Is there Objective Morality?

Moral Orel said:

The things we feel the most strongly about we call morals... And that proves morality is objective? That we feel more strongly about them?!

Click to expand...

The first statement is false. Feelings don't equate to morality. They may feel like they do but they don't. The indivdual may subjectively feel something but that doesnt mean its morally wrong. What you feel is wrong will be different for someone else.

Then you are faced with the problem that each person with opposing feelings about something are both right for each person at the same time. Yet morals needs a right or wrong behaviour that is consistent for all and can be said to hold regardles of feelings.

I explained for example that feelings of empathy for example can create both moral and immoral acts. So is unreliable to determine moral right and wrong.

It doesn't make sense. If you were born back then, you wouldn't feel the way you do right now about slavery, so it would be a non-issue.

Click to expand...

Those who were against slavery did not base this on feeling it was wrong. They reasoned that humans were equal based on certain inalienable rights. There was a basis for why it was wrong. Back then they thought Blacks were not human and therefore thought they were doing nothing wrong. But when the understanding and evdience was presented this could not be disputed.

The feelings changed as a result of the fact that humans were equal and not feeling changed things. Otherwise somone having contradictory feelings to the status quo feelings doesnt stand as a way that morality changes because non-conformist would have been seen as being out of touch with the consensus feeling.

But note that you are "glad". A feeling, and a statement that you prefer to live in today's times rather than past times. That doesn't help your case for moral objectivity.

Click to expand...

That wasnt the point. This objection to subjective morlaity is showing that it doesnt make sense to use feelings as the basis for morality ie its illogical to us gladness or preferences (feelings) for morality, for saying slavery is wrong as this matter needs an objective basis and not feelings because as they pointed out feelings for noodles or whatefer is subjective an doesnt equate to moral matters.

If morality was objective you could support it with formal logic. I demonstrated why you can't with my proof. You attempted and failed, thereby supporting my proof.

Click to expand...

I know its hard to do and I am not the first to say. But lets wait and see as I have posted an arguement that we need to debate first on epistemic values intertwined with moral values.

What I want to know, though, is why do you believe it's objective without knowing any objective reasoning why it's true? After realizing that what reasoning you did have was incomplete at best, why do you hold so steadfast that your position is immovable?

Click to expand...

Yeah like I said I am not good at this. But its a falalcy to say that there is no arguement.

The reason is because the illusion of objective morality is a result of the Appeal to Emotion fallacy. The most persuasive of all fallacies.

Click to expand...

I thought morality was said to be an illusion based on evolution making it so. Nevertheless as far as I can see appeals to emotion have been refuted

Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") is an informal fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.[1] This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.
Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia

The Moralistic Fallacy The most blatant way to commit the moralistic fallacy is simply to infer, from the claim that it would be morally objectionable to feel F toward X, that therefore F is not a fitting response to X. This inference is fallacious; it is belied by our dictum that an emotion can be fitting despite being wrong to feel. Such inferences can be understood as versions of a more general mistake: the thought that moral assessments of an emotion are relevant, qua moral assessments, to its fittingness.
The Moralistic Fallacy: On the 'Appropriateness' of Emotions on JSTOR

VirOptimus said:

It can work and it does work (as thats how reality works).

But again, you ”considering it” is not the same as understanding it as you obviously dont.

Click to expand...

Believe me I have tried to rationalize and understand this but I cannot find any logic in it. If morality is a matter of right and wrong behaviour then moral behaviour has to be right or wrong. If its a matter of right and wrong then there has to be some objective measure of what is right and wrong that needs to be beyond human subjective thinking.

stevevw said:

Believe me I have tried to rationalize and understand this but I cannot find any logic in it. If morality is a matter of right and wrong behaviour then moral behaviour has to be right or wrong. If its a matter of right and wrong then there has to be some objective measure of what is right and wrong that needs to be beyond human subjective thinking.

Click to expand...

You should read some basic books on moral philosophy.

You have a very simplistic understanding of "right" and "wrong".

Moral Orel said:

Psychology isn't the basis. I'm not trying to concoct an objective morality; that isn't possible. The basis is "I ought to be happy" which I know cannot be true (the opposite cannot be true either, so who cares). Psychology gives me the facts that are useful for promoting my own happiness. Psychology isn't the basis. It's a tool.

Click to expand...

So let me try to understand this better with some questions.

So is "I ought to be happy" as a basis just your basis and only applies to you.

If someone else did'nt use psychology as a tool but rather evolution or Eugenics would that be OK to do under a subjective system.

If someone questions your basis "I ought to be happy" and you use psychology as a tool to support your basis isnt that now making psychology your basis as you are now relying on this support your basis and without it you have no basis.

VirOptimus said:

You should read some basic books on moral philosophy.

You have a very simplistic understanding of "right" and "wrong".

Click to expand...

