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.
The erroneous definition of "rational" given is the only one possible for one who holds that "the Earth is spherical" is an objective claim and that "rape is immoral" is a subjective claim.
Can you reconcile your claims?
Can you refer me to your post in which you answered these questions:
No, just explaining that being moral isn't contingent on someone being moral to you. What you are talking about is more likely group survival behaviour.
But nevertheless you keep missing the point that regardless of whether animals have morality or not evolution "only explains how we got morality and it doesn’t account for why something is morally right or wrong".
OK so basically the subjective morality examples you use within a social group don't truly explain morality because it is not about moral behaviour/claims when it’s subjective. It’s just personal opinion or preferences about the subject and the subject’s personal views are not moral truths for others outside them.
Morality becomes objective when the subject turns their moral view into a truth beyond them whether it’s another social group or their own social group. They do that when they push their moral view into the world outside themselves into lived moral situations that affect others. People do it all the time, they can't help it.
My point is you can only have objective "oughts". You cannot have subjective oughts beyond the subject. You can say "I ought to do that" or "in my opinion you "ought to do that" to another person. But you cannot say "you ought to do that" full stop as now you are making a moral claim outside yourself.
I am saying that people do this all the time and it’s understandable because they want to make morality a truth outside themselves to give it the value it deserves and carry some weight. Otherwise it means nothing as a personal opinion because it has no truth value in real world situations outside the subject.
You can make the objective claim and hold the belief truth that you are married because you have independent evidence (a marriage certificate).
But this still doesn’t explain that you claimed there were no objective morals which are an objective claim. You would have to come up with some independent evidence for that like your marriage certificate showing you are married.
Because the grounding for objective morality has to be beyond humans but also rational and necessary it logically follows that this has to be some sort of transcendent being like God. There is a good argument for this here. It covers all the objections like the Euthyphro dilemma etc.
The moral argument
Premise 1. Morality is a rational enterprise
Premise 2. Moral realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist
Premise 3. The moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality.
Premise 4. Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source (from 1,2,3)
Premise 5. This source is what we call God or a god or transcendent being.
So by what basis do you determine that the rat behaviour is moral besides your personal opinion? If you say there is no objective morality then isn’t the rat behaviour just an expression of subjective morality which isn’t really about morality but preferences.
Can you see the irony though. If animals do have morality and know right from wrong can they be held accountable like humans. If so why are we not arresting or being outrages at animal behaviour. If a primate kills another primates baby to gain a selection advantage is that murder. It’s a very murky area.
Where do you draw the line? When a grasshopper eats another grasshopper is that cannibalism. Do we include insect or worms having moral behaviour. But once again it’s all irrelevant as evolutionary explanations for morality don't account for why something is wrong (the ought). And just remember subjective morality doesnt help because thats not about morality but preferences.
Yes and they are not about morality but preferences. They only explain the subject’s psychological state and not any truth or anything including morality outside them.
Okay. I guess to answer your question; I find chattel slavery to be always wrong. Can I provide an argument against it that will convince everybody that it is wrong? Probably not; but I don't have to, I only need an argument that I find convincing.No, that's fine. My assumption was that you were speaking of chattel slavery.
No we should still have consequences for immoral behaviour and that is also part of morality because there has to be consequences for immoral behaiour to incur moral duties. But what I am saying is morality is also about helping those who are in need without getting any return or benefit.
We don't know why people are a burden, they may have been dealt a bad set of cards. But if we started to deny people who didnt contribute then we would be a callous society and cause more problems.
Socialisation is not always about morality especialy for animals. A zebra will face a lion running across the open to cut it down and rip its throat open. Should be charge the lion with murder or inhuman treatment. If a human did that to another human in the street they would be locked up and morally condemned.
OK I thought that was a given. Are you seriously saying they are not moral values? Are you saying the opposite of honesty and truthfulness such as deceit, lying is not immoral. Didn’t you use an example of dishonesty to show how people can get around honesty as a moral value?
Anyway here is the evidence that ‘Honesty and Truth ‘are morals.
Honesty or truthfulness is a facet of moral character that connotes positive and virtuous (moral) attributes such as integrity, truthfulness, straightforwardness, including straightforwardness of conduct, along with the absence of lying, cheating, theft, etc. Honesty also involves being trustworthy, loyal, fair, and sincere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honesty#:~:text=Honesty or truthfulness is a,loyal, fair, and sincere.
