Is there Objective Morality?

[partinobodycular]

Ok lets go along with your non sequitur logical fallacy for a moment. What difference will it make to the arguement that there are objective morals by identifying my God as the source of moral objectives.

It doesn't make any difference as far as whether or not there are objective morals, but it makes a world of difference as far as your argument for them goes. You've claimed that truth and honesty are essential in a debate, yet you've chosen to forgo them, thus demonstrating that you really don't seem to believe your own argument. Truth and honesty aren't necessary in a debate. If one needs to be a bit disingenuous, then go ahead.

So it addresses the very heart of your argument, if you wouldn't answer that question honestly, then how am I supposed to trust you to answer any question honestly?

The answer is, it doesn't matter. I'm not relying upon your honesty to inform my conclusions. Debates are full of misinformation, misguided reasoning, and intentional deception, and there's nothing wrong with that. Life is full of those things for gosh sakes, so why should debates be any different?

You wanted to have a debate...well we're having one. But debates don't have to be all cordial and nice. Debates can be confrontational and antagonistic.

 

[stevevw]

That's a false dichotomy. Subjective statements don't have a right or wrong answer. But I'm pretty sure you know that.

Yes and here we have the issue. If morality is objective, if there is a right way to behave in a moral situation then it is silly to say we cannot find a good or best way to behave.

As per my example of a women being attacked in the street. We reason what is the right way to act. Under a subjective morality we would have to say that the attackers actions are not really wrong beyond any subjective view so we can't really say its morally wrong (if there is such a thing as morality).

But say a person says attacking a women "is not wrong in my subjective view" and someone says "Yes it is objectively wrong to attack a women in the street"can we find a right way to act morally in with this disagreement.

Surely we can. Intuitively we don't just walk on by and say "Oh well that's just someone acting out their subjective view and this doesnt matter". We stop and know that this is wrong in some way. We can then follow this up with some rational thinking and logic and come to an objectively right way to behave in that situation.

Otherwise we could never protest and make clear and confident claims that any act like rape, child abuse, stealing old ladies hangbags, tortuting babies is never really wrong. It would just be my opinion that I think its wrong (for this reaon or that reason) which is not a truth statement beyond the person expressing the moral view.

The same way anybody does, by comparing the statement to the evidence and judging accordingly. A mistruth honestly held, is still a mistruth.
See above.

What evidence.

No, most people judge a statement according to the evidence,

What evidence. [/quote] their experience, [/quote] Yes and its intuition that gives us our moral sense which usually through our experience of lived morality.

and the credibility/objectivity of the presenter.

How do you tell the credibility of the presenter if they don't respect "Honesty" and "Truth". You may be able to ask questions but what if they have become a good liar.

Which in the case of theists, and other passionately held beliefs, can be questionable.

Ah, So heres the issue. As I think you claimed in another post that I am using my God as support for objective morality thus being dihonest. But now you say that using God as evidence is questionable. So logic tells us that trying to use my God as support is fruitless and therefore if I am to support objective morality I need to find another way.

Thus the only way and what just happens to be the best way for most things as humans is through rationality and logic. If there are moral objective then we must be able at least sometimes find them through reasoning and logic.

But the "truth or fact" that you find may not be that one of the answers is right and the other one is wrong, rather it may simply be that in this particular case there is no right or wrong answer, only opinions. So there's still a right answer, it's just that that right answer, is that there is no right answer.

So the question becomes "Is there are right answer (way to behave) in moral situations. Can we find the best and most good way to act morally that is beyond any subjective person.

But this means that morality is subjective, because it's based upon what's the most good, and "good" is a subjective term. Therefore any system of categorization that's based upon what's "good" is subjective by default.

The best way to act morally in any situation as far as I understand it should tick a lot of boxes as far as whats good, best but not because of any of these things as they are just the outcomes. We intuitively know what is the right and wrong so we are halfway there.

Logic is also important in determining which is the best way to act and makes the most sense. We would not think that it would be best to allow women to be attacked in the street for any reason. So thats a given. We can further refine things to find a factual way to act thats better then all other ways.

 

[Kylie]

If you have a "good" rape case then you would be correct. You don't, so you are wrong.

And as so often happens, you need to resort to an extreme case to make your point. What about a good case of euthanasia? I could make arguments for good cases and bad cases. Same with abortion.

