Is there Objective Morality?

[Moral Orel]

By the fact rape destroys life.

You mean because it destroys human life, right? You always state that human life is intrinsically valuable. How come?

 

[Kylie]

lol how can I put the blame on someone else when I said "I misunderstood your post" and not someone else. But still you didnt answer the post.

Everything bu the first sentence is passing the blame.

 

[Kylie]

In fact disagreement over moral issues implies someone is right and someone is wrong and that there is a right answer and not a subjective view or opinion.

No it doesn't. There's plenty of disagreement over things that we'd all agree are subjective opinions.

 

[stevevw]

Not thinking the Godfather is the greatest movie of all time is absurd!

Do you mean to say you disagree. How dare you. The Godfather is the ultimate movie. The way Brando pulls off that accent like hes mumbling with a broken jaw is just great acting.

Argument from Consequences fallacy again.

And consequences are relevant to morality.

And I never said it equates to food tastes, but it's analogous.

No it doesnt equate to morality. Disliking certain foods does not have the same importance as moral issues. You can't be ostrasized by liking chocolate. People don't stop the perpetrator or want justice like they do if someone dislikes chocolate. You can for rape.

It's also analogous to taste in movies, art, clothing, etc. And none of those things equate to each other either.

Yes they do they are all the subjective states of the person. They all have the same logic as described above where they don't matter as much as a moral issue like rape and in the same way.

 

[stevevw]

No it doesn't. There's plenty of disagreement over things that we'd all agree are subjective opinions.

But a disagreement implies someone is wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Everything bu the first sentence is passing the blame.

I don't understand. If the first sentence is OK then that explains I wasn't blaming anyone else but myself. Gee now I can't even take the blame.

 

[Moral Orel]

Do you mean to say you disagree. How dare you. The Godfather is the ultimate movie. The way Brando pulls off that accent like hes mumbling with a broken jaw is just great acting.

Oh, I agree. The Godfather is the greatest movie of all time as a matter of objective fact.

And consequences are relevant to morality.

The argument from consequences fallacy is when you feel good or bad about the consequences. It isn't the same as if your feeling good or bad are the consequences. Consider this statement:

If morality was objective, I'd feel bad. Therefore morality isn't objective.

Is that argument valid? No? Then yours isn't either.

No it doesnt equate to morality. Disliking certain foods does not have the same importance as moral issues. You can't be ostrasized by liking chocolate. People don't stop the perpetrator or want justice like they do if someone dislikes chocolate. You can for rape. Yes they do they are all the subjective states of the person. They all have the same logic as described above where they don't matter as much as a moral issue like rape and in the same way.

Appeal to emotion fallacy. How much something matters to us is how much we care: emotion. How important something is to us is how much we care: emotion. See? You can't separate your reasoning from your feelings. Objective morality is one big Appeal to Emotion fallacy.

 

[stevevw]

Oh, I agree. The Godfather is the greatest movie of all time as a matter of objective fact.

The argument from consequences fallacy is when you feel good or bad about the consequences. It isn't the same as if your feeling good or bad are the consequences. Consider this statement:

If morality was objective, I'd feel bad. Therefore morality isn't objective.

Is that argument valid? No? Then yours isn't either.

Appeal to emotion fallacy. How much something matters to us is how much we care: emotion. How important something is to us is how much we care: emotion. See? You can't separate your reasoning from your feelings. Objective morality is one big Appeal to Emotion fallacy.

I think you are simplifying things. Morality is more than an appeal to emtion. Emotion is certainly part of our experience of morality but not the entire picture.

 

[stevevw]

You mean because it destroys human life, right? You always state that human life is intrinsically valuable. How come?

Because it has value in and of itself beyond what individuals or cultures subjectively think.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think you are simplifying things. Morality is more than an appeal to emtion. Emotion is certainly part of our experience of morality but not the entire picture.

I know that's your claim. But you keep abandoning any kind of argument that attempts to prove its anything more than emotion.

Because it has value in and of itself beyond what individuals or cultures subjectively think.

