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.
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.
It doesn't! Why aren't you listening to me?But how does the feeling of hate equate to something actually being morally wrong.
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.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?
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.It doesn't! Why aren't you listening to me?
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 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.
Why what do they mean now.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.
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 doesn't bring happiness, then I won't reason that it will make me happy, so 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.If it makes me unhappy, then I won't reason that it makes me happy, and I won't do it.
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.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.
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 you assume those things because believing the alternative feels absurd to you.
[/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 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.
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.I know what happiness feels like.
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.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.
Then they reasoned poorly.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.
Enough with the argument from popularity fallacy.As I stated and is also recognised by most of the world that intrinsic value makes life naturally valuable a birth right.
I said, enough with the argument from popularity fallacy.It’s not just absurd to me but to most people.
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 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'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.Yes I do not doubt that. I am saying others will have a different feeling or not even use feelings but rather preferences.
There are cracks already. People disagree all the time about all sorts of stuff.So it’s when all these different subjective ideas come together under one system that the cracks begin.
No, it doesn't. As long as most people share my premise, whether they believe it's true or not true, correctness is irrelevant.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 meansThen they reasoned poorly.
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)?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.
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.Enough with the argument from popularity fallacy.
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.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.
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 exampleI'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.
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.No, it doesn't. As long as most people share my premise, whether they believe it's true or not true, correctness is irrelevant.
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.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.
Intuition leads to the hypothesis, that's it. Because it is often wrong, it is not evidence.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.
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.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.
Wrong. Reasoning well only requires evaluating an argument's validity, not it's soundness. If I present the argument:reasoning implies there is some objective find.
This is false and I just demonstrated why.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.
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: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
Good, you agree. Then all of this:Yes I agree
is wrong.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.
False.you have to respect their views as much as your own
Also false.The fact that a bunch or people may prefer the same values is just luck and a big coincident under subjective morality.
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.It’s not just a survey poll or purely based on popularity.
Wrong. As I explicitly stated:So now you’re appealing to popularity as well lol.
It does work, and I've demonstrated how.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.
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.Otherwise theres no difference between someone who says murder is wrong and murder is right.
You are.I am not saying that at all.
Since this has nothing to do with what I said, I still have every reason to believe my assertion.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.
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.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.
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.Otherwise theres no difference between someone who says murder is wrong and murder is right.
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).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.
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.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.
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.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.
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?