Measuring the morality of acts, as I have consistently responded, is merely a deflection on your part to avoid my repeated requests for you to refute the arguments I've given that address this thread's topic, ie., "Is Morality Objective?" Your posts are very much like the "flat-earther's" silly attempts to avoid responding to the evidence that the earth is not flat, eg., "Yeah, well just how spherical is it, then?"

You're just trying to avoid answering something that objective morality MUST have. Tell me, who's deflecting? You're just trying to keep me on the defensive. I'm not playing your games anymore.

I wrote that that the act needs further definition. The mere physicality of an act does not describe a human act. Having the faculty of reason gives us insight to know that an act naturally tends toward some proximate end(s) in view. Is the act a child calling out "Mommy" in order to be saved from an oncoming car? Is the name calling an award as in "He's a Nobel Prize Laureate"? You get the point.

Do you understand what name calling is?

Nonsense. If I have no instruments with which to measure I can still by naked eye observation tell you that there is or is not light, or by sense of touch that there is or is not mass, or that there are or are not two points. The categorization of moral and immoral human acts can be determined by observing/examining the object of the act and the circumstances surrounding the act. No need to blow smoke in this thread. It is that simple.

Do you not understand that your eye is a light measuring instrument?

In any case, the determination of light levels is still possible in theory, even if you lack the capacity to do it in practice. You have not been able to demonstrate that differences in morality between two different acts is possible in theory.

 

[Kylie]

Exactly so. Thus, then, how is it that morality is (or is not) objective? Morality (to some) is what one ought to do, as measured against opinion. To others it is what one ought to do, as is measured against God. If the latter are right, it is objective. Opinion changes no fact.

With things that are objective, then it is possible to show other people the evidence and all rational people will agree that the result you have shown them is accurate. I could demonstrate the speed of light in this way, for example. And all people who are shown the result will agree. If I have one value for the speed of light and someone has a different value, then we can find the reason for the discrepancy and I can say, "Oh, you forgot to account for such-and-such in this step here,) and the mistake can be corrected.

But morality can't do this. If I have one moral viewpoint and someone has a differing moral viewpoint, then it is entirely possible that no argument I can make can show the other person that they are wrong. I may not be able to say, "You made a mistake in this bit," and have them say, "Ah yes, I see that now." And this is, I think, best explained by concluding that morality is subjective, not objective.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes and here we have the issue. If morality is objective, if there is a right way to behave in a moral situation then it is silly to say we cannot find a good or best way to behave.

As per my example of a women being attacked in the street. We reason what is the right way to act. Under a subjective morality we would have to say that the attackers actions are not really wrong beyond any subjective view so we can't really say its morally wrong (if there is such a thing as morality).

But say a person says attacking a women "is not wrong in my subjective view" and someone says "Yes it is objectively wrong to attack a women in the street"can we find a right way to act morally in with this disagreement.

Surely we can. Intuitively we don't just walk on by and say "Oh well that's just someone acting out their subjective view and this doesnt matter". We stop and know that this is wrong in some way. We can then follow this up with some rational thinking and logic and come to an objectively right way to behave in that situation.

Otherwise we could never protest and make clear and confident claims that any act like rape, child abuse, stealing old ladies hangbags, tortuting babies is never really wrong. It would just be my opinion that I think its wrong (for this reaon or that reason) which is not a truth statement beyond the person expressing the moral view.

What evidence.

What evidence. their experience, Yes and its intuition that gives us our moral sense which usually through our experience of lived morality. How do you tell the credibility of the presenter if they don't respect "Honesty" and "Truth". You may be able to ask questions but what if they have become a good liar. Ah, So heres the issue. As I think you claimed in another post that I am using my God as support for objective morality thus being dihonest. But now you say that using God as evidence is questionable. So logic tells us that trying to use my God as support is fruitless and therefore if I am to support objective morality I need to find another way.

Thus the only way and what just happens to be the best way for most things as humans is through rationality and logic. If there are moral objective then we must be able at least sometimes find them through reasoning and logic.

So the question becomes "Is there are right answer (way to behave) in moral situations. Can we find the best and most good way to act morally that is beyond any subjective person.

The best way to act morally in any situation as far as I understand it should tick a lot of boxes as far as whats good, best but not because of any of these things as they are just the outcomes. We intuitively know what is the right and wrong so we are halfway there.