Eh, that's not what I was getting at. Let me rephrase. Why aren't other forms of life intrinsically valuable?

 

[stevevw]

I know that's your claim. But you keep abandoning any kind of argument that attempts to prove its anything more than emotion.

I have given a couple of arguements that have not been defeated. ie

Premise 1: If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
Premise 2: Epistemic facts do exist
Conclusion 1: Moral facts do exist.
Premise 3: If moral facts do exist, then realism (objectivism) is true.
Conclusion 2: Moral realism (objectivism) is true.

You claimed that you can determine whether I am making true or false statements without implicitly prescribing "Honesty" in our debates and you claimed you don't care whether I am honest or not. But as I said you cannot know whether I am saying something false if there is no obligation for us to be Honest. So as far as I can see there is not option but to make "Honesty" a necessary epistemic value to our debate.

1) If moral Realism (objectivism) is false, people would not live like moral facts exist.
2) People do live like moral facts exist.
3) Conclusion is that Moral Realism (objectivism) is true.

So if no one lives like subjective morality is true and instead condemns the action of others then given this piece of evidence it is more likely moral realism is true.

Since people who claim to be moral non- realists simply cannot act out their position in moral experience for even when using epistemic duties.

I have'nt seen a reply to this arguement as yet.

Eh, that's not what I was getting at. Let me rephrase. Why aren't other forms of life intrinsically valuable?

Animals have intrinsic value, that their existence has value in and of itself. But from that intrinsic value comes different qualities that we are obligated to uphold. Humans have the most value because they are conscious moral beings. Peter Singer from memory argues for the Rights of animals.

 

[Moral Orel]

But as I said you cannot know whether I am saying something false if there is no obligation for us to be Honest.

I debunked this in a post you ignored. Post 2416

1) If moral Realism is false, people would not live like moral facts exist.

Prove it. Let's say moral realism is false, but I hate rape and I would very strongly prefer that no one ever rapes anyone else. How would I act differently?

 

[Moral Orel]

Animals have intrinsic value, that their existence has value in and of itself. But from that intrinsic value comes different qualities that we are obligated to uphold. Humans have the most value because they are conscious moral beings.

But it's okay to kill animals. Why is it okay to make there be less of something that is intrinsically valuable? Anything that is intrinsically valuable we ought to preserve and protect because we ought to value it.

How do you measure value?

 

[stevevw]

I compare your statement to reality. Honesty requires comparing what you say to what you believe, not what is true.

Let's say you have an apple tree you want to sell to me. You believe it only has fifty apples, so you tell me that it actually has one hundred apples to entice me to buy. If the tree actually has one hundred apples, and your belief was wrong, you still lied.

Now imagine the same scenario again, a tree with one hundred apples but you believe it only has fifty. You decide to be honest so you tell me the tree has fifty apples because that's what you believe. But in actuality it has one hundred apples. You were wrong, you didn't lie.

Ok so lets use an example in our debate we are having as I know you have pointed out a few times that I have made a logical fallacy or may have even misrepresented your arguement. So if I did do either or both of these things how would you tell I said something false to score brownie points.

 

[Kylie]

But a disagreement implies someone is wrong.

It implies that there are two people with a difference of opinion.

If it is regarding something subjective, then neither can be said to be wrong.

If I, a Star Trek fan, disagrees with a Star Wars fan about which is the better science fiction franchise, does that mean that one of us is objectively wrong? Of course not. The Star Wars fan's claim that SW is better is just as valid as my claim that Trek is better.

The only difference is that with morality, most of us hold the same opinion, for example, that murder is bad. But that doesn't mean it is objective. As I've pointed out, most people have the opinion that Battlefield Earth is a terrible movie, but that doesn't mean that it's objectively true. It's just that people very often mistakenly believe that a viewpoint that lots of people hold must be objectively true simply because it's a widespread viewpoint.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I have given a couple of arguements that have not been defeated. ie

Premise 1: If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
Premise 2: Epistemic facts do exist
Conclusion 1: Moral facts do exist.