Its not that I have a basic understanding of right and wrong. Its how humans act morally that we can see how morality needs to be a matter of right and wrong. People demand that moral behaviour is either right or wrong. Not only that they hold others to it being right or wrong. So we actually live like morality is right and wrong. Yet if we believe the skeptic this is just an illusion, a trick of the mind which seems silly and counter intuitive.

stevevw said:

So let me try to understand this better with some questions.

Click to expand...

That's weird, there isn't a single '?' in your entire post...

stevevw said:

So is "I ought to be happy" as a basis just your basis and only applies to you.

Click to expand...

Yep. Thing is though, almost everyone uses this assumption. It isn't always the base, but it's pretty much always something people believe/assume is true.

stevevw said:

If someone else did'nt use psychology as a tool but rather evolution or Eugenics would that be OK to do under a subjective system.

Click to expand...

Eugenics is proven unscientific. It's facts are false. Evolution? I dunno. I guess. At least its fact based.

stevevw said:

If someone questions your basis "I ought to be happy" and you use psychology as a tool to support your basis isnt that now making psychology your basis as you are now relying on this support your basis and without it you have no basis.

Click to expand...

There is no support for my assumption, "I ought to be happy". Psychology doesn't support that assertion, it simply tells me how to be happy in a factual way. The only difference between an objective morality and a subjective morality is that I acknowledge my base is not true (the opposite of my assertion isn't true either). Once that premise is assumed, reasoning proceeds in an identical fashion.

Not that many people think "life" is the ultimate value, either. Sure, most people value life. But only as a means to experience happiness. When someone feels as though any more happiness is unattainable, that's when life loses value to them. For some folks, like many of the terminally ill, they're factually correct to believe that the remainder of their life will be suffering and not happiness. So it's not "absurd", as you called it, to not believe life is intrinsically valuable.

Moral Orel said:

I'm not going to read the rest of your post because your first sentence is false. And I'm sure you have a lot to say about your incorrect assumption.

Click to expand...

OK what is my incorrect assumption.

stevevw said:

OK what is my incorrect assumption.

Click to expand...

This:

stevevw said:

you are assuming epistemic duties have to be present in our debate

Click to expand...

I don't care how you act in our debate. I'll have fun regardless of how you behave.

stevevw said:

Its not that I have a basic understanding of right and wrong. Its how humans act morally that we can see how morality needs to be a matter of right and wrong. People demand that moral behaviour is either right or wrong. Not only that they hold others to it being right or wrong. So we actually live like morality is right and wrong. Yet if we believe the skeptic this is just an illusion, a trick of the mind which seems silly and counter intuitive.

Click to expand...

I said simplistic, not "basic". You dont understand the basics of (moral) philosophy.

And right/wrong for whom? By what authority?

You have never answered this question properly, and thats a key part of the supposed "objective morality".

stevevw said:

I thought morality was said to be an illusion based on evolution making it so. Nevertheless as far as I can see appeals to emotion have been refuted

Click to expand...

Neither of your links refutes the fact that you believe "X is wrong" because X makes you feel bad.

stevevw said:

Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") is an informal fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.[1] This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.
Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

This is a description of what the fallacy is, that's all.

stevevw said:

The Moralistic Fallacy The most blatant way to commit the moralistic fallacy is simply to infer, from the claim that it would be morally objectionable to feel F toward X, that therefore F is not a fitting response to X. This inference is fallacious; it is belied by our dictum that an emotion can be fitting despite being wrong to feel. Such inferences can be understood as versions of a more general mistake: the thought that moral assessments of an emotion are relevant, qua moral assessments, to its fittingness.
The Moralistic Fallacy: On the 'Appropriateness' of Emotions on JSTOR

Click to expand...

This is about determining if emotions can be wrong the same way behaviors can be wrong. Again, irrelevant.

Remember, fallacies aren't just dishonest debate tricks people try to sneak into an argument knowing that they're fallacious. They tricked the person making the fallacy first. And we invented all of them using our intuition. "Well surely if this makes me feel good, then it is good". "Well surely if everyone I know believes it to be true, then it must be true". "Well surely if that was true it would have dire consequences, so that can't be true". That's human intuition in all it's glory.

Moral Orel said:

That's weird, there isn't a single '?' in your entire post...

Yep. Thing is though, almost everyone uses this assumption. It isn't always the base, but it's pretty much always something people believe/assume is true.

Click to expand...

What happens if they don't asume this is true?

Eugenics is proven unscientific. It's facts are false.

Click to expand...

But what if the person stil thinks its a good basis for morality. How do we prove he is wrong if the basis is subjective.

Evolution? I dunno. I guess. At least its fact based.

Click to expand...

Maybe it is maybe it isnt. But still when it comes to moral behaviour evolution falls very short factually. I could come up with others like this.

