Is there Objective Morality?

[VirOptimus]

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.)

He doesnt know how formal logic works.

 

[stevevw]

Help, I feel like the last man standing.

 

[VirOptimus]

Help, I feel like the last man standing.

Thats because your arguments are without merit.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

lol "Brownie points" Who do you think I'm sucking up to? I argue with the unbelievers around here just as much as I argue with the believers. Bad arguments make me cringe; I don't care if people share my conclusions.

I've already answered your question, I compare your statements to reality. Maybe you believe your statements to be true, maybe you don't. If you believe your own statements to be true then you're being honest, if you don't believe your own statements to be true, then you are being dishonest. Either way, I don't need to know what you believe to be true to show that what you say is false.

Let's stick to the simpler example. I'll copy the two scenarios here again for reference:

S1 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.

S2 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.
​

In scenario 1, you lied, but your statement wasn't false, so I won't bother proving anything. In scenario 2, you did not lie, but I will prove your statement false by counting apples. You see? Proving claims false does not involve honesty.

And your argument for epistemic facts isn't any different from your argument for moral facts. Even if I did value honesty, that doesn't prove that I ought to value honesty. This is the argument you keep repeating:

P1 People value X
C X ought to be valued

It isn't even valid.

 

[durangodawood]

Help, I feel like the last man standing.

Youve put up a terrific fight, I must say. Not that I agree, mostly. But A for effort.

 

[Kylie]

As I have also pointed out subjective feelings, opinions or preferences don't rachet up to moral issues.

Begging the question.

You are assuming that morality is not the same as subjective feeling in order to show that morality is not the same as subjective feeling.

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.

Again, you are using a viewpoint that just about everyone shares in order to prove your point. But as I have stated countless times now, a viewpoint does not become objectively true just because many people hold it.

And as I have also said countless times, if all morality is objective, then this same argument must apply to any moral issue. You suggested that I could put anything else in there, so why don't you try using it on premarital sex, see if you can get everyone to agree with you on that?

 

[stevevw]

Thats because your arguments are without merit.

Then why do most philosophers use the same arguement

 

[stevevw]

Youve put up a terrific fight, I must say. Not that I agree, mostly. But A for effort.

Well thankyou

 

[stevevw]

Begging the question.

You are assuming that morality is not the same as subjective feeling in order to show that morality is not the same as objective feeling.

Theres no such thing as objective feeling thats a paradox. Feelings are subjective and cannot be objective outside yourself. If a moral matter needs to right or wrong answer then I am not assuming its subjective. Rather I have reasoned it. If moral matters need a right and wrong answer then it cannot be a matter of subjective views as subjectivism is not about being right and wrong.

Again, you are using a viewpoint that just about everyone shares in order to prove your point. But as I have stated countless times now, a viewpoint does not become objectively true just because many people hold it.

But if you notice I havnt based my support on a commonly shared moral to support what I am saying. I have used reason and logic. When you apply logic and reasoning to subjective views about morality is doesnt work, It becomes absurd as it allows immoral acts to be just as valid as moral acts.

And as I have also said countless times, if all morality is objective, then this same argument must apply to any moral issue.

But showing you once regardless of the example is enough to support my case as you have already been told by others.

You suggested that I could put anything else in there, so why don't you try using it on premarital sex, see if you can get everyone to agree with you on that?

Thats irrelevant. Say I may find it hard to apply the same logic to your example of premarital sex what do you think you will achieve. How does that negate that I have already showed an example that does prove my case. Does that somehow undo an already verified example. No it doesn't. At best it just means that some issues are harder to determine.

But its a fallacy to say that because its harder to determine that there is no objective morality. I have told you this many times but you seem to ignore it can you keep repeating the same logical falalcy. I think Moral Orel pointed this out as well.

 

[Kylie]

Theres no such thing as objective feeling thats a paradox. Feelings are subjective and cannot be objective outside yourself. If a moral matter needs to right or wrong answer then I am not assuming its subjective. Rather I have reasoned it. If moral matters need a right and wrong answer then it cannot be a matter of subjective views as subjectivism is not about being right and wrong.

I think it's quite clear that I meant to say "subjective" there and I made an error, particular since I had already clarified earlier in the sentence that I was speaking of subjective feelings. I've edited my previous post to correct it.