P1 is false. In fact it is begging the question that this whole thread is about: Do moral facts exist. P1 suggests that epistemic facts don't exist unless moral facts exist. This is just wrong.

 

[stevevw]

It implies that there are two people with a difference of opinion.

If it is regarding something subjective, then neither can be said to be wrong.

If I, a Star Trek fan, disagrees with a Star Wars fan about which is the better science fiction franchise, does that mean that one of us is objectively wrong? Of course not. The Star Wars fan's claim that SW is better is just as valid as my claim that Trek is better.

The only difference is that with morality, most of us hold the same opinion, for example, that murder is bad. But that doesn't mean it is objective. As I've pointed out, most people have the opinion that Battlefield Earth is a terrible movie, but that doesn't mean that it's objectively true. It's just that people very often mistakenly believe that a viewpoint that lots of people hold must be objectively true simply because it's a widespread viewpoint.

As I have also pointed out subjective feelings, opinions or preferences don't rachet up to moral issues. So lets use your example of which sci fi movie is better but instead lets put rape as the issue of disagreement where we have someone with the view that rape is ok to do.

We will call one person the 'pro rapist' who thinks rape is morally OK to do. The person opposing this view is the 'anti rapist' who disagrees and thinks rape is wrong to do. So your example would then become. (By the way the characters are made up and don't reflect anyones view).

If I, a pro rapist, disagrees with an anti rapist about whether rape is morally wrong, does that mean that one of us is objectively wrong? Of course not. The anti rapist claim that rape is morally OK to do is just as valid as the anti rapist claim that rape is wrong to do.

See how subjective views, opinions and feelings don't translate to moral issues. I know you will protest that using rape is an extreme example but you could put anything in their like for example stealing, keeping promises ect.

I know you will throw me examples but that doesnt make any difference because 1) your example above doesnt make any exceptions. From this we would have to say that there is no difference between the anti and pro rapist as far as their views/opinions being valid.

Therefore we would have to say that raping is a valid act. The moment you start rationalizing about exceptions you are implying some objective to measure those exceptions.

 

[stevevw]

P1 is false. In fact it is begging the question that this whole thread is about: Do moral facts exist. P1 suggests that epistemic facts don't exist unless moral facts exist. This is just wrong.

No its the other way around "If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist". This is an important destinction because there are epistemic facts in certain situations like when two people engage in a philosophcal debate. So P1 can be argued that epistemic facts are tied to moral facts.

Because there are epistemic fact like being "Honest" in a debate and because morals are tied to epistemic facts it follows that if there are epistemic facts then there are moral facts.

 

[Tinker Grey]

P->Q
therefore !Q -> !P
which means epistemic facts -> moral facts.

This does not follow. You need to justify this.

(You are right I misinterpreted, but you are still wrong.)

 

[stevevw]

But it's okay to kill animals. Why is it okay to make there be less of something that is intrinsically valuable? Anything that is intrinsically valuable we ought to preserve and protect because we ought to value it.

How do you measure value?

Human "Life" is valuable in itself. This doesnt require any additional qualities and other values that should follow because human "Life" having that innate value obligates certain standards of life to be Human. Its the same with animals. Their "Life" is valuable on its own. Its nature is valuable because it is a state that is like no other. We recognise this when we see it.

But as animals have a lower thinking and awareness or morality it follows that they have less value overall. But not less intrinsicaly valuable but what quality of life that follows that is required for animals to exist. Therefore animals kill each other as its part of what happens for them to exist. So humans will also kill as part of existing as a human. But there is a limit as it is about need and not want.

Also "Life" doesn't exist in isolation and we can say that eco systems, water and nature have intrinsic value and as we ned shelter to live as humans it is justified to use the environment to live. But once again there are limits and we see humans killing animlas and destroying the environment unnecessarily.

But as time goes by people are realizing that other forms of life and nature have important value and not respecting that value leads to bad affects on humans and threatens their "Life". So all comes back to not respecting and valusing "LIfe". I like the Indigenous way of knowing. They regard nature and all life as part of a spiritaul network which connected to the land.