasoning implies there is some objective find. If morality is subjective and there’s no objective right and wrong then viewing money as a source of happiness is not morally wrong. It’s just one of many views. That you say they reasoned poorly is saying they are wrong objectively.

Then they reasoned poorly.

lol, OK it’s not just because everyone agrees. It’s because they agree for good reasons. It’s been reasoned as being intrinsically valuable regardless of peoples/nations subjective views. That’s what intrinsic means

If we don't understand how people are made to be generally happier than other ways, then all of psychology is a farce. What causes happiness in humans is fact.

Yes I agree and that means that there is an objective to make that claim i.e. we can reason that there are some ways to behave morally than other ways to behave. For that to happen we need some objective base to measure what behaviour is better than other behaviour or (happier than other ways)?

But saying if people don't understand this means they are morally wrong under subjective moral system is irrelevant as its impossible because it may be their subjective view about what is important for happiness and it cannot be wrong.

Enough with the argument from popularity fallacy.

It’s not just a survey poll or purely based on popularity. These moral truths that Life is valuable has been reasoned and justified for good reasons. You can’t just make something a binding Right or Law based on a feeling or preference or popularity. It has to be justified.

I care what other people's views are because it will affect my happiness. Morality doesn't happen in isolation, that's why its handy that most people prefer to be happy, most people prefer things to be fair, and most people feel empathy. Most people believing something doesn't make it objectively true like you keep claiming, but it does make the whole system work.

But you keep skipping over the point that under the same system you are expressing how you see morality allows others to hold and express different views which are just as valid as yours. So even though you care they may not and you have to respect their views as much as your own because no one is wrong.

The fact that a bunch or people may prefer the same values is just luck and a big coincident under subjective morality. There is no reasoning to their common values as there is no objective basis and things like happiness can means 100 different things to different people.

Otherwise if people claim there is some bais like happiness or empathy then they us using some oibjective basis anyway like happiness, wellbeing or empathy. So they end up acting like objectivists anyway. As with other feelings like happiness empath is actuall a bad basis for morality as its unreliable and unpredictable.

Paul Bloom argues that empathy is actually a very poor moral guide. He compiles evidence from a range of sources to show that empathy can be innumerate, biased, parochial and inconsistent and can push us towards inaction at best and racism and violence at worst.
Empathy is crucial to being a good person, right? Think again

I'm using preferences. I prefer to be happy. Everyone uses preferences because that's all there is. The vast majority of people share the same basic preferences, and that makes the whole thing work.

So now you’re appealing to popularity as well lol. Nevertheless you keep missing the point. Whether its preferences, opinions, or feelings it’s still subjective and not a good way to determine morality which is more vital than preferences. A preference doesn’t match the level of how morality matters. For example

Argument from taste: (preference) Even if we call ourselves moral anti-realists (anti objectivists), our attitude to moral preferences is significantly different from our attitude to ordinary preferences. If I don’t like noodles, it doesn’t make much sense for me to say “I’m glad I wasn’t born in China, because then I would probably like noodles”. But it makes perfect sense to say “I’m glad I wasn’t born in the Middle Ages, because then I would think the sun revolved around the earth.” And it makes perfect sense to say “I’m glad I wasn’t born in antebellum America, because then I would probably support slavery”. So it looks like we treat our attitude towards slavery more like a matter of empirical fact than a matter of mere preference.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhiloso..._there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/

No, it doesn't. As long as most people share my premise, whether they believe it's true or not true, correctness is irrelevant.

But would that be a false premise because its subjective itself. I cannot see how you can get around the fact that when it comes to something like murder "its either right or wrong". Thats it. It cannot come down to subjetcive views which elminate right and worng. It doesnt work. Otherwise theres no difference between someone who says murder is wrong and murder is right.

You seem to think that if everyone realized morality was just subjective preferences then people are going to go out raping and murdering and stealing. That's ridiculous. The vast majority of people simply desire to be nice. And the vast majority of people prefer that everyone be nice, so they get together and enforce it with laws. It doesn't make them right, but it makes the whole thing work.

I am not saying that at all. I have said a number of times that I am not saying that people don't know morlaity. It would be expects that if everyone had the inner knowledge of morality from birth as I have claimed that everyone should no morlaity.

What I am saying is that subjective morality has no basis for right and wrong. The fact that people keep saying "BUt the fact we use happiness, empathy or wellbeing as our shared moral norms only supports the idea that we need an objective baisis to measure morality. is just another way to create an objective basis for morality.

So though people claim moral subjectivity they actually live like morality is objective to the poiint where they enforce objectivity onto individuals and society as a whole.

 

[Moral Orel]

Intuition is our initial sense and starting point about whether something is right or wrong and is self-evident. Its the end result of processed moral experience already analysed.

We may be wrong about our intuition but that would only be after we reasoned it so. So intuition will usually come close to identifying moral truths even after accounting for personal biases. But even so we are stil reasoning things out and taking all that into account.

Intuition leads to the hypothesis, that's it. Because it is often wrong, it is not evidence.

Our most common logical fallacies are all the result of human intuition. They fool the person hearing them just as much as they fool the person using them because they seem true without any critical thinking applied.

The burden is on the sceptic to show that our intuitions are wrong not the moral realist. So even if we didn’t have any other arguments for moral realism this point on moral intuition would remain.

Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. People with sound arguments do not need to rely on repeating the same fallacious reasoning over and over again.

