Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Just like how you react as though some food is objectively tasty when you have no time to think about things. My analogy continues to win.Sure people can change their moral values after thinking about things. But I am talking about a reaction to a moral situation where the person has no time to think about things. They are caught out and their reaction is usually how they really feel about morality.
So they claim subjective morality but act/react like the specific moral situations are objectively wrong.
You're assuming optimality is subject to us.
I'm arguing the opposite: neither the effectiveness nor the optimality of any set of codes of conduct, are subject to us nor can they be.
I don't think abortion is an example of subjective morality. Those who allow abortions usually first deny the life that the act kills is a human life. Do you have examples of anyone who allows that abortion is a moral act and agree that the life taken is human?In some places abortions are illegal. In others, they are legal. It doesn't appear that these laws ground themselves in any objective moral facts.
I don't think abortion is an example of subjective morality.
Well, this weakens your original conclusion considerably
C: there must exist a set of possible codes of conduct which could serve as optimal solutions to real moral problems, and because they are defined by an objective reality, the set can be described as an "objective morality."
In fact, there are many different codes of conduct that will optimize many different objective schema. There is no unique one.
Who said optimal = uniform? I assumed nothing of the sort.
Reality dictates that slower speeds are closer to optimal for roads in residential zones while faster speeds are more optimal for freeways. Or, the codes of conduct for flood plain farmers may differ drastically to nomadic herdsmen. Optimality as dictated by reality requires what it will, and that doesn't render anything that is defined and exists objectively to be subjective in the slightest.
The question in the OP is whether the nature of moral statements are objective or subjective. Are they objective facts, independent of human beings? Or are they not?
That said, aborted fetuses aren't salamanders or ferns. Of course they are human.
In some places abortions are illegal. In others, they are legal. It doesn't appear that these laws ground themselves in any objective moral facts.
I disagree that it weakens my position. In fact I argued the opposite as in my response to Ken:
...
Reality dictates that slower speeds are closer to optimal for roads in residential zones while faster speeds are more optimal for freeways.
?
What do you mean when you write "objective moral facts"?
So, do you agree that the humanity of the pre-born is an objective moral fact?
And, therefore, that abortion is murder?
But this implicitly presupposes some values that determine this optimum. If time to destination were the only factor, then faster speeds are always better. If avoiding pedestrian deaths were the only factor, then speeds would be limited to 5 mph.
In fact both values are in play. For there to be some sort of optimal and objective moral law, there must be some objective number of pedestrian deaths per hundred miles travelled that is morally optimal when weighed against efficiency of transportation. The idea that this value of deaths/transportation mile is somehow an objective feature of the universe seems absurd.
Add to this the fact that you think that we don't need to define what 'effectiveness' is and we're left with a dubious objective measure that we don't even know what it is. This is not a useful guide for morality even if it existed.
I do not even think it's directly accessible to us -- see my post #439.
There need not be a scoring system. Only effectiveness, or fitness, depending on how you want to look at the formation of effective systems over time. We don't even need to define what effectiveness is if reality itself dictates the optimality of solutions to real problems.
Your counterpoints are presupposing that we must be responsible for performing some kind of moral calculus to determine what is optimal. This is not part of my argument.
Good. So those who permit abortion do not consider the act to be murder. The abortion permit is grounded in the (erroneously) presumed fact that the pre-born to be no more than an irritant such as a polyp and its removal is at the option of the mother. In their minds, abortion is an amoral act.No. Your blood cells are human, but arranging for a few of them to leak out of you and die isn't murder.
? Are we not part of the universe?Moral statements are inherently subjective. Things like rape and murder engage our strong feelings precisely because they are subjective. They don't matter to the universe; they matter to us.
How about:..."People should not murder." is not an objective truth.
But "I think people should not murder." can be, if the utterer is sincere......
Right..... Are we not part of the universe?....
As such, appealing to abortion as evidence of subjective morality does not apply.
? Are we not part of the universe?
How about:
-People should not murder if they value living in a stable society.
-Its an objective fact that human beings typically value living in a stable society.
But where is the subjective in the way I formulated it?Certainly 'People should not murder' is a very popular opinion among people, and with good reason. But popularity (or even unanimity) doesn't make things into objective facts (except as a statement about people's opinions).
But where is the subjective in the way I formulated it?
Indeed. I should think the use of the word typical implies occurrences of the atypical that in and of itself implies subjectivity.human beings typically value living in a stable society
This is a value that people place on things. It is not some sort of inherent objective value. Gold is only valuable because people value it.
There may indeed be an optimum configuration for behavior. That, however, does not make morality objective.
Just as there may be a hypothetical optimum configuration for a car. That does not make my choice of vehicle objective.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?