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.
Then you investigate what the angles are of the triangle before you make your determination.
Are you saying that moral realists don't use rationality to determine moral facts/truths.
Yes, it is. You may call the argument "ridiculous" but not the poster.
If the category "mammal" has shades of grey then you must have some creature in mind that the taxonomists have missed. Kindly identify that creature for us.
? Do you have a "typo" to correct? The "but the argument you put forward" has no consequent or predicate. ? What follows from this disjunctive phrase does not make sense. Kindly rewrite your thought.
Without argument, you assert that objectivity requires measure-ability. Let's have your argument to support your assertion.
Except that it's not necessary for you to actually make them up for them to become part of the debate.So lets take our current debate. If I think "honesty and truth" are subjective morals then I can keep making up logical fallacies to win my arguement and the debate would breakdown because you could not tell which was a lie and which was the truth.
No, you only said they are necessary if you want a coherent discussion. You’ve proven nothing, and even if you did, how do you equate necessary with your subjective view to be untouchable?Not sure about that. But in the example I gave this showed that the moral values of "Honesty" and "Truth" are necessary and therefore untouchable.
That’s because in real world discussions, there IS no objective measure for determining right vs wrong; hence my claim that morality is subjectiveOk But the scenario you gave was very ambigious. You were talking about action X being right and wrong but never explain yourself how you were determining these are correctly right and wrong without any objective measure. So it was an unreal sceario or at least one that was not very clear.
But he could reject honesty if he believed honesty to be objective as well! If you disagree, explain what would prevent himYes but because Ken thinks its Honesty is subjective the scenario has to potentially allow for him to reject applying Honesty if he chooses. But he can't even if he wanted to because "Honesty" is necessary.
Objective morality does not change thisThe point is the moral values of "Honesty and Truth"have lost their status as rules and guides for your debate. If you friend lies you have no way of telling or point this out to him. If you still choose to tell the truth no one will know its the truth as the "Truth" as once again there is no way to measure this.
Yes there is; the measure of honesty is your personal subjective viewsThere is no morality at all if you are measuring it under subjective morality because there is no measure of " Honesty" beyond the person. Its just personal opinions
Oh so some moral situations are objective and others subjective? How do you tell the difference? Perhaps you can give an scenario of each.We use moral realism. How morality works in real life. We have to look at each situation and determine if the morals are objective or not as I have done in the debate scenario.
"Sound" is not "either/or" as you claim but both. In the absence of a sensitive creature with ears, there is no sound.Think of the equivocal word 'sound'. One can think of it as compressions and rarefactions in air (or other medium). Or as 'a thing one hears'.
Sound as a physical phenomenon is a fact. An objective category. We can even apply qualities to sound like loudness that can be objectively measured, even if no human is there to hear it.
It seems to me that morality is a human invention like genre. And thus there is no fact of the matter.
It might seem attractive to move entirely to the world of ideas, since my example still rests on the physical phenomenon of sound. But really things become worse. This way lies o_mily and the syllogisms. But we've already seen there is disagreement about the axioms and premises.
"Sound" is not "either/or" as you claim but both.
All of natural science is a human invention. Does that fact render all natural science to be subjective?
Sorry to correct that equivocation. But to correct an error of equivocation is to be honest. But I be me.Most people try to avoid equivocation in rational argument, but you be you.
The idea of gravity is a human conception.Newton's Theory of Gravity is a human invention.
Gravity is not a human invention.
The map is not the territory.
Morality seems to be all map and no territory.
All science is conciliar. That is, a collection of like-minded subjective opinions does not elevate those opines to magically become objective.
You do realize the idea of gravity and the concept of gravity are the same thing; right?The idea of gravity is a human conception.
The concept of gravity is not gravity per se; only an unproven human idea of it.
Mortality is not a scientific theory; morality are human judgments of actions. Scientific theories explain how things work in the natural world. One has nothing to do with the otherIf the theories of morality are not objective then neither are the theories in natural science.
If the category "mammal" has shades of grey then you must have some creature in mind that the taxonomists have missed. Kindly identify that creature for us.
? Do you have a "typo" to correct? The "but the argument you put forward" has no consequent or predicate. ? What follows from this disjunctive phrase does not make sense. Kindly rewrite your thought.
Without argument, you assert that objectivity requires measure-ability. Let's have your argument to support your assertion.
