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.
No, we first begin with concrete cases, not bizarre abstractions. Try it out.So that's how we find out what is objectively moral. We ask for the opinion of reasonable people.
Vindictive?That's exactly the problem with imagined abstract morality stories. Any father of a 12 year old daughter who inflicts a vindictive punishment -- 1 day or 10 years -- commits an immoral act. Didn't your daughter ever tell you, "Dad, get real". If not then she should have.
No, we first begin with concrete cases, not bizarre abstractions. Try it out.
Probably not but y'all are welcome. Glad we could help y'all out.'punishments that a reasonable person would consider cruel and unusual are objectively immoral.'
Again, thanks for that. It tells us all we need to know.
You've got a misplaced pronoun there. The "it" is the term of the punishment inflicted, not the morality of the act. We've already determined that dad is out of order which makes the term irrelevant. Next?Hey, you've told us how we tell if it's objectively immoral: We ask reasonable people for their opinion.
I agree but we are talking about how people subjectively think that a fact is not a fact becaus ethey see things differently. So your just agreeing with me that subjective thinking, beliefs, feelings ect are irrelevant to the facts.Genuine belief is irrelevant. All that matters is what viewpoint the evidence supports.
First you used a different example originally which changes the entire reasoning. Here you are comparing different temperatures. So its a variation with the same thing and not a comparison between 2 different things as you originally said.And which is worse?
When it comes to anything that is objective, I can clearly specify the difference in degrees. I can tell you exactly what the difference is between the temperature of object A and the temperature of object B. Anyone can come and measure those two objects and reach the same conclusion. Can you do the same for two different moral acts? I'll even let you choose the two acts. We'll see if everyone can reach the same conclusion regarding how much more morally worse one is than the other.
I'm not saying we can't determine better or worse moral acts in general. We can look at all evil acts and say there are acts that are worse than others. Like Hitler or Poll Pot compared to Jonny taking a candy bar. But when the acts become closer in value its harder to work out which is more wrong in different situations.Why do you say they cannot be compared? We are talking about the same thing in both cases - the morality of the situation. How can you claim that morality is objective while being unable to specify a way to demonstrate that clearly, such as by showing the objective difference between the morality of two situations?
What part of saying you cannot compare two different moral situations as to which one is worse don't you understand. Or are you saying because I did not answer this in the way you thought it should be answered must mean I am hiding from the truth. If so then give some arguement rather than say excuses, excuses. Otherwise thats another logical fallacy as far as I can see.
But that wasn't yoiur example originally. It was between 2 completely different moral situations. Comparing apples with oranges. There all fruit but how do you say one is better or worse than the other.It's like saying you can't compare the temperature of a block of metal to the temperature of water because one's a solid and the other is a liquid.
I have just shown that it can be if you put your mind to it. It just takes more effort and reasoning for some matters more than others. But I keep coming back to the same logic. What do you think you will achieve in showing that we cannot show that some morals are worse than others.You claim they have something in common - morality - yet you seem to be saying that the morality can't be compared. Why not? We are not talking about two different things here.
You've effectively said that there is no answer. No one person can say what is objective. That's the second time you've said that.
I think that sums up the position succinctly. But poses a follow up question. Let's skip to it. If no-one can tell if morality is objective, how can anyone claim that it is?
Let’s apply that to other examples. If no one can tell if our physical world is (our reality) then how can anyone claim that it is what it is?You've effectively said that there is no answer. No one person can say what is objective. That's the second time you've said that.
I think that sums up the position succinctly. But poses a follow up question. Let's skip to it. If no-one can tell if morality is objective, how can anyone claim that it is?
That’s because unfortunately, all values are completely subjective.If one does not hold anything as objectively valuable, then in all honesty I do not know how I would go about explaining in any meaningful way to such a person that it was objectively wrong.
But calling it objectively wrong doesn’t fix anything; the rapist would simply disagree.The "fact" is that doing something like that would scar a young child, both psychologically and physically, due, in part, to the fact that the child could neither reasonably give consent nor defend itself against such an act, and that this act would cause temporal pain, and possibly, long term sexual disfunction (both mentally and physically). But, if the worldview of the person does not give any value to the other person, why would they care, other than the fact that it was illegal to do such an act, and society would punish such an act both by imprisonment and by social stigma.
IMO the world would be a much better place if morality were objective; we could fix all the worlds problems by just legislating morality! We would have never had slavery, human sacrifice, even issues of today like abortion, capital punishment or the use of Nuclear Weapons during war would be solved without the hostility and hatred those discussions cause today. But wishing something to be true, recognizing the importance of something does not make it real, unfortunately morality, or at least the direction of it is, and always has been based upon the subjective views of the powers that beThe problem, then, as I see it, is that if we cannot establish any objective moral foundation for valuing others, then there can be no real foundation for laws and stigma's against such activity other than public sentiment. Such a situation, my friends, is terrifying to contemplate. Those in power could engineer propaganda campaigns to change public sentiment and stigmas into any form they wish. Indeed, this is being tried all over the world, with varying levels of success. If no objective moral standard is truly the situation, then it is not mostly military might that wins the day, but who best controls the value structure of societies that will win in the end. Orwell and Huxley both saw this very clearly, as do I.