Logic is also important in determining which is the best way to act and makes the most sense. We would not think that it would be best to allow women to be attacked in the street for any reason. So thats a given. We can further refine things to find a factual way to act thats better then all other ways.

Can you be wrong in your belief in an objective morality?

 

[Moral Orel]

As per my example of a women being attacked in the street. We reason what is the right way to act. Under a subjective morality we would have to say that the attackers actions are not really wrong beyond any subjective view so we can't really say its morally wrong (if there is such a thing as morality).

Okay, but so what? I can still go stop the act because I don't like that act occurring. I can turn to other folks in the street, point out the act I don't like, and ask, "You don't like that either, right?" and they'll almost definitely agree with me. So we'll all work together to put a stop to it because we'd prefer it didn't happen. In what way does morality need to be objective in that scenario? Isn't everything going to play out exactly the same?

 

[o_mlly]

And as so often happens, you need to resort to an extreme case to make your point. What about a good case of euthanasia? I could make arguments for good cases and bad cases. Same with abortion.

A rape-murder case would be extreme. Rape happens all too frequently to be called extreme. The point is that morality is not subjective as you apparently claim. All that is needed to disprove such a claim is one case of a human act that is objectively bad. Is rape an objectively disordered act or not?

As to other disordered acts, I recall a depraved "good rape" claim by a poster in this thread who suggested that the victim (which patently admits the act is rape) just lay back and try to enjoy the rape and then, if she did, then it was a "good rape". So, I'm sure you could come up with a "good abortion" or a "good 'mercy' killing".

You're just trying to avoid answering something that objective morality MUST have. Tell me, who's deflecting? You're just trying to keep me on the defensive. I'm not playing your games anymore.

There you go again -- asserting w/o an argument. The deflection is all yours. Perhaps this is just a game for you but not for me.

Do you not understand that your eye is a light measuring instrument?

In any case, the determination of light levels is still possible in theory, even if you lack the capacity to do it in practice. You have not been able to demonstrate that differences in morality between two different acts is possible in theory.

The difference in degrees of moral and immoral acts would be an interesting but different thread.

All that is needed to answer this thread's question: "Is morality objective?" is in this thread. I suspect you keep pushing your red herring (but you have to measure the number and size of the nipples first!) to avoid affirming what has been clearly demonstrated -- all morality is not subjective. Since all morality is not subjective, we can proceed to test each claim of subjectivity in particular human acts.

 

[stevevw]

It doesn't make any difference as far as whether or not there are objective morals,

So why even make the claim that I am not declaring my God as the source of objective morality if its irrelevant to proving objective morality. Your making a straw man.

but it makes a world of difference as far as your argument for them goes. You've claimed that truth and honesty are essential in a debate, yet you've chosen to forgo them, thus demonstrating that you really don't seem to believe your own argument. Truth and honesty aren't necessary in a debate. If one needs to be a bit disingenuous, then go ahead.

So are you saying I must declare irrelevant things in the debate of proving objective morals. Why is it important that I declare that my God is the source of objective morality.

But just because I say that my belief in my God is irrelevant to proving objective morals doesnt mean I am lying. Your assuming this issue is important to this thread , but yet admitted its not and now you want to make some straw man arguement that I am not being honest.

So it addresses the very heart of your argument, if you wouldn't answer that question honestly, then how am I supposed to trust you to answer any question honestly?

But your making a straw man. I havnt been dishonest about my belief in my God being the transcendent source of objective morals because it hasnt needed to be an issue or even come up until you are making it an issue. Its an irrelevant issue.

The answer is, it doesn't matter.

Thats exactly right, it doesnt matter. Your making it matter when it doesnt.

I'm not relying upon your honesty to inform my conclusions.

OK lets say I was dishonest. For you to understand that I am being dishonest you are implicitly making "Honesty" an objective moral standard. Otherwise you couldn't even ask me any questions about my honesty and you couldnt tell I was being dishonest because under subjective morality its not wrong to be dishonest.

All we would have is different counter statements with no ability to determine whether they are 'Honest".See how its an impossible moral system to apply. No one is really bound to be honest or find the truth. But as humans we need to do that to even interact with each other.

Debates are full of misinformation, misguided reasoning, and intentional deception, and there's nothing wrong with that. Life is full of those things for gosh sakes, so why should debates be any different?
You wanted to have a debate...well we're having one. But debates don't have to be all cordial and nice. Debates can be confrontational and antagonistic.