You don't always need some instrument for measurement. We can observe behaviour and determine the way people behave shows certain ways they behave and react to moral situations. We can then determine that people seem to act like morals are objective in moral situations. The same method is used in psychology to determine that certain behaviours exhibit depression, anxiety and other mental states.In the analogy, this means you have some method to objectively determine the morality of an action, like measuring the angles of the triangle with a protractor. What is that objective method? Where are our moral protractors?
We can then determine that people seem to act like morals are objective in moral situations.
OK thats half the support.No, you only said they are necessary if you want a coherent discussion.
Its pretty logical you cannot seek the "Truth" without the "Truth". So you have to allow the "TRuth" its full value and status. You cannot deminish it with subjective views that its not needed in your debate. Otherwise you cannot have the debate.You’ve proven nothing, and even if you did, how do you equate necessary with your subjective view to be untouchable?
But you argue like there is an objective right and wrong or thats the conclusion I keep coming to. You make objective claims like slavery or rape are wrong like you know its the truth not just for yourself but also for myself and everyone.That’s because in real world discussions, there IS no objective measure for determining right vs wrong; hence my claim that morality is subjective
Why would he reject "Honesty" if he thought it was an objective then valuing "Honesty" would make the debate go lot easier. But yeah he could just ignore everything and still reject "Honesty". I just means he cannot have a good debate to find the "Truth" of the matter that seemed to matter to him.But he could reject honesty if he believed honesty to be objective as well! If you disagree, explain what would prevent him
Yes it does as "Truth" and "Honesty" become like laws when objective. No subjective view can change that. People have to respect and uphold their moral value and status. The moment they choose to devalue "Truth" and "Honesty" and make then unnecessary then the debate ends as it breaksdown.Objective morality does not change this
Yes and say it was your personal subjective view that you don't need "Truth" and "Honesty" in a debate seeking the truth. How do you find the truth if "Truth" and "Honesty" are no longer necessary.Yes there is; the measure of honesty is your personal subjective views
There is always a real moral truth in any moral situation but that doesn't stop people having subjective views about morality.Oh so some moral situations are objective and others subjective? How do you tell the difference? Perhaps you can give an scenario of each.
We work out what is the best moral action for that situation.But for the sake of discussion, assume we are referring to an objective moral situation; what method do we employ to verify good vs bad?
Of course it does. Why would people act like trump won the election if he didn't. That would be a counter intuitive reaction. People would think these people are strange. They would realy start thinking things are strange when nearly everyone acts like trump won when he didn't. You'd either think why wasn't I let in on the joke or am I on the Trueman show lol.#1: We can then determine that people seem to act like Trump won the election, but this doesn't make it true that Trump won the election.
I think it does. I think comparing it to a physical ability for taste is not a good comparison because a moral sense of intuition is not a physical thing. The only comparison I have seen is comparing subjective morality to someones "like or dislike" for food. But this is also a poor comparison as objective morality has to be grounded outside the persons head and subjective "like or dislike" or opinions are from inside the persons head.#2: I don't actually think you can make that determination. You can determine that people seem to act as though they really do have some sort of moral sense. But this is hardly a newsflash. That is not the same as showing that morality is objective. Any more than demonstrating that people really do have some sort of taste sense shows that taste is an objective fact.
I just wanted to point out before the example that the fact that people come to a debate or discussion or even issue like you’re talking about with Trump that its not about whether people have their own truths, absolute truths or lies but that there is a “Truth” a truth that is being sought and that matters.Except that it's not necessary for you to actually make them up for them to become part of the debate.
Let's use a current example...the 2020 U.S election. This is something which has certainly been debated a lot lately, and is an important part of many people's worldview.
One of the difficulties in such a debate, and why they do indeed often break down, is because each participant in the debate comes in with their own set of "truths". But these "truths" can be made up of everything from absolute truths to outright lies.
Even though it’s the persons truth the fact that a person’s “Truth” may be a lie or mixed with lies logically implies that there must be an objective truth that the person can know to measure these lies to expose them as mistruths.One participant in the debate may believe that extra ballots were secreted in during the middle of the night, and this may be based on a complete lie, but for that person, this lie constitutes part of their "truth".
I don’t think it’s as bad as that and we can still appreciate and know moral truths like “Truth and Honesty and Fairness” etc. But that’s not the point. It doesn’t matter that we don’t always find the “Truth” or we may come a step closer to finding. It’s that we talk and act like there is an objective moral. We speak of lies and truth like they matter and count not just for me but for everyone the same.And this isn't just true for some people, to some degree or other, it's true for all of us. We all have things that we believe are true, but that we don't actually know are true. Such that in a debate, or in life, it becomes extremely difficult for us to differentiate the truths from the lies.