But if you notice I havnt based my support on a commonly shared moral to support what I am saying. I have used reason and logic. When you apply logic and reasoning to subjective views about morality is doesnt work, It becomes absurd as it allows immoral acts to be just as valid as moral acts.

I'm still waiting for some method by which we can determine if some act is moral or immoral. All I've got so far is the vague claim that it's about how much Human life is harmed, yet there are lots of situations we'd say fall under the category of morality that don't involve harm to life.

But showing you once regardless of the example is enough to support my case as you have already been told by others.

Rubbish. Even if you could show that one particular situation is objectively moral (you haven't), your argument is that all morality is objective. Showing one instance of objective morality does not prove that all morality is objective.

Thats irrelevant. Say I may find it hard to apply the same logic to your example of premarital sex what do you think you will achieve. How does that negate that I have already showed an example that does prove my case. Does that somehow undo an already verified example. No it doesn't. At best it just means that some issues are harder to determine.

Even if you had provided an example to show that morality is objective (you haven't), one example does not prove that all morality is objective.

You say it is harder to determine, but the truth is that you can't determine the objective morality of it at all.

But its a fallacy to say that because its harder to determine that there is no objective morality. I have told you this many times but you seem to ignore it can you keep repeating the same logical falalcy. I think Moral Orel pointed this out as well.

Well, if you could show that it actually CAN be determined, then it would certainly go a long way to proving your point. But all you've got so far is a claim which I have presented as being undeterminable because it's completely subjective in a moral sense, you've claimed that it is objective and can be determined, and you've then done absolutely nothing to actually support your claim.

 

[Ken-1122]

By the fact that rape being ok is absurd.

By whose standard is rape being okay abusrd? Yours, or the objectivist who says rape is okay?

By the fact rape destroys life.

Destroys life by whose standard; yours or the person who says rape is okay?

 

[VirOptimus]

Then why do most philosophers use the same arguement

They really dont, your argumentation is a bad version (and mostly misrepresentation) of what some philosophers think.

You know, moral philosophy has been debated for a very very long time, your "arguments" (as they are) are nothing new, they (and better verions of them) have been around for a long long time and if you would ever educate yourself you would learn where the debate have evolved and why. You would also, perhaps, learn what other schools of thought teach and why.

Also "most philosophers" is just an appeal to authority and therefore not an sound argument.

 

[stevevw]

Begging the question.
You are assuming that morality is not the same as subjective feeling in order to show that morality is not the same as subjective feeling.

I'm more than assuming. I have shown how it cannot be subjective by reason ie we have to be able to say that acts like rape, stealing, assault, abuse, fraud, is wrong period and there are no subjective reasons that can change this otherwise its absurd to say we cannot say these acts are truthfully wrong beyond the subject.

I'm still waiting for some method by which we can determine if some act is moral or immoral. All I've got so far is the vague claim that it's about how much Human life is harmed, yet there are lots of situations we'd say fall under the category of morality that don't involve harm to life.

All immoral acts ultimately will harm people in some way. Primarily "Life" has intrinsic value and humans knowing this as we are moral agents that means we need to respect life and so any act that devalues life is morally wrong.

Rubbish. Even if you could show that one particular situation is objectively moral (you haven't), your argument is that all morality is objective. Showing one instance of objective morality does not prove that all morality is objective.
Even if you had provided an example to show that morality is objective (you haven't), one example does not prove that all morality is objective.

My claim was not that all morality is objective but that "Morality is objective" or that "there are objective morals". Anyway it doesn't make sense or follow to say I have to prove the objective moral for every situation that ever was and ever is to prove something. I only have to prove it once to prove it. Moral Orel has also pointed this out. Your using a logical fallacy.

For example I make a positive claim that there are objective morals. I then support this by showing a situation that has an objective moral. Job done. I have shown that there are objective morals and I don't have to show all situations are objective. Otherwise we could never show any facts as we could never know or get around to proving every single situation. So once is enough.

On the other hand you make the negative claim that there are no objective morals. But to show this claim you would have to show me in every single situation there were no objective morals because if you don't find objective morals in one situation they may exist in another ad infinitum. The onus is now on you.

If we applied this logic to other facts like Math it would mean to prove Math works as a formula I only have to show you one example 2+2=4. Job done. But what you are wanting is me to show every Math equation has factual answers before you believe there is a Math formula.

You say it is harder to determine, but the truth is that you can't determine the objective morality of it at all.