Because the truth is not determined by what I find comfortable.What I don't understand, is why, Why, WHY would anyone ever hold such a view, defend it, and seek to spread it!?! Even if you think philosophically that such is the situation, doesn't the whole thing chew away at the heart of your psyche?
and how is objective morality impossible. Your arguing this negative. You may have shown me how it is hard to apply objective morality in one situation. But how does it then follow that objective morality is impossible in all situations. Thats the logical fallacy.Me pointing out a situation where your "objective morality" can't possibly apply is not a logical fallacy. It's me demonstrating that objective morality is impossible.
Are you saying we should not rationalize what is the best way to behave and not take into consideration the cricumstances, people involved ect.And there you go, trying to make it complicated.
Lets go through these one by one. FirstYou speak of objective morality, but whenever you are given the chance to put it into practice, you refuse to and make excuses.
Yes, I think the ability to perceive and feel is necessary to value things.I see your position more clearly now, thank you. So, value is a "sentiment" held within a certain kind of consciousness... could we accurately call such a consciousness "sentient"?
Ok you called Trump a Schmuck. You are now using an objective measure to describe someone.
I beg to differ.
can you explain this?
Agreed, it doesn't necessarily follow.First its a logical fallacy to say because people think differently that there are no moral truths.
And I have consistently supported that. If you remember I explained objective morality can accommodate circumstances. So the reasoning that was used to find the moral truth in one specific situation cannot be automatically applied to a different moral situation. Each needs to be determined by reasoning.Your claim was that 'there needs to be a right or a wrong'. That doesn't allow for a degree of wrongness.
Yes, it either moral or immoral for each moral situation. A moral truth can be found for each moral situation that cannot be made unnecessary by subjective views. Your getting confused I think because you think we can't reason out each moral situation to find the truth rather than slap a truth on the situations ignoring the circumstances.It's either moral or immoral.
We may not be able to determine the truth under some situations. You are right there may be some grey areas we are not aware of or don't understand. But this does not mean there is no truth to be found. It may be we find more information, we understand better with time and investigation and we can make a better determination. The point is we act like it matters and that a clear and objective determination needs to happen.But let's say that you don't know the details. You aren't sure of the outcome. That you don't understand the scenario in enough depth. But you are still saying there is no grey area. It's one or the other.
Yes people can reason like that. This is exactly what I am saying. But what your not seeing is that when people are argueing whats the better/best time for punishment they are implicitly acknowledging a basis for measuring this. Otherwise what does 1, 3, 5 hours or the whole day even mean if there was no objective basis. They would just be different numbers with no meaning.As opposed to almost everyone else who would say something along the lines of: 'Well, in my opinion, one hour is OK, three hours is probably too long. Five? I personally wouldn't agree to that. But a whole day is definitely too long. And a week is positively criminal'.
Not sure of a specific time as I dont think even medicines that acurrate. But we should be able to determine in each case when it in unfair and unjust to overpunish a child. The point is we know we can get some broad measures of what is better behaviour than others. You acknowledged those, ie 1 hour is better that a whole day.So let's skip asking you for a specific time when it becomes immoral. Let's just ask if it's your position that there is some specific moment when it becomes immoral, whatever that moment would be.
We took away your wiggle room a long time ago - post #1314:That doesn't allow for a degree of wrongness. It's either moral or immoral. But let's say that you don't know the details. You aren't sure of the outcome. That you don't understand the scenario in enough depth. But you are still saying there is no grey area. It's one or the other.
And, yes I do claim that every human act in the concrete is objectively moral or immoral.
As opposed to almost everyone else who would say something along the lines of: 'Well, in my opinion, one hour is OK, three hours is probably too long. Five? I personally wouldn't agree to that. But a whole day is definitely too long. And a week is positively criminal'.
So let's skip asking you for a specific time when it becomes immoral. Let's just ask if it's your position that there is some specific moment when it becomes immoral, whatever that moment would be.
When it comes to anything that is objective, I can clearly specify the difference in degrees. I can tell you exactly what the difference is between the temperature of object A and the temperature of object B. Anyone can come and measure those two objects and reach the same conclusion. Can you do the same for two different moral acts? I'll even let you choose the two acts. We'll see if everyone can reach the same conclusion regarding how much more morally worse one is than the other.
You know, it comes across to me as pretty disingenuous to call an answer you don't like a non-answer. If you can't even acknowledge an answer that involves Jesus on a Christian forum, as an actual answer, or are unwilling to receive a plea to at least consider the proposition that God might have something to say to individual humans today... perhaps you might want to reconsider your expectations a bit, and at least remember what little corner of the internet you're currently visiting.Please stop preaching. This is not the section of the forum for that.
Again, you have not answered the question asked. From here on in I'll assume you have no answer. Thanks for your input.
That’s because unfortunately, all values are completely subjective.
But calling it objectively wrong doesn’t fix anything; the rapist would simply disagree.
IMO the world would be a much better place if morality were objective; we could fix all the worlds problems by just legislating morality!
We would have never had slavery, human sacrifice, even issues of today like abortion, capital punishment or the use of Nuclear Weapons during war would be solved without the hostility and hatred those discussions cause today. But wishing something to be true, recognizing the importance of something does not make it real, unfortunately morality, or at least the direction of it is, and always has been based upon the subjective views of the powers that be
Because the truth is not determined by what I find comfortable.
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?