But if we apply this logic to the physical sciences we could say people have their own truths/views about who assassinated Kennedy, quantum mechanics and even your example as to whether Trump is president. We can determine the objective truth of these matters.And therein lies the problem, because each person has their own subjective set of truths, and this subjective set of truths colors everything we do, from our position in a debate to how we interact with law enforcement, or ethnic groups, or political groups, or gays.
I agree and nowadays its getting really hard with fake news and subjectivism and relativism being promoted so much. Especially on social media. The point is people still act like theres truths beyond them.You're focusing on the fact that they're "truths" with a little "t", but they're only truths in the sense that the person believes them, when in fact, they may not be true at all. So yes, as these forums clearly demonstrate, it becomes impossible to separate the truths from the lies, and debates do quite often break down.
Well the argument for moral realism stems from epistemology. If there are epistemological facts then there are moral facts because morals like “Honesty” and “Truth” are interwoven with epistemological facts.You're pointing at people's reliance on "truths" as if it's a noble and moral thing, when all it is, is one persons subjective opinion versus another person's subjective opinion. And truth, where it exists, is somewhat of an afterthought. Debates aren't so much about finding the truth, as they are about defending each participant's personal version of it.
If truth and honesty really were important to you, then like me, you would be an epistemological solipsist.
? An animal categorized as a mammal cannot be categorized as a non-mammal. An immoral human act cannot be categorized as a moral actquite clear.
You attempted to use the mammal analogy (in which something can't be more or less mammal, it's either a mammal or it isn't) as an analogue to morality. This only works if morality is, likewise, binary. Something is either morally good or it is not morally good or it is not morally good, there are no shades of grey.
If your analogy is correct, then all things in the "morally bad" category are equally bad, just as how all animals in the mammal category are equally mammal. Thus, stealing a chocolate is just as bad as murder.
If you disagree and claim that there are shades of grey when it comes to morality, then you are admitting that the analogy you presented in post 1186 was a waste of everyone's time since it doesn't apply.
You need some way to measure the morality of something in order to show that some moral things are more morally good or bad than others. For example, rape and name calling are both morally bad, but most people would agree that rape is by far worse than name calling. How do you show that rape is worse than name calling if it can't be measured?
I agree that there is more to moral realism. Perhaps you should check out one of the videos I linked earlier. This is very helpful in understanding moral realism. But you can get an idea of what it is like with Wikipedias explanationI say you dont understand what moral realism entails.
Its grossly simplified built on the axiom that morals are objective and the axioms that they can be studied and known with logic and rationality.
The proof is in the way people behave morally. They act out moral truths everyday. You can use an example like I have given and determine the facts ie "You cannot have a debate seeking the truth without making the "Truth" independent of peoples subjective views about its status or value. Its self evident in the way people act/react morally.It has no proof or data supporting the axioms.
I agree that there is more to moral realism. Perhaps you should check out one of the videos I linked earlier. This is very helpful in understanding moral realism. But you can get an idea of what it is like with Wikipedias explanation
Moral realism (also ethical realism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism#:~:text=Moral realism (also ethical realism,they report those features accurately.
Sure there's anti realism arguemnets which are addressed in the articles I have linked. There are also several positive arguements for moral realism that need to be adressed by the skeptic. So it is more complex and I don't deny that.
The axioms are not unfounded. There is good support for this. Its establishing that the moral is independent of the subject and with rationality and logic for which we can at least be justified in our belief that the moral is objective.
The proof is in the way people behave morally. They act out moral truths everyday. You can use an example like I have given and determine the facts ie "You cannot have a debate seeking the truth without making the "Truth" independent of peoples subjective views about its status or value. Its self evident in the way people act/react morally.
For example. If you or I or anyone was walking down the street and we seen a women being attacked we wouldnt walk on by thinking "the rapist is only acting out his subjective views about rape". We stop and think something is wrong.
I would imagine just about everyone who had a conscience would act/react the same way. Then as Wiki says we can use logic and rationality to see if those moral facts "report those features accurately". So theres your evidence, the way the person acts/react to a moral wrong like its wrong beyond their subjective thinking ie an objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion).
Moral realism: Defined
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk88sZw4YhM
Of course it does. Why would people act like trump won the election if he didn't.
I think comparing it to a physical ability for taste is not a good comparison because a moral sense of intuition is not a physical thing. The only comparison I have seen is comparing subjective morality to someones "like or dislike" for food.
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?