Is there Objective Morality?

[Kylie]

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

Really?

In any case, I'm not trying to argue one way or the other. I'm simply pointing out that there's no argument you can make for one side that will get the other side to say, "Ah yes, now that you put it that way, I can see I was clearly wrong."

 

[stevevw]

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

Do you have any evdience that there are no objective morals.[/QUOTE]

 

[stevevw]

This is an argument from consequence. A logical fallacy.

Appeal to consequences - Wikipedia

Its not absurd regarding the consequences. Its absurd that we cannot know right and wrong in matters that require right and wrong answers.

There are really just two alternatives to moral objectivism: moral relativism, and all the rest. But all the rest lead to absurdity: if I truly believe that I cannot know right from wrong (moral skepticism), or that all moral claims are false (moral error theory), or that there is no right or wrong (moral nihilism and non-cognitivism), then I must conclude I don’t know what I should do.
However, as a social animal I must interact with others. Thus, I find myself in the dilemma of having to act but not knowing how to act. Any theory that leads to this absurd state of mind must be rejected.
Is Morality Objective? | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now

 

[stevevw]

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

except that moral objectivism is not determined by people. Its independently determined whereas subjective morality is determined by who is in powers personal views of right and wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

Really?

Yeah. I'm not getting into the middle of your debate with Steve, I just want to make sure folks don't get reported or the thread shut down.

 

[Moral Orel]

There are really just two alternatives to moral objectivism: moral relativism, and all the rest. But all the rest lead to absurdity: if I truly believe that I cannot know right from wrong (moral skepticism), or that all moral claims are false (moral error theory), or that there is no right or wrong (moral nihilism and non-cognitivism), then I must conclude I don’t know what I should do.
However, as a social animal I must interact with others. Thus, I find myself in the dilemma of having to act but not knowing how to act. Any theory that leads to this absurd state of mind must be rejected.
Is Morality Objective? | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now

Let's say someone offers you a hamburger or a hotdog. You like both of them, but there's no objectively correct choice in this situation. Since you don't know what you should do, you just starve to death.

 

[VirOptimus]

Do you have any evdience that there are no objective morals.

Thats not how it works.

The onus to prove ”objective morals” is on you.

 

[VirOptimus]

except that moral objectivism is not determined by people. Its independently determined whereas subjective morality is determined by who is in powers personal views of right and wrong.

Who gets to decide who gets their way? Always the ones with power.

Also, its not ”independently decided”, its still people so it isnt objective.

 

[Belk]

Its not absurd regarding the consequences. Its absurd that we cannot know right and wrong in matters that require right and wrong answers.

There are really just two alternatives to moral objectivism: moral relativism, and all the rest. But all the rest lead to absurdity: if I truly believe that I cannot know right from wrong (moral skepticism), or that all moral claims are false (moral error theory), or that there is no right or wrong (moral nihilism and non-cognitivism), then I must conclude I don’t know what I should do.
However, as a social animal I must interact with others. Thus, I find myself in the dilemma of having to act but not knowing how to act. Any theory that leads to this absurd state of mind must be rejected.
Is Morality Objective? | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now

Reality has no "requirements" for right and wrong answers. And it is still an argument from consequence.

 

[stevevw]

Reality has no "requirements" for right and wrong answers. And it is still an argument from consequence.

If we use human "Life" as a basis then its not a matter of consequence but what obligation that means. Under that meaning all appeals to human wellbeing, happiness ect are arguements from consequence.

 

[stevevw]

Who gets to decide who gets their way? Always the ones with power.

Also, its not ”independently decided”, its still people so it isnt objective.

Reasoning about something isnt determined by human subjective thinking but is measured against some objective basis that takes subjective opinions out of the equation. This same reasoning is done by people such as Sam Harris who uses human wellbeing as the basis. If something deminishes human wellbeing then it determined by reason against human wellbeing and not personal opinions.

 

[stevevw]

Thats not how it works.

The onus to prove ”objective morals” is on you.

Not when someone claims there are no objective morals. Then the onus is on those who make this negative claim.

 

[stevevw]

Let's say someone offers you a hamburger or a hotdog. You like both of them, but there's no objectively correct choice in this situation. Since you don't know what you should do, you just starve to death.

No because the choice in Hotdog or hamburger doesnt matter, there is no wrong answer with subjective preferences. Morality is different and needs a right and wrong answer. Otherwise we would have to say that someone presents a scenario where there are 2 choices "Torturing a child is morlaly OK" or "Torturing a child is not morlaly OK".

If we cannot say that "Torturing a child is not morlaly OK" in a truthful way then we are in trouble as then we are more or less saying we cannot know how to act in these vital situations that affect others and society. Not only that we are saying that "Torturing a child is morlaly OK" because we cannot say its really wrong. The wrong food choice as far as taste is concerned does not have that sort of seriousness in a way that the behaviour needs to be stopped in any normative way.

 

[VirOptimus]

Not when someone claims there are no objective morals. Then the onus is on those who make this negative claim.

No, its not.

Learn basic debating.

 

[VirOptimus]

Reasoning about something isnt determined by human subjective thinking but is measured against some objective basis that takes subjective opinions out of the equation. This same reasoning is done by people such as Sam Harris who uses human wellbeing as the basis. If something deminishes human wellbeing then it determined by reason against human wellbeing and not personal opinions.

Thats not how it works.

If its reasoned by humans then its not objective.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, its not.

Learn basic debating.

He's actually right about that. If you make a claim, the onus is on you to support it.

 

[Moral Orel]

No because the choice in Hotdog or hamburger doesnt matter, there is no wrong answer with subjective preferences. Morality is different and needs a right and wrong answer. Otherwise we would have to say that someone presents a scenario where there are 2 choices "Torturing a child is morlaly OK" or "Torturing a child is not morlaly OK".

If we cannot say that "Torturing a child is not morlaly OK" in a truthful way then we are in trouble as then we are more or less saying we cannot know how to act in these vital situations that affect others and society. Not only that we are saying that "Torturing a child is morlaly OK" because we cannot say its really wrong. The wrong food choice as far as taste is concerned does not have that sort of seriousness in a way that the behaviour needs to be stopped in any normative way.

Special Pleading fallacy ^

Here's the claim:

Thus, I find myself in the dilemma of having to act but not knowing how to act. Any theory that leads to this absurd state of mind must be rejected.​

You have two different acts. Eating a hamburger is one act. Eating a hotdog is another act. You must eat. So you are in a state of mind where you must act but you do not know how to act. That is not an absurd state of mind, it's totally normal. Your argument fails.

 

[VirOptimus]

He's actually right about that. If you make a claim, the onus is on you to support it.

If one makes a positive claim, yes (objective morals exist).

If one makes a negative, no (there is no god(s)).

 

[Moral Orel]

If one makes a positive claim, yes (objective morals exist).

If one makes a negative, no (there is no god(s)).

Sigh... No, that's wrong. The burden of proof falls on anyone making any claim they make. There is nothing special about negative claims.

 

[VirOptimus]

Sigh... No, that's wrong. The burden of proof falls on anyone making any claim they make. There is nothing special about negative claims.

Nope.