However, what different people value is going to be different based on the person. People are going to value things like the circumstances, things involved etc differently. For example, let's say there is a tree about to fall, and you can change where it is going to fall. You can make it fall onto a small house, or you can make it fall onto a very expensive car. But whatever it falls onto will be completely destroyed.
Some people might decide to make the judgement based purely on the value of what is going to be destroyed. So, they might decide to let the tree fall onto the old tatty house and save the more expensive sports car. Someone else might decide that even though the car has a greater financial worth, the suffering if the house is destroyed will be greater, because someone will be without a home.
There is no objective way to say which has the greater value, because value in this case is purely subjective, and arguments can be made for each.
Funny I would regard your reply as a good reason why subjective morality doesnt work or corresspond to how people behave morally. Sure we cannot say that the determination of what is morally right (the better/best way to behave morally) is determined by the whim of a persons psychological state. Thats scary. Luckily in reality we don't actually live that way and know that there is a better/best way to behave beyond peoples whims.
But as for your example yes people will subjectively have different ideas about where the tree should fall. But none of them are objective and therefore it says nothing about whether the location they choose is the better/best way to act.
Therefore the logic follows that if there was a child in an empty space between the house and car that it really doesnt matter if the person chooses to drop the tree on the child because Hey its only a whim, there is no determination that one spot is best/betetr than another. If someone really thought morality worked that way we would lock them up.
Pointing out flaws in reasoning is something you can only do with OBJECTIVE things, not subjective.
Yes so you have made a couple of logical fallacies that there are only subjective morals and no objective ones. So considering that we cannot rule out whether there are moral truths or not shouldnt it be wise and logical to at least reason out moral situations to see if there is a better/best way to behave morally. We may not find an ultimate moral truth but we may come 1 step closer or at the very least find a better/best way to behave.
My problem with it is that you are using these arguments to say that every single situation is different, thus trying to get around the issue.
No that is just how things work for working out the truth or fact. We reason things out. I am applying the same logic that can be alplied to non-moral situations.
You are, in my opinion, trying to disguise the subjectivity of morality in a way that allows you to avoid admitting that it's subjective.
Thats not a good arguement. Thats almost like appealing to some non-physical evdience to support your case. What do you mean. There is no disguising. If anything its more apparent because we are being independent. We are using rationality and logic and not personal opinions.
So I will ask again. Do you think in finding the better/best way to act and think morally in any situation we should reason it out rather than apply some irrelevant conclusion from another situation or some unreasoned opinion.
However, it doesn't work. Even when we use just a single specific case, there will still be disagreements. I've already done that in post
1630 when I used an actual event, and you STILL tried to bring variables into it to muddy the water.
They were not variables. They were reasonable questions to ask in determining the objective. Once again are you saying we should forget about circumstances. Objective morality has to include the circumstances to work out the moral truth. Otherwise you could be making the wrong determination.
You gave me a scenario and then tied my hands as to what could be allowed or not. You didnt even explain whether I should be acting with hidsight or just as it happened. If I wasn t acting with hindsight then how could I tell whether the plane was an out of control passenger plane or a terrorist. Even most people thought it was just an accident after the first plane hit. So yes circumstances play a big role in objective morality. So your example hasnt proven anything as yet.
I can present any number of absolutely specific real world examples and you'd STILL get different people making different conclusions about the morality of them. For example, the case of
Nic and Trees Elderhorst. There are going to be some people who will maintain that euthanasia is wrong no matter how you try to justify it, and other people like me who think that voluntary euthanasia should be legal. There is not a single argument you could possibly make regarding that specific case that will get ALL people to agree on the same moral viewpoint of it.
But you keep failing to see the elephant in the room. Its a logical fallacy to say that because people don't agree on morality that there is no objective morality. I keep telling you this and you keep using these logical fallacies. It doesnt make it right if you keep repeating this. Its a well know fact by philosophers that the "Arguement from differences" against objective morality is a non-sequitur.
Consider a flaw in one of the arguments given on behalf of moral relativism. Some argue that given the extent of disagreement about moral issues, it follows that there are no objective moral truths. But this is what a basic logic text refers to as a non-sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/ethics-everyone/201201/rejecting-moral-relativism
The fact that people disagree, that we cannot find a truth/objective, that its too hard to measure, that its impossible are all unsupported claims that need to be argued. In fact in reality objective morality only needs to be argued in one example to prove objective morality. For the negative claim there are no objective morality you would have to show there is no objective moral truth in every single example that has ever happened and I think thats impossible. So at the very least the jury is still out.
But heres the ironic thing about all this. You object that objective morality cannot be measured and therefore is not real. Yet you make objective claims that "There is no objective morality". Yet you dont seem to think that you are making a truth claim without evdience. Yet it seems fine to you to do it. So why cannot morality be measured this way, as an intuitive truth and reality that we know and act out.
And yet when we look at anything that actually is objective - the height of the Empire State Building at a particular moment, or the volume of a particular swimming pool - each and every person will reach the same conclusion.
But as mentioned morality isnt measured this way. You just made an objective claim without any evidence and yet you believe it was the case. How can that be. Is there anything physical about what you said we can measure. So therefore you ackowledge that "Truths" can be claimed and these should be able to be supported. Or are you saying we can just claim anything and say its fact
This can only be explained by saying that morality is SUBJECTIVE.
Please refer to above link. This is what is called a logical fallacy and doesnt in any way support your claim or arguement. The ironic thing is you are trying to make a case for subjective morality based on the way people act. Yet you said to me that "Just because someone acts that way doesnt mean it is that way".
So you are doing the exact same as you protest me for doing to support things. Its funny isnt it but you are sort of supporting my case rather than yours for supporting objective morality. Thats if we reason things out, which you are noit doing by usiung logical fallacies all the time.