I never said that debates have to be cordial or coherent. Not sure about being cordial has got to do with morality. But all I am saying is that we need the moral values of "Honesty and Truth" being help up as independent moral values for our personal views. I you or I subjectively say these morals are unnecessary then there is no obligation for us to abide by them in ruling and guding our debate.

 

[stevevw]

Okay, but so what? I can still go stop the act because I don't like that act occurring.

But on what basis would you do that when its only your opinion. You are forcing your opinion onto the attacker. The attacker ois only acting out his moral opinion. No one opinion is morally best under subjective moraly. It would be like you stopping a person eating chocolate cake because its morally wrong. It doesnt make sense or work.

There are a number of serious objections to subjectivism. Here are just four:
1. If subjectivism is true, then the opinions of those in power are more easily forced upon others, while those who may oppose these opinions have no recourse or any "objective" grounds for objecting to these prevailing opinions. In other words, if subjectivism is true, then "might makes right".

2. If subjectivism is true, then there is no possibility of anybody being wrong; there will only be differences of opinion and preference.

3. If subjectivism is true and ethical claims express nothing more than our own attitudes about a particular act or behavior, then genuine ethical disagreement would be impossible.

4. If subjectivism is true and ethical claims express nothing more than our own attitudes about a particular act or behavior, then neither would any genuine ethical agreement be possible.
Isn't Ethics Just an Opinion?, Ethics - Wesleyan University

I can turn to other folks in the street, point out the act I don't like, and ask, "You don't like that either, right?" and they'll almost definitely agree with me. So we'll all work together to put a stop to it because we'd prefer it didn't happen.

But all you have managed to do is get several people whose personal opinion just happen to agree. That is not enough to start stopping other people acting on their personal opinions. Remember under a subjective moral system there are no moral objectives (truths or facts) that a certain act is wrong. So you really dont have any basis for stopping the attacker.

He could turn around and say what right have you got to stop me. You would say because its my/our opinion that you are wrong. The attacker says "So what your opinion doesnt mean its really wrong" in any way outside yourself. So why are you projecting your personal morality on me.

In what way does morality need to be objective in that scenario? Isn't everything going to play out exactly the same?

Because no one can really say that what the attacker has done is really morally wrong. Therefore subjective morality is an impossible system to apply practcially.

Thats why I say that though we express subjective feelings, views of morality we actually live like morals are objective because as you say you and others really want to stop that type of behaviour. You want to apply morality outside yourself and make others follow what you think is right.

Otherwise you have no authority to stop others based on an opinion. You have to have a grounding for morality outside your opinions and "Likes and Dislikes".

 

[Moral Orel]

Because no one can really say that what the attacker has done is really morally wrong. Therefore subjective morality is an impossible system to apply practcially.

No, it's perfectly easy to apply practically. I prefer X doesn't happen, therefore I prevent X from happening. It's as simple as that.

 

[stevevw]

So which is morally right; justice? or forgiveness.

They are both morally right things to do. We intuitively know that. But you have to state what the situation is to which the moral applies to determine their rightness or wrongness. Take "Justice". C. S. Lewis explains "how can I know what Justice is if there is no measure about whether there is justice or injustice". He uses the example of "I can only know that a stick is straight by knowing what a crooked stick is.

In otherwords in protesting that there is injustice in the world supposes there is a measure of what justice is or is not. Otherwise its just a word. So it follows that if we think "Justice and Injustice" matter morally and the "Truth" for that matter as this is related to "Justice" then they need to have a basis and value beyond peoples personal opinions or views of morality.

So we should be able to at least try to establish the best way to act morally in situations where "Justice" and "Forgivness" are issues that matter using rationality and logic to find the objectively right or wrong way to behave.

Correct. If humans did not exist, there would be no morality.

Actually as with Maths morality is discovered not created by humans.

If a male lion approaches a female lioness, kills her cubs, and has sex against her will forcing her to bear his cubs, is that evil abuse and rape? Or nature.

I think animals are not moral creatures. They have no conscience. They just live socially and by instinct.

But that still doesn’t mean you have to try to be honest in order to be able to tell when someone else is lying.

If you dont respect "Honesty" as a rule or guide then how do you tell a lie for a truth. Its like saying how do you tell a crooked stick if you don't know what a straight stick looks like.

Again; if this objective moral is outside of human thought, how do you verify it correct?

By our intuition that we know moral truths and by reasoning that the moral is the best option in how to act in that situation.

