Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

As I have stated, I think objective/subjective is meaningless as "objective" pre-supposes a objective agent, i.e. god(s).

So you also acknowledge that "If there was objective morals" then this would logically lead to their being some objective agent. This would mean you are supporting my arguement.

If it was possible to show that there was a "objective" true morality it would already have been done. You should try to read some real books on the subject.

I have read on the subject and its always good to read more so I will take your advice.

But as far as I understand there are some good logical and rational arguements for objective morality when you consider that proving objective morality is not the same as proving something objective with science.

For example as I have already mentioned
People cannot seek the truth of a matter without making morals like "Honesty" and "Truth" independent and necessarily valuable morals beyond humans subjective views.

So showing that these morals are objective is self-evident in that the morals stand up in real moral situations which people want and need to engage in as part of being human. If they don't respect and hold up these morals they cannot engage in that activity.

 

[o_mlly]

Now you are just being ridiculous.

Being a mammal is a binary thing. Either something is a mammal or it is not.

If we apply this logic to morality, then rape is just as bad as stealing a chocolate.

You are going to extreme lengths to avoid answering my question, which just shows that you can't answer it. You have no objective measure for morality because morality is subjective.

If one cannot argue their case then they often resort to adolescent name calling. So far, "you're manipulative", "you're deceitful" and now "you're ridiculous" are the ad hominems you and others have employed.

Examine the illogical reasoning in your post. Do you not see it? Your false conclusion -- "rape is just as bad as stealing" -- does not follow from "either something is a mammal or it is not". What does follow is exactly what I have claimed. "Either something is immoral or it is not".

Second, once again, as do others, you commit the logical fallacy of begging the question. The question is "Is morality objective?" You begin by assuming that "because morality is subjective" which begs the question.

Show us the "good rape" case. Show us how taxonomy as used in the science of zoology is essentially different than categorizing moral and immoral acts based on objective criteria. Show us something besides how you feel about morality. I cannot argue how you feel about morality. I have argued about how one thinks about morality. And do, please, take a break from the ad hominems.

 

[VirOptimus]

So you also acknowledge that "If there was objective morals" then this would logically lead to their being some objective agent. This would mean you are supporting my arguement.

I have read on the subject and its always good to read more so I will take your advice.

But as far as I understand there are some good logical and rational arguements for objective morality when you consider that proving objective morality is not the same as proving something objective with science.

For example as I have already mentioned
People cannot seek the truth of a matter without making morals like "Honesty" and "Truth" independent and necessarily valuable morals beyond humans subjective views.

So showing that these morals are objective is self-evident in that the morals stand up in real moral situations which people want and need to engage in as part of being human. If they don't respect and hold up these morals they cannot engage in that activity.

Your posts is riddled with logical fallacies and simple misunderstanding about basic moral philosophy, so much so thats its no use trying to untangle it. Its like trying to talk partial differential equations with someone who barely grasp arithmetics.

Seriously, read some real moral philosophy texts.

 

[VirOptimus]

If one cannot argue their case then they often resort to adolescent name calling. So far, "you're manipulative", "you're deceitful" and now "you're ridiculous" are the ad hominems you and others have employed.

Examine the illogical reasoning in your post. Do you not see it? Your false conclusion -- "rape is just as bad as stealing" -- does not follow from "either something is a mammal or it is not". What does follow is exactly what I have claimed. "Either something is immoral or it is not".

Second, once again, as do others, you commit the logical fallacy of begging the question. The question is "Is morality objective?" You begin by assuming that "because morality is subjective" which begs the question.

Show us the "good rape" case. Show us how taxonomy as used in the science of zoology is essentially different than categorizing moral and immoral acts based on objective criteria. Show us something besides how you feel about morality. I cannot argue how you feel about morality. I have argued about how one thinks about morality. And do, please, take a break from the ad hominems.

What is the source of this "objective morality"? Where does it come from? What is it made of?

 

[stevevw]

Your posts is riddled with logical fallacies

OK lets simply things. Can you give me one logical fallacy I have made.

 

[stevevw]

What is the source of this "objective morality"? Where does it come from? What is it made of?

Lets keep things simple again. If there were objective morals do you think they would be a "physical" thing or something "Non material".

 

[VirOptimus]

OK lets simply things. Can you give me one logical fallacy I have made.

"People cannot seek the truth of a matter without making morals like "Honesty" and "Truth" independent and necessarily valuable morals beyond humans subjective views."

 

[VirOptimus]

Lets keep things simple again. If there were objective morals do you think they would be a "physical" thing or something "Non material".

I dont speculate about things that isnt shown to exist.

 

[stevevw]

"People cannot seek the truth of a matter without making morals like "Honesty" and "Truth" independent and necessarily valuable morals beyond humans subjective views."

How is that a logical fallacy.

 

[stevevw]

I dont speculate about things that isnt shown to exist.

Ok so you don't think moral values exist at all.

 

[VirOptimus]

How is that a logical fallacy.

See above, read some basic philosophy and logic.

 

[o_mlly]

What is the source of this "objective morality"? Where does it come from? What is it made of?

Read the thread.

 

[VirOptimus]

Ok so you don't think moral values exist at all.

Correct.

 

[VirOptimus]

Read the thread.

Ok, you cant answer. Fair enough.

 

[stevevw]

See above, read some basic philosophy and logic.

So what I am proposing is from read philosophy. It is based on "moral realism". Do you know what this is.

 

[stevevw]

Correct.

well that explains a lot of where you are coming from. Thats another position altogether in this debate. In fact as I am basing my arguemnet for objective morality on "moral realism" its almost the complete opposite of your position.

 

[VirOptimus]

well that explains a lot of where you are coming from. Thats another position altogether in this debate. In fact as I am basing my arguemnet for objective morality on "moral realism" its almost the complete opposite of your position.

Yes it is, and you should really really learn more about both moral realism and its critique.

And as moral realism is founded in the notion that there are objective morals you arguing with that as a basis is strange. You then suppose that which you argue for.

 

[VirOptimus]

So what I am proposing is from read philosophy. It is based on "moral realism". Do you know what this is.

Of course I do, I have studied moral philosophy at university level.

 

[Ken-1122]

People cannot seek the truth of a matter without making morals like "Honesty" and "Truth" independent and necessarily valuable morals beyond humans subjective views.

That sounds a bit absurd. What makes you think when a person seek truth, the morals of honesty and truth values are independent beyond human subjective views? What are you basing this on?

 

[stevevw]

Yes it is, and you should really really learn more about both moral realism and its critique.

And as moral realism is founded in the notion that there are objective morals you arguing with that as a basis is strange. You then suppose that which you argue for.

Ok I will continue to read to learn more as I think its an interesting topic. But theres a bit more to moral realism then assuming objective morals. Logic and rationality is also used to determine moral facts about which is the best way to behave/act morally.