There is no support for my assumption, "I ought to be happy". Psychology doesn't support that assertion, it simply tells me how to be happy in a factual way. The only difference between an objective morality and a subjective morality is that I acknowledge my base is not true (the opposite of my assertion isn't true either). Once that premise is assumed, reasoning proceeds in an identical fashion.

Click to expand...

But what about others. All you are describing is your psychological state and nothing more.

Not that many people think "life" is the ultimate value, either.

Click to expand...

Isnt that an appeal to popularity or unpopularity. If thats the case then we can say that all the institutions that govern humans think life is Intrinsiclaly valuable and make this a self-evident truth. So they should be more knowledgable and worthy of reflecting what values matter.

They actually make Life as the basis and happiness flows from that as a quality that life has which can make it worth living. BUt its not the only value that stems from life.

Sure, most people value life. But only as a means to experience happiness.

Click to expand...

Thats not true. People value life for different reasons. Someone may live a life of servitude doing things they don't want to do but still derive some satification that doesnt necessarily make them happy. You still havn't explained how someone thinking money is what makes happiness at the expense of others is wrong.

When someone feels as though any more happiness is unattainable, that's when life loses value to them. For some folks, like many of the terminally ill, they're factually correct to believe that the remainder of their life will be suffering and not happiness. So it's not "absurd", as you called it, to not believe life is intrinsically valuable.

Click to expand...

thats not the point of "Life" being intrinsically valuable. Its about valuing life for its own sake regardles of happiness. If "Life" is not valued for its own sake then people cannot even get to experience happiness or anything else. So Life is valuable before happiness. Happiness is a byproduct of Life.

Moral Orel said:

Neither of your links refutes the fact that you believe "X is wrong" because X makes you feel bad.

This is a description of what the fallacy is, that's all.

This is about determining if emotions can be wrong the same way behaviors can be wrong. Again, irrelevant.

Remember, fallacies aren't just dishonest debate tricks people try to sneak into an argument knowing that they're fallacious. They tricked the person making the fallacy first. And we invented all of them using our intuition. "Well surely if this makes me feel good, then it is good". "Well surely if everyone I know believes it to be true, then it must be true". "Well surely if that was true it would have dire consequences, so that can't be true". That's human intuition in all it's glory.

Click to expand...

Then why do philosophers use intuition as evdience for their ethical propositions.

Moral Orel said:

This:

I don't care how you act in our debate. I'll have fun regardless of how you behave.

Click to expand...

So you don't care if I lie or misrepresent your arguement.

stevevw said:

So you don't care if I lie or misrepresent your arguement.

Click to expand...

Nope. I score points by pointing out the false things you say. Whether you're earnest or not is irrelevant. So tee me up to prove you wrong any way that pleases you.

stevevw said:

Then why do philosophers use intuition as evdience for their ethical propositions.

Click to expand...

Because there's no defeater for hard solipsism, and if they didn't make unfounded assumptions they wouldn't have anything to philosophize about.

Moral Orel said:

Nope. I score points by pointing out the false things you say. Whether you're earnest or not is irrelevant. So tee me up to prove you wrong any way that pleases you.

Click to expand...

But you can't point out the false things I say because there is no obligation to be honest remember.

stevevw said:

But you can't point out the false things I say because there is no obligation to be honest remember.

Click to expand...

....

this.. is.. something....

"You cant call out my lies cause we didnt agree on not to lie."

or

"You cant tell me where Im wrong cause we didnt agree on being right."

Priceless.

stevevw said:

Isnt that an appeal to popularity or unpopularity.

Click to expand...

No. I'm not claiming it's true or false because people believe otherwise. I'm only pointing out that it isn't self-evident or it wouldn't be possible for them to disagree. No one disagrees with the law of non-contradiction because holding the opposite claim is incomprehensible nonsense. That is what it means to be self evident. That a lot of people intuit something is not proof of something being self-evident.

The proposition "My life is not valuable" is not logically incoherent. You believe it is false, but that doesn't make it self-evident. The Rules of Thought are self evident, and the fact that you exist is self-evident to you. That's it.

stevevw said:

But you can't point out the false things I say because there is no obligation to be honest remember.

Click to expand...

I "can't"? I'm physically capable of typing whatever I want.

Moral Orel said:

Because there's no defeater for hard solipsism, and if they didn't make unfounded assumptions they wouldn't have anything to philosophize about.

Click to expand...

So what about our intuition that reality "Is what it is" and not some computer simulation. We seem to be justified about our belief about reality otherwise we would not step out our front doors.

Why can't this same logic apply to moral intuition. When we see someone getting mugged we don't think that is how morality is. We know its wrong and want justice. Our moral intuition allows us to venture out of our front doors. Otherwise we won't not go outside for fear of getting mugged. So our intuition shows us that mugging is wrong and we all know this and that is our default position.