Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

If you read anything I wrote you'd know the answer to this question and wouldn't be bothering with asking.

Ok so thats why I wanted you to answer the rest of my post to clarify this.

So I will ask you again, do you think if both parties (you and me) we able to lie and misrepresent each others arguements that this would cause our debate to breakdown if we had no obligation to be honest. We may not know that the other party is lying or not but we would certainly experience the results of continula lies and misrepresentations in that it would make it impossible to have a coherent debate.

As I also asked
So if you did point out the difference between what you said and what misrepresentation I made what would happen if a person continued to make the same misrepresentation even if they admitted that they knew what you meant but still persitted in the lie. Wouldn't this be a case of dishonesty. Could you not now claim that the person is knowingly lying.

 

[Moral Orel]

So I will ask you again, do you think if both parties (you and me) we able to lie and misrepresent each others arguements that this would cause our debate to breakdown if we had no obligation to be honest. We may not know that the other party is lying or not but we would certainly experience the results of continula lies and misrepresentations in that it would make it impossible to have a coherent debate.

Let's say we go into this debate and my intention is to have a logical discussion that leads to a rational conclusion, but your intention is to troll by talking nonsense, trying to frustrate and aggravate your opponent, and generally be a disruption with no care for the truth. Why should we work towards my goal and not your goal? Why is being coherent the 'correct' way to have a debate?

As I also asked
So if you did point out the difference between what you said and what misrepresentation I made what would happen if a person continued to make the same misrepresentation even if they admitted that they knew what you meant but still persitted in the lie. Wouldn't this be a case of dishonesty. Could you not now claim that the person is knowingly lying.

I never said that a lie isn't a real thing. In fact, I've explicitly stated it is. If you'd read my posts you would know the answer to this.

 

[zippy2006]

Let's say we go into this debate and my intention is to have a logical discussion that leads to a rational conclusion, but your intention is to troll by talking nonsense, trying to frustrate and aggravate your opponent, and generally be a disruption with no care for the truth. Why should we work towards my goal and not your goal? Why is being coherent the 'correct' way to have a debate?

Is there a correct way? If you affirmed that your way is correct wouldn't you then be imposing your values on others?

Or, to quote a guy I know:

Now here's the tricky part, and think about this one for a bit 'cause it's a trick question. If morality is subjective, why shouldn't they act in such a manner?

 

[Moral Orel]

Is there a correct way?

Nope.

 

[stevevw]

Let's say we go into this debate and my intention is to have a logical discussion that leads to a rational conclusion, but your intention is to troll by talking nonsense, trying to frustrate and aggravate your opponent, and generally be a disruption with no care for the truth. Why should we work towards my goal and not your goal? Why is being coherent the 'correct' way to have a debate?

This is why I keep questioning your replies as you keep changing my scenario into what you want. What if you also had no obligation to be honest and also misrepresented things and lied and was also trying to frustrate the debate. We would end up with a incoherent debate that could not go anywhere towards finding the truth about proper justified knowledge.

There are epistemic reasons for determining proper true knowledge and beliefs otherwise any knowledge and belief cannot be justified as being proper and true and people could just claim anything. For example presenting false evidence and not maximizing efforts to investigate things properly.

Without these rules or guides no proper knowledge can be gained and justified. You used these epistemic rules in your debate with me about the apple tree example to determine what was "reality".

Humans interact with each other everyday seeking proper knowledge/beliefs and if we cannot have a way where we can gain proper knowledge then this will prevent any human interactions making sense in the persuit of knowledge.

The fact that you implicitly imply proper ways of gaining knowledge and beliefs as a duty in philosophical debates with me as a moral skeptic as opposed to using improper ways shows you already acknowledge and prescribe these epipstemic facts and shows it is necessary for debates when seeking proper and true knowledge and beliefs.

You have on a number of occassions critizised me for using improper ways of gaining proper knowledge and beliefs. So it is a fact that there are proper and improper ways of gaining knowledge and beliefs that we all prescribe epistemically.

Remember I am talking epistemically and not morally.

