- May 22, 2015
- 7,379
- 2,640
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
Not when you are speaking "under moral subjectivism". You are claiming that under moral subjectivism there are shoulds!
Upvote
0
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.
Not when you are speaking "under moral subjectivism". You are claiming that under moral subjectivism there are shoulds!Yes I see this but I am not contradicting myself because I think there are moral objectives so I can claim there are "Shoulds".
I agree objective morality is hard to describe/explain. I cannot like many other philosophers and ethicists give a knock down answer to what is objective morality. It would be a bit like trying to describe the experience of colours. Both colours and morals are real yet hard to explain. So the first thing is to understand how moral truths/facts differ from physical facts and that truths/facts can be supported in non-material waysIt's just something you say every post, Steve. But I've not seen in any way whatsoever at any time what you might think it can actually be. There is zero evidence for this. There is no way that you indicate how you might have access to it. You haven't told us how you know it's right when you access it. You haven't gone into any details about it whatsoever.
Are we talking about information you personally receive in a supernatural way? Do you mean God? Is this revelation? If it is, how do you know it's accurate? If it is, what do we say when someone else says they have it but their opinion on a moral matter is completely different?
If you know what's right or wrong because you have some way of knowing, then if we have any moral problem whatsoever then we can simply ask you. You become the oracle. So if you have some way, then I want to know about it.
If you don't, then your personal views on any moral problem are just as valid as mine. So let us know how you access this grounding. Tell us how you know what is right and wrong.
OK well its actually the opposite so I don't know how that could be. If I was speaking under subjective morality to explain subjective morality I would say to the person who has done me the moral wrong I hate so much that "I see it my way and you see it yours and neither of us has done any wrong so live and let live".Not when you are speaking "under moral subjectivism". You are claiming that under moral subjectivism there are shoulds!
I agree objective morality is hard to describe/explain. I cannot like many other philosophers and ethicists give a knock down answer to what is objective morality. It would be a bit like trying to describe the experience of colours. Both colours and morals are real yet hard to explain. So the first thing is to understand how moral truths/facts differ from physical facts and that truths/facts can be supported in non-material ways
Perhaps I just have an inability to explain things well. All I can say is read a couple of articles on moral realism and you will get a better understanding of what I mean.
I disagree. I use the stones to provide physical evidence for it by explaining why 2+2=4The stones are just tools to help you show the facts that are already there. 2+2=4 was a fact before you laid the stones out. We have no physical evidence for it and yet its a fact we cannot totally explain why.
Truth cannot be an objective measure unless you already know the truth. By definition; the measure must already be agreed upon by all parties involved in order for it to be an objective measure.Morality works the same. For example when 2 people get togther to seek the "Truth" of a matter the moral value of "Truth" needs to be an objective measure for this to happen coherently.
Math equations are based upon agreed upon rules, morality is not.The Math equation is based on human thought. They are calculating the numbers to get the answer. The same with morality as I explained above.
A measurement of behavior? No; popularity is not an indicator of truth! 400 years ago, everybody behaved as if slavery were morally acceptable, today everybody behaves as if it is not. Going by your logic and reason what was moral 400 years ago is not moral today. That is not the definition of objective morality. Again; what is objective morality based on if not human thought?We can measure the behaviour of people in moral situations to see if we need moral truths to make them work (add up if you like). There is no gusessing it can all be reasoned out and by using logic.
No it can’t. You indicated moral facts can be determined by looking at human behavior. Human behaviors change over time and culture; facts do not. Again how would you objectively prove the person who slept with your wife was wrong to do so?Like the legal law we could point to certain moral "Truths"or "Facts"and say this behaviour is right and that behaviour is wrong without any personal opinions undermining their status.
... and that's the problem. In the concrete, there is no "anything"; only "something".
I dont understand. Can you explain please? Thank you.I think that says enough.
I dont understand. Can you explain please? Thank you.
Is science is subjective then, because a person decided it was true?Something which is subjective depends on what a person thinks about it. So if I decide that something is immoral then that makes it subjective. Something which is objective is objective whatever someone thinks about it. So it's immoral whatever I decide.
You can't 'objectively decide' that something is immoral. If you decide it's immoral then it's subjective.
Does that make sense to you?
Is science is subjective then, because a person decided it was true?
Yes i mean Scientific evidence. And you can decide if that procedure is true.No. Nobody decides if 'science is true'. Science is a procedure. Maybe you're thinking of evidence or facts. Or maybe theories. I don't know.
Evidence are the available facts about any given matter. Facts are true by definition. A theory is a proposal which explains the evidence.
Yes i mean Scientific evidence. And you can decide if that procedure is true.
So you don't believe i can scientifically find out whether or not i risk jail for stealing, or risk not having health care if i kill all the HC professionals? Science cannot determine that?
I was just showing how we can objectively decide that killing and stealing can be morally wrong. Science says so.Scientific evidence are facts which are by definition true. No scientist says 'this is true because I believe it'. It either is or it ain't. It's either objectively true or false.
Stealing is defined as being wrong. Whether it is morally acceptable is relative to the facts as opposed to it being an absolute truth. We aren't discussing absolute or relative truths (although there is a thread on that if you want to chip in).
And killing all HC professionals? What..?
A "want" is subjective.
Each peoples wants are different.
A "Want, opinion or preference" is not enough to be an independent measure beyond humans
I was just showing how we can objectively decide that killing and stealing can be morally wrong. Science says so.
So science does not say that there ought to be less carbon emissions? Your answer seems like mental gymnastics. I ought to quit smoking for my health. Science says so.Science is about how things are, not how they ought to be.
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?