Good by which standard? Often the same action that is good for one group is tragic for another. If I am selling my house, a drop in housing prices is tragic for me, but if I am buying a house, that same action is good for me.

You are describing subjective morality and actually making an arguement against it and for there being objective morals. As you said we have to have an independnt standard of what is moral outside people.

No, you said objective morality is outside human thought. Intuition is based on human thought. Try again?

We can use thought to determine that something is objective outside humans just like we can use thought to determine the objective fact outside human opinion that the earth is roundand not flat. So we can use the same method except the moral facts are not phyical. They are like Math facts (abstract). But we can use rationality and logic to find these moral facts just like Maths.

 

[stevevw]

No, it's perfectly easy to apply practically. I prefer X doesn't happen, therefore I prevent X from happening. It's as simple as that.

But how do you make others follow your preferences. Whta basis can you force your preferences on others if preferences are subjective and have no truth beyond you for others.

 

[stevevw]

Can you be wrong in your belief in an objective morality?

Yes and thats why we dont just rely on belief. Belief can be subjective.

 

[Tinker Grey]

But how do you make others follow your preferences. Whta basis can you force your preferences on others if preferences are subjective and have no truth beyond you for others.

There is no making or forcing of others. There is no objective morality to which we are held.

What there is are agreements at various levels of society: family, friends, co-workers, tribe, nations (not intended as an exhaustive list.) @Moral Orel said/implied this in #1288 and #1292.

You've heard of the social contract, have you not? If I think something is an important behavior pattern, I try to convince my cohort of it. If I can, well. If not, we might compromise. If not that, then I might give up. If I still care, I find a new cohort. Every day, in some sense or other and in some degree or other, we renegotiate our contract.

If I act to stop a rape, I do so in part because I believe that others in the social contract will agree that my actions are consistent with the contract. (I say "believe" lightly. Humans evolved as social beings. In a sense my actions are bred into me WRT to the social contract. We evolved to react instinctively WRT to the contract.)

So again, their no "forcing" no "making" no holding each other up to some standard that none of us agreed to. There is only the contract. If you don't like it, renegotiate it.

 

[stevevw]

Have you been aware of any US political news in the past year?

Sort of but probably not up with what it was like in the US. But I don't think people acting like Trump won the election when he may not have is about morality. I think theres more dynamics going on there like social media which can promote fake news and personal views over the truth.

Nevertheless most of those people genuinely believed Trump was ripped off so they did think "JUstice" was important which also makes "Truth" important. The point is "its because people are protesting and reacting like an injustice was done" that points to an appeal to the moral values of "Justice" and the "Truth". People are acting/reacting like these morals are real even if they are wrong and mistaken about whether an immoral act was done or not.

OK, I'm trying to salvage what your point might have been.
Among that crowd, I'm sure there are many who sincerely believe that Trump won the 2020 election.

I would say most. Otherwise you have to assume some had other motives perhaps to (cause trouble) because they had deeper issues with the system. Hense the over reaction by some in attacking Capital Buildings.

And so their actions that we see are consonant with that belief. We understand that their beliefs have motivated these actions that we observe.

But my point is that sincerely holding the belief that Trump won the 2020 election does not imply that it is true that he won the election. (In fact, he lost.)

Likewise, sincerely holding the belief that "Moral facts exist (i.e. morality is objective)" does not imply that statement is true. So even if I granted that people act as though it is true does not shed any light on whether it actually is.

Therefore we also use rationality and logic to try and determine the moral facts, the best way to act morally. In the case of the Trump supporters you exposed the truth in that in reality Trump lost.

But if people felt that there was an injustice they are acting in accordance with their intuitions based on a genuine belief there was an injustice. We don't usually see a mass of people attacking the government for no reason. We would find it strange and counter intuitive. So this still shows how we know morals truths. Justice is still being made an objective even if people are mistaken about the situation.

You're discussing observational studies of people's behavior (i.e. physical actions in the physical world). Some people, when presented with Brussels Sprouts, say 'Thanks, I'll pass.' Some people, when presented with an opportunity to take a wallet found on the sidewalk, turn it in to the police.

This certainly tells us something about people's internal propensities. But I don't see how you can conclude that someone acts as though they subjectively believe they don't like Brussels sprouts, but acts as though they objectively believe they don't like theft.