I never said that a lie isn't a real thing. In fact, I've explicitly stated it is. If you'd read my posts you would know the answer to this.

Then if there is such a thing as a lie then how do we determine lies. I don't think "reality" is how we do this. If you know that I am lying because I tell you and don't care because I have no obligation to tell the truth and if you do the same then we cannot engage in any debate seeking the truth. It would be a continual incoherent mess.

 

[zippy2006]

Nope.

I can’t help but marvel at how strange it must be to promote the dogma that no “oughts” exist, no matter what. That one need not listen during a conversation, nor accurately characterize their opponent in an argument? That one need not fulfill their promises, nor be faithful to their spouse? That one need not feed their child, nor pay for their merchandise? That the police officer need not respond to calls for help, nor the judge uphold the law? That the teacher need not teach the children, nor the employer remunerate the employee? That contracts need not be upheld, nor laws followed or enforced? That desires need not be sought, nor pain or punishment avoided?

Such a dogma would inevitably lead its proponent into a form of schizophrenia, where what they profess with their lips contradicts the way they live their life every step of the way. But of course they would assure us that this is not a problem, for such a person need not avoid schizophrenia or self-contradiction.


. . . And my point is not that society would be unreliable, but rather that such a person could not consistently <become frustrated when a dialogue partner expends sub-par effort>, or claim that "you took that last statement the wrong way," or <punish someone for "refusing to pay attention" or remonstrate someone for ignoring replies>.

Steve is quite right that debaters must presume and provide honest speech. Your claim that debaters can lie all they want is incorrect. Yet even if it were correct your posts evidence all sorts of other "oughts" that you are assuming. All of reality is teleological. You will never successfully avoid it.

 

[Moral Orel]

Your claim that debaters can lie all they want is incorrect.

Debaters are incapable of lying whenever they please? What color is the sky in your world, Zippy?

 

[Moral Orel]

We would end up with a incoherent debate that could not go anywhere towards finding the truth about proper justified knowledge.

Why should debates lead to true conclusions?

 

[zippy2006]

Debaters are incapable of lying whenever they please? What color is the sky in your world, Zippy?

Ah, you're forgetting your dogma again. Remember:

• One need not believe that anyone is capable or incapable of any particular thing.
• One need not believe the sky is any particular color.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ah, you're forgetting your dogma again. Remember:

• One need not believe that anyone is capable or incapable of any particular thing.
• One need not believe the sky is any particular color.

You're free to believe things that aren't true, sure. I'm really starting to think you're not ready to get out of the "kiddie-pool".

 

[zippy2006]

You're free to believe things that aren't true, sure. I'm really starting to think you're not ready to get out of the "kiddie-pool".

Ah, but Orel, now you are implying that I ought to get out of the kiddie pool. It seems that in every post you write you end up contradicting that dogma.

If you really think that there is no need for anyone to do anything, then argument on an internet forum may not be for you. Such an endeavor would implicate you in all sorts of normative behavior, and it is clear from your posts that you are neck-deep in such normativity.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ah, but Orel, now you are implying that I ought to get out of the kiddie pool. It seems that in every post you write you end up contradicting that dogma.

I love that word "imply". It let's people dream, ya know?

 

[Kylie]

Shades of grey are where most things are most of the time. Why should we have a problem with that? Just tentatively, since "good" is to do with "goods" i.e benefits, and its opposite is deprivation of benefit already possessed, the blend of these - which we usually can't understand properly - comes to look grey (a metaphor).

Personal boundaries protect integrity. That is where degrees of inference help us keeping on looking into it. From the overlap of our partial observations it is reasonable to propose that there are probably what look like near absolutes. This doesn't conflict with the idea up for discussion in the OP.

Go and tell Steve. He's the one ignoring the shades of grey.

 

[Kylie]

I agree. But as we are talking about the "act" itself being subjective or objective then we can say that a rape objectively happened and leave aside personal experiences of the objective "act". Now we just have to determine if that objective act is right or wrong. So it seems we are agreeing more than you think.