 

[Moral Orel]

reasoning implies there is some objective find.

Wrong. Reasoning well only requires evaluating an argument's validity, not it's soundness. If I present the argument:

P1 A or B
P2 Not B

You can use proper reasoning to find the conclusion "A is true" even though the letters are meaningless and arbitrary. If I concluded that "B is true" then I would have formed an invalid argument. "A is true" is not an objective fact about the real world. Given the following argument:

P1 I ought to be happy
P2 Making others miserable causes me to be unhappy

You can use proper reasoning to find the conclusion that "I ought not make others miserable" even though P1 is not a true fact. If I concluded that "I ought to make others miserable" then I would have formed an invalid argument.

If morality is subjective and there’s no objective right and wrong then viewing money as a source of happiness is not morally wrong. It’s just one of many views. That you say they reasoned poorly is saying they are wrong objectively.

This is false and I just demonstrated why.

lol, OK it’s not just because everyone agrees. It’s because they agree for good reasons. It’s been reasoned as being intrinsically valuable regardless of peoples/nations subjective views. That’s what intrinsic means

Proving that something is a true fact of the real world is not the same as using reasoning well. Anyone can use reason well to form valid arguments. To show an objective fact you need soundess as well. Consider:

P1 Either morality is subjective or the moon is made of cheese
P2 The moon is not made of cheese
C Morality is subjective

That is a valid argument. I used reason properly to form it. It doesn't prove a true fact about the real world because P1 is not true, not because I reasoned poorly.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes I agree

Good, you agree. Then all of this:

and that means that there is an objective to make that claim i.e. we can reason that there are some ways to behave morally than other ways to behave. For that to happen we need some objective base to measure what behaviour is better than other behaviour or (happier than other ways)?

But saying if people don't understand this means they are morally wrong under subjective moral system is irrelevant as its impossible because it may be their subjective view about what is important for happiness and it cannot be wrong.

is wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

you have to respect their views as much as your own

False.

The fact that a bunch or people may prefer the same values is just luck and a big coincident under subjective morality.

Also false.

 

[Moral Orel]

It’s not just a survey poll or purely based on popularity.

Every time you cite the fact that "Most people believe..." that's exactly what you're doing and this has been pointed out to you repeatedly. People with sound arguments don't need to rely on repeating the same logical fallacies over and over again.

So now you’re appealing to popularity as well lol.

Wrong. As I explicitly stated:

"Most people believing something doesn't make it objectively true like you keep claiming, but it does make the whole system work."

 

[Moral Orel]

But would that be a false premise because its subjective itself. I cannot see how you can get around the fact that when it comes to something like murder "its either right or wrong". Thats it. It cannot come down to subjetcive views which elminate right and worng. It doesnt work.

It does work, and I've demonstrated how.

Otherwise theres no difference between someone who says murder is wrong and murder is right.

Appeal to Consequences fallacy. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. People with sound arguments don't need to rely on repeating the same fallacious reasoning over and over again.

 

[Moral Orel]

I am not saying that at all.

You are.

I have said a number of times that I am not saying that people don't know morlaity. It would be expects that if everyone had the inner knowledge of morality from birth as I have claimed that everyone should no morlaity.

Since this has nothing to do with what I said, I still have every reason to believe my assertion.

So though people claim moral subjectivity they actually live like morality is objective to the poiint where they enforce objectivity onto individuals and society as a whole.

I enforce my subjective views on people all the time. We've been over this. But every time I prove you wrong, you just pretend it never happened and then repeat things you know are false.

 

[Moral Orel]

Otherwise theres no difference between someone who says murder is wrong and murder is right.

Argument from Consequences fallacy. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. People with sound arguments don't need to rely on the same fallacious reasoning over and over again.

 

[stevevw]

Intuition leads to the hypothesis, that's it. Because it is often wrong, it is not evidence.
Our most common logical fallacies are all the result of human intuition. They fool the person hearing them just as much as they fool the person using them because they seem true without any critical thinking applied.

Then how do you explain the following claims where they state moral philosophers trust intuitions as the basis for evdience regarding morality. Why do they claim moral propositions are self-evident. Why do they state the burden of proof is on the moral skeptic (antirealist).
One of the most distinctive features of Ethical Intuitionism is its epistemology. All of the classic intuitionists maintained that basic moral propositions are self-evident—that is, evident in and of themselves—and so can be known without the need of any argument.
Intuitionism in Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

most philosophers use intuitions as evidence for their philosophical theories: they are more confident in their theories when they take themselves to have intuitions that propositions supporting those theories are true.
Intuitions are Used as Evidence in Philosophy

Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. People with sound arguments do not need to rely on repeating the same fallacious reasoning over and over again.

But I explained the reasoning for why our intuition of morality is self evdient and how we are justified to believe that our moral intuition is a good starting point for morality.

 

[stevevw]

Argument from Consequences fallacy. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. People with sound arguments don't need to rely on the same fallacious reasoning over and over again.

No one has pointed anything out on this unless I missed it. Subjectivists admit that there is no objective basis for morality. That in itself is enough as anything they claim about morality is going to be subjective. Subjective is not about whether something is really wrong, its just a psychological statement from the subject, a feeling or preference.

So if we have no way of declaring murder as objectively wrong then how is this objection wrong. How doesn't it follow that under a subjective system murder can be OK as its just another subjective view thats neither right or wrong.