It’s easy as far as I know because when you’re talking about a "Like or Dislike" for food (Brussel sprouts) this doesn’t equate to morality. That is the issue because if there are moral truths then they need to be grounded in something outside a person "Likes or Dislikes". It’s not morally wrong to "Dislike" Brussel sprouts.

But when it comes to finding a wallet full of money we intuitive know its not our money and taking it is stealing. We can work out the best way we can act morally. We know that it would be counter intuitive to say "Finders keeper’s loser weepers". So we can rationally think there is a better way to act in this situation then other ways to act and then find the best way regardless of peoples personal opinions.

We must be able to say "Finders keepers loser weepers" is not the best way to act morally. It would be strange (counter intuitive) to live in a world that just allows people to take other people’s money all the time and doesn’t allow us to say that certain things are just wrong no matter what people subjective think. It would be like thinking its normal for rocks to roll up hills rather than down.

And again, back to the first point, even if they believe their moral sense is objective, that doesn't make it so.

As mentioned this situation is really about "Justice" (that someone was denied an election win). The possibility that the people may be wrong about the fact that Trump won or not doesn’t change the fact that people are acting like "Justice" is an important moral. This happens all the time.

People may be wrong about abortion and the Foetus being a human life. They protest that abortions should be allowed because they believe they should have the right. But when evidence shows that the Foetus may be actually be a human life and feel pain etc. they usually change their position because they intuitive know life is precious (important). We act like life is important.

Finally, is "how Brussels sprouts tastes to me" a physical thing? Or something that happens in my head?]

It happens in your head and so if you equated it with morality you would have to conclude that someone liking brussle sprouts is morally wrong. Thats how strange subjective tastes or opinions sound when applied to morality. Morality doesn't work like that.[/quote]

 

[stevevw]

There is no making or forcing of others. There is no objective morality to which we are held.

What there is are agreements at various levels of society: family, friends, co-workers, tribe, nations (not intended as an exhaustive list.) @Moral Orel said/implied this in #1288 and #1292.

You've heard of the social contract, have you not? If I think something is an important behavior pattern, I try to convince my cohort of it. If I can, well. If not, we might compromise. If not that, then I might give up. If I still care, I find a new cohort. Every day, in some sense or other and in some degree or other, we renegotiate our contract.

If I act to stop a rape, I do so in part because I believe that others in the social contract will agree that my actions are consistent with the contract. (I say "believe" lightly. Humans evolved as social beings. In a sense my actions are bred into me WRT to the social contract. We evolved to react instinctively WRT to the contract.)

So again, their no "forcing" no "making" no holding each other up to some standard that none of us agreed to. There is only the contract. If you don't like it, renegotiate it.

But by what basis besides an agreement do people act morally.

I think society does force people to act a certain way even without their agreement. Laws are one way as some laws are underpinned by morality ie Stealing, Killing for example. But even laws like easy divorce are taking a moral position on relationships and families. Also through corporations who hold a lot of power over people morally and we have seen how this can impact of people with different moral views.

I think there is also a growing empowerment (forbetter or worse) of individuals through social media. People can generate immence power to force others to act in certain ways according to their moral views. We see this with the coinstant objections and condemning fo epoples behaviour ilike they know the moral truth of how we should live morlaly.

Any reason people come up with in why people should act morally has no basis no matter how many people agree. Plus how do we know that the agrred morals are not what we intuitive know is right anyway and we are just acknowledging objective morals. Afterall if they are real then we will know and act them out.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes and thats why we dont just rely on belief. Belief can be subjective.

And your support for ”objective morals” besides belief is…?

 

[stevevw]

And your support for ”objective morals” besides belief is…?

As I mentioned it begins with our intuitive knowledge of morality. We know moral truths and we act like we know them. So we can then follow this up with applying rationality and logic to see if these moral truths stand up independent of humans. I have given examples and support for this already. Are you saying Moral Realism is based on faith and nothing else.

 

[VirOptimus]

As I mentioned it begins with our intuitive knowledge of morality. We know moral truths and we act like we know them. So we can then follow this up with applying rationality and logic to see if these moral truths stand up independent of humans. I have given examples and support for this already.

No, you have not supported anything. You just state things that boil down to ”faith”.

 

[stevevw]

No, you have not supported anything. You just state things that boil down to ”faith”.

Ok so is what you just said an objective truth or just your opinion. How do you tell that my only support for objective morlaity is my faith.