However, you are (once again!) forced to resort to an extreme example to prove your point. If your position is correct, then ANY example will work.

So, instead, let's use the example of stealing a loaf of bread.

Is it objectively morally wrong to steal a loaf of bread? Just answer yes or no please.

 

[zippy2006]

Once again you run and hide behind the binary idea that morality is either good or bad. You ignore the shades of grey.

In philosophy it is eminently important to be able to construct contradictory propositions. Those who can't construct, identify, or handle contradictory propositions tend to be sloppy thinkers. They always object without saying why, giving vague reasons about "shades of grey" and "complexity."

For example, you have been arguing with Steve about rape. We could construct a contradictory pair regarding rape:

a. Rape is always wrong.
b. Rape is not always wrong.​

Faced with this contradictory pair, the intellectually rigorous person must choose one option, and only one. They cannot give excuses about "shades of grey." In this case, there are no such shades. Either (a) is true or else (b) is true, and there is no middle ground.

Is it objectively morally wrong to steal a loaf of bread? Just answer yes or no please.

You are not presenting a tight contradictory pair. Faced with such a question, the intellectually rigorous person would interpret your question according to the qualifier "ceteris paribus". On that interpretation I would answer "Yes, it is morally wrong to steal."

But we could instead present a contradictory pair, or even the square of opposition:

• It is always objectively morally wrong to steal a loaf of bread. (false)
• It is sometimes objectively morally wrong to steal a loaf of bread. (true)
• It is never objectively morally wrong to steal a loaf of bread. (false)
• It is sometimes not objectively morally wrong to steal a loaf of bread. (true)

 

[stevevw]

Why should debates lead to true conclusions?

Debates don't necessarily have to lead to actually finding true knowledge and belief.

It is more about the way we attempt to find what is true thats important. Without any guides and rules for investigating what is proper and improper ways of finding the truth we have now framework for even attempting to find truth.

 

[stevevw]

However, you are (once again!) forced to resort to an extreme example to prove your point. If your position is correct, then ANY example will work.

So, instead, let's use the example of stealing a loaf of bread.

Is it objectively morally wrong to steal a loaf of bread? Just answer yes or no please.

As you have presented this at it reads yes it is wrong to steal a loaf of bread.

But remember I said earlier to you that objective morality can accommodate circumstances. I gave the example of the person lying to hide the Jews from the Nazi's. Sometimes moral values conflict with each other.

But objective morality is about finding the best way to behave morally in moral situations under the circumstances. So each and every moral situation will have an objective moral that has been determined independently from subjective views. That may mean that it is morally right to lie, steal or kill sometimes because a greater moral wrong would be done.

As opposed to absolute morality where it is always wrong regardless of circumstances.

 

[Moral Orel]

Debates don't necessarily have to lead to actually finding true knowledge and belief.

If the goal isn't the goal we should have, then you can't truthfully say we should work towards that goal.

So if it isn't true that "We should debate to find the truth" then it isn't true that "We should say true things in a debate".

You can certainly claim that making true statements in an argument is necessary for arriving at true conclusions, sure. But if you want to prove "We should make true statements" is true, then first you need to prove "We should seek to arrive at true conclusions in a debate" is true first.

 

[Amittai]

... Sometimes moral values conflict with each other.

But objective morality is about finding the best way to behave morally in moral situations under the circumstances. So each and every moral situation will have an objective moral that has been determined independently from subjective views. That may mean that it is morally right to lie, steal or kill sometimes because a greater moral wrong would be done ...

You are not explaining a system for working situations out which is why you are saying these terrible things.

Flaunting horrible crimes is distressing to people who suffer because of them.

You'll get nowhere if all you do is parrot the airport casuistry books.

 

[Amittai]

disqualified from the Kingdom of God. That does not mean going to hell, it does mean an eternity of regret at missing out on God's best

Offtopic, it's horrific how many pastors or preachers equate the two of those things, misleading millions. It was immoral of those who mistaught them, to not bother to seek real meanings of Scripture.