But they determine the truth which is a moral and you have to be Honest to find the truth which is also a moral as shown above from Wikipedia. So therefore 'Honesty and Truth' are indespensible in cases that determine the truth.
OK so now that I have shown that 'Honesty and Truth' are moral values and are necessary for finding truth I rest my case.
OK so you have just given a good example of evolution by natural selection. But someone could then ask why it is morally wrong for one group to kill babies and morally good for the other group to allow babies to live. What is the moral basis for this if morals are only subjective? Nothing tells us why something is right or wrong and it only tells how babies will die in one group and live in another.
The only benefit if you can call it that is one group will survive. But evolution as Dawkins says has no benefits; it’s just a natural process like a volcano that may wipe out species and forests. There’s no rhyme or reason. One could ask why is it morally good for that one group to survive over the other when it’s only about natural selection. No one is doing anything immoral. Do you get what I mean?
You’ve missed the point again. I am not using a non-sequitur of like for like actions but rather the moral value being a necessity for meaningful human interaction. According to the logical argument for objective moral values of using 'Truth' and 'Honesty'
1) You cannot expect to find 'Truth' without the moral value of 'Truth' and 'Honesty' applying regardless of your personal opinion about whether 'Truth' and 'Honesty' is subjective (unnecessary).
2) Therefore it’s not just a case of correlating acting some way as proof of it being that way.
3) Its self-evident for each situation where there is no option but to hold 'Truth' and 'Honesty' as independent values outside personal opinion if you want to find the 'Truth'.
4) Because 'Truth' and 'Honesty' stands independent outside humans for situations in finding the 'Truth' that makes them objective.
Yes of course they are because subjective moral claims are not about morals but rather likes and dislikes or opinions. As far as I understand subjective 'like' and 'dislikes' or opinions are all equal because they are only about the person (subject) and nothing else. A preference for coke is not better than a preference for Pepsi, Fanta, milk, water ect.
OK sorry. But let’s say it wasn’t about that. Are you saying your husband’s opinion is objectively right just because it’s his opinion?
Exactly, therefore how a subjective moral claim would be measured.
No, it's really not. You are stopping him from applying his morality because you think that his morality is wrong, yours is right, and that he must follow your morality in his actions. You are saying, "I will allow you to think in a way contrary to my opinion, but I will not allow you to act in a way contrary to my opinion."
Again, if your opinion applies to other people, then it isn't merely subjective. Clearly if you are going to prevent someone from acting in a way contrary to your opinion, then you believe that your opinion applies to other people.
No, it's really not. You are stopping him from applying his morality because you think that his morality is wrong, yours is right, and that he must follow your morality in his actions. You are saying, "I will allow you to think in a way contrary to my opinion, but I will not allow you to act in a way contrary to my opinion."
Again, if your opinion applies to other people, then it isn't merely subjective. Clearly if you are going to prevent someone from acting in a way contrary to your opinion, then you believe that your opinion applies to other people.
We can't measure morality. That's the point. Whether or not A is more moral than B is a subjective choice, that's why we get situations where there is disagreement about morality.
We're always going to have disagreements in these sort of threads because the first moral quandry that is likely to be presented by those who believe in objective morality is an act with which no person is likely to agree. Such as rape or torturing children. Followed by 'there's no argument you can put forward that says it's ever ok, therefore it must be objective'. Notwithstanding that there are biblical examples of rape that will offer reasons enough - Lot offering his daughters up to be raped and he in turn being raped by them. So argue with a biblical literalist and they'll be able to offer up situations where it is actually allowed.
It's often the premises which are in dispute - which leads to different conclusions. Such as:
A: It's not for us to decide who lives or dies.
B: It's entirely up to us who lives or dies.
Whichever position you hold, you'd feel justified is saying that it is an objective fact. And that therefore any conclusion using that as an initial premise would be true. But we can't have two different conclusions that are both objectively true. So either it is a subjective conclusion. Or one of those premises is wrong. But they depend on one's personal beliefs. So...what else could it be but subjective?
I also have noticed that moral objectivists go for the extreme examples. That's why I like using much more mild examples, such as a child who has stolen a candy bar and what is the morally correct punishment, and all of a sudden I am told, "Ah, well, you see, it's complicated..."
Would you all accept that some people will say that strong morals shared by most of humanity could possibly interpret both?
So therefore when you make moral claims to me about what is right or wrong moral behaviour with bats or rats or that certain examples I give are not examples of objective morality it’s also meaningless. Yet you keep making those moral claims and examples like they have some truth to them beyond you.And you keep missing the point that your question "Why is something morally right or wrong" depends on morality being objective. Since I hold that morality is NOT objective, the question is meaningless to me, and I am not able to answer it.