How do you know. What "Truth" whose "Truth" are you claiming. On what basis.

Well, if you could show that it actually CAN be determined, then it would certainly go a long way to proving your point. But all you've got so far is a claim which I have presented as being undeterminable because it's completely subjective in a moral sense, you've claimed that it is objective and can be determined, and you've then done absolutely nothing to actually support your claim.

Ever heard of that saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". So I am saying just because there may be some situations where its harder to determine the facts/truth that this doesnt mean there is no fact or truth to be found. So your arguements about some moral situations being harder to find an objective doesnt foillow that there is no objective to be found.

So once again I don't have to show every situation has an objective (as that would be impossible) not because there are no objective morals but because its just not physically possible. So your setting an unreal and illogical criteria. Science doesnt work that way and if it did we would never verify anything.

 

[stevevw]

By whose standard is rape being okay abusrd? Yours, or the objectivist who says rape is okay?
Destroys life by whose standard; yours or the person who says rape is okay?

Its just an independent fact based on how it devalues and destroys life.

 

[Moral Orel]

You suggested that I could put anything else in there, so why don't you try using it on premarital sex, see if you can get everyone to agree with you on that?

Just a reminder, arguing that premarital sex is morally permissible is forbidden on these boards.

 

[VirOptimus]

I'm more than assuming. I have shown how it cannot be subjective by reason ie we have to be able to say that acts like rape, stealing, assault, abuse, fraud, is wrong period and there are no subjective reasons that can change this otherwise its absurd to say we cannot say these acts are truthfully wrong beyond the subject.

All immoral acts ultimately will harm people in some way. Primarily "Life" has intrinsic value and humans knowing this as we are moral agents that means we need to respect life and so any act that devalues life is morally wrong.
My claim was not that all morality is objective but that "Morality is objective" or that "there are objective morals". Anyway it doesn't make sense or follow to say I have to prove the objective moral for every situation that ever was and ever is to prove something. I only have to prove it once to prove it. Moral Orel has also pointed this out. Your using a logical fallacy.

For example I make a positive claim that there are objective morals. I then support this by showing a situation that has an objective moral. Job done. I have shown that there are objective morals and I don't have to show all situations are objective. Otherwise we could never show any facts as we could never know or get around to proving every single situation. So once is enough.

On the other hand you make the negative claim that there are no objective morals. But to show this claim you would have to show me in every single situation there were no objective morals because if you don't find objective morals in one situation they may exist in another ad infinitum. The onus is now on you.

If we applied this logic to other facts like Math it would mean to prove Math works as a formula I only have to show you one example 2+2=4. Job done. But what you are wanting is me to show every Math equation has factual answers before you believe there is a Math formula.

How do you know. What "Truth" whose "Truth" are you claiming. On what basis.

Ever heard of that saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". So I am saying just because there may be some situations where its harder to determine the facts/truth that this doesnt mean there is no fact or truth to be found. So your arguements about some moral situations being harder to find an objective doesnt foillow that there is no objective to be found.

So once again I don't have to show every situation has an objective (as that would be impossible) not because there are no objective morals but because its just not physically possible. So your setting an unreal and illogical criteria. Science doesnt work that way and if it did we would never verify anything.

Do you understand that believing in objective morality leads to fundamentalism?

 

[stevevw]

Do you understand that believing in objective morality leads to fundamentalism?

So what is your point. That doesnt negate that there can be moral objectives. Moral subjectivism allows for "Might being right". Because there are no moral truths whoever has the power gets to dictate what morals are.

 

[Belk]

I'm more than assuming. I have shown how it cannot be subjective by reason ie we have to be able to say that acts like rape, stealing, assault, abuse, fraud, is wrong period and there are no subjective reasons that can change this otherwise its absurd to say we cannot say these acts are truthfully wrong beyond the subject.

<Snip>

This is an argument from consequence. A logical fallacy.

Appeal to consequences - Wikipedia

 

[VirOptimus]

So what is your point. That doesnt negate that there can be moral objectives. Moral subjectivism allows for "Might being right". Because there are no moral truths whoever has the power gets to dictate what morals are.

The one with power always decide, even if there where such a thing as objective morals (wich there arent).

 

[VirOptimus]

This is an argument from consequence. A logical fallacy.

Appeal to consequences - Wikipedia

He dont understand this.