It would be like me asking, "Hollywood can only explain why television show X is made, it can't explain why it's objectively the best show on TV." The whole thing is based on the idea that the particular TV show is actually the best show. For someone who says that it's a subjective opinion, they can't explain why it's objectively the best show because they don't believe the term objectively best even applies.
So therefore then what you have been claiming about morality and the examples of rats and bats and all that is meaningless as to what morality is as far as the truth. Its just you expressing a preference or opinion for what we should not take seriously.As I've said before, just because a person acts like their subjective opinion is objective doesn't mean it actually is.
What your failing to see is that your premise (that morality = 'likes' and 'dislikes', is wrong in the first place. That’s how you keep getting the wrong idea about morality because that is not what morality is.I see a lot of Star Trek fans who hate (and I mean LOATHE) the new shows like Discovery and Picard. They come in to the Facebook groups and start telling everyone that the new shows are bad and that no one should watch them. This is them trying to push their viewpoint onto others. By your logic, this can't happen unless their viewpoint is objective, which means that the new Star Trek shows are OBJECTIVELY bad.
This is, of course, ridiculous. Whether or not someone thinks the new shows are bad or not is a totally subjective opinion.
So therefore why say it as it’s meaningless. You may as well say steal that chocolate cake as it’s yummy b because there is no destinction between saying don't steal and do steal. They are just preferences, opinions.And the only reason you could be continuing to argue this is if you are a member of the grammar police. I think it's pretty obvious that if I say to someone, "You shouldn't steal that chocolate from the store," that I'm not speaking of an objective fact, but just stating my opinion.
It is an issue sort of as you complained about objective moral claims having not support and yet make objective claims about morality without support. That’s sort of hypocritical. Therefore I could make objective moral claims without support to make my argument. So it’s sort of the same thing.What are you talking about?
Yes, I made a claim that it's an objective fact that there are no objective morals. But since that itself is not a moral statement, there is no issue here.
It’s not a case of disagreeing with the premises. As mentioned before because you already bought into arguing a scenario of how "if there were objective moral laws" as you posed how does this support God as the moral lawgiver assumptions of the premises has already been given by you. It’s just a thought experiment and not a real thing. So if you go along with the premises how can you refute it. It logically stands.I disagree with those premises.
The arguement isn't based on setting criteria. I am using moral realism and arguing that some moral situations necessitate that certain moral values be used regardless of peoples subjective moral views.Okay, since you are the one saying that there is objective morality, how about you provide the criteria which we are to use to determine if some behaviour is moral or not.
I don’t think this has nothing to do with the moral value of 'Honesty' and ’Truth’ in a court to find the truth of a matter. Jurisdiction is about who has the power to make those determinations about what is the 'Truth' of a matter. So no matter what jurisdiction each will have to determine the truth of the matter that appears before them.Are you familiar with the word "jurisdiction"?
Humm not sure, I will have to think on that one. But why don't we treat animals killing one another the same as we do humans who we know have morals.Do you really think this is a good argument? Morality must be objective because we don't get upset when animals kill each other?
OK I would have thought you already knew this.Citation required.
So therefore when you make moral claims to me about what is right or wrong moral behaviour with bats or rats...
Except you said evolution is not about objective morality. So why should we take seriously anything you said about the rat example as its only about preferences. I don't think preferences we can start accepting or rejecting people for these personal opinions or preferences.This sounds like the rat example I gave.
OK sorry I may have misunderstood things. Can you elaborate so I can get a better understanding.Sometimes it seems like you are intentionally misunderstanding my point.
Honest is a moral value (fullstop) in and of itself. Its a virtue. Honesty cannot be a moral part of the time. It will always be a moral. There is 'Honesty' and there is 'Dishonesty'. There is not ' 2/3 Honesty or 1/4 Dishonesty. If someone is 1/2 Honest then they are Dishonest. Honesty doesnt need to be applied to be Honest. It is a virtue in and of itself. You can use it or not use it and when you choose not to use it in a situation where you needed to use it then you are dishonest.My example showed that honesty is not always morally good. Thus we can't conclude that honesty in itself has any moral connotations.
The failure of a court to not find the truth and wrongly convict someoen is not a reflection of the moral values of 'Honesty' and 'Truth'. That is a seperate issue of a poor defence or lack of evidence.No, they do not determine the truth. Lots of people have been wrongly convicted, and many who are guilty (even obviously so) have walked free.
I just gave you a wiki link that says 'Honesty' and 'Truth' are moral values. The arguement I am posing is can we have a dicussion/debate seeking the truth of a matter without the moral values of 'Honesty' and 'Truth'. Thats all we need to know. What is your answer. Can we or not. Actually just remembered you already agreed they are necessary.And again, you have not shown that honesty has any inherent moral value.
You have done no such thing.
Lol. But it’s not my morality I am talking about. It’s yours. You keep making these moral examples like it’s better that people not kill babies than kill babies and making them objective because you are using them as arguments to prove you are right. If subjective morality is only about opinions then why are you using your opinion as the basis for your arguement.Yes I do, and your problem is that you are trying to fit it into your "morality is objective" point of view.
If you try to make something that is subjective fit into an objective hole, it won't fit. All you are doing is complaining that because it doesn't fit, there must be something wrong with the subjective idea.
It's no different to saying, "This circle doesn't fit into the square hole, so it's a pretty lousy square."
But it’s not an assumption and you admitted that 'Honesty' and 'Truth' are necessary for finding the truth of a matter. We have no choice but to make 'Honesty' and 'Truth' objective (independent of subjective views) because they are necessary regardless of peoples subjective opinions, 'likes & 'dislikes", and preferences about whether 'Honesty' and 'Truth' have value or not. They have to have value status to allow people to find the truth.And once again you are starting from the assumption that morality must be objective and that truth has some moral value.
You seem to keep adding another hoop for me to jump through. How about addressing the one I replied to. You said I seem to think that all subjective views are the same. I just showed that they are all the same because they are about 'likes' and 'dislikes' and they are all the same. Try telling someone that because they like Pepsi their 'like' is of less value that someone who 'likes' coke.Yeah. You haven't shown that morality doesn't also fit into this catefory.
I only think this because you argue like the moral examples you give are objective. Are you saying the moral examples you give are only your opinion, just something you prefer.I don't know what in the world would give you the impression that I think anyone's subjective opinion is an objective fact when I have CONSTANTLY been claiming otherwise.
So if you said to me as you have already that "I misrepresented you arguement and that you didn't say what I said you said, how would we measure that you were correct and I did misrepresent your arguement.We can't measure morality. That's the point. Whether or not A is more moral than B is a subjective choice, that's why we get situations where there is disagreement about morality.
I've already done that. Try taking the moral value of 'Truth' out of a debate seeking the 'Truth'. Try taking the moral value of 'Fairness' out of a situation determining 'Fairness'. Etc. etc.Of course, if you can think of a way by which we can measure morality, please feel free to present it.
Actually she has and I have already pointed this out. But I was just going along with this for arguement sake to make another point. It wasnt just about bats, but rats, Beavers, Zebra's ect all having moral behaviour.There is so much wrong with the entire post, but I can't even get past the first sentence. I'm pretty certain that Kylie hasn't made any moral claims about bats because bats don't act morally!
I agree and thats what I said more or less. A sort of pro-social behaviour like you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours so the individuals but also the group benefits. Those who don't participate miss out. But its not about morally right or wrong behaviour.They act instinctively in a way that increases their survivability. We class that as reciprocal altruism but there is no thought of potential benefits, no conscious thinking about species survival - it's an instinct.
No its because I disagree with this further exaplanation. Primarily despite whatever the explaination is any evolutionary explaination of how humans came to understand morality or how it came about is only descriptive and not prescriptive. Nothing in the explanation tells us why something is morally wrong.And we, as a species, have had those same instincts. And they worked. So when we reached a point where we could internalise what we were doing and recognising that it worked, we defined it as being good. And then we started developing a system of morality based on what we had decided was good.
How many times have I explained this. And how many times is it being completely and utterly ignored. Or is it that you are ignoring it or do you simply not understand what is being argued?
But just an observation. You seem to have become rather forthright and frustrated in me not acknowledging or maybe even agreeing with your explanation/conclusion as though you are claiming some objective truth about what is morality or not. I find this a bit ironic really for those who promote subjective morality.
Yes I agree. But it is also objectively true that those subjective opinions about moral right and wrong say nothing about whether those moral rights and wrongs are truly right or wrong. It is just information about the psychological status of the subject. What they like, dislike, prefer and opinionated about morality.If you think this statement is invalid then you really don't understand the subject:
'It is objectively true that people have subjective opinions regarding morality'.
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?