Is there Objective Morality?

[Moral Orel]

Within the narrow little keyhole of the boundaries you have set, yes.

Good enough.

That, I cannot agree with. You are attempting to jump from an extremely narrow set of preferences to a much larger set. Apples and oranges (at least potentially).

Whether or not something is a matter of preference is another question entirely. We've established that the deliciousness of a flavor is strictly a matter of preference, that's all we've done so far. Do you agree, that because the deliciousness of a flavor is strictly a matter of preference, that one cannot be correct or incorrect to prefer it or to not prefer it?

 

[stevevw]

Thanks, stevew. But, I am beginning to see, by the definitions at least some of the atheists are using, it would seem that "objective" is something that no being can possibly be, so if the goal is to come to some kind of conclusion we can all agree upon with regard to the question posed in the thread title, this whole discussion, the way things are being defined, is a complete waste of time.

I'm perfectly happy to continue to place the person of Jesus Christ in front of them, but if we come at this on their terms, it's really going nowhere, IMO.

I think it is good we can discuss whether there are objective morals seperately as well as this allows us to investigate whether humans behave in a way that shows they know there are objective morals.

You are right that even though we cannot point out a moral objective like its a rock doesn't mean there are no objective morals. Moral judgements are a different type of fact, truth. The best way I have heard this explained is here

Moral judgments are not equivalent to descriptive statements about the world—factual assertions about cars, cats, and cabbages—but neither is they merely expressions of personal preferences.
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God | Free Inquiry

 

[stevevw]

This is a thought to ponder within the context of morality, God's omniscience, and His omnipotence... recognizing that even with all knowledge and all power, some things may not be possible.

Is it possible for God to create beings with the capacity to love, and then force such beings to love Him and receive His love? Can real, lasting, unfeigned love be coerced, even by an omniscient and omnipotent Being?

I think in regards to God's omniscience, and His omnipotence, at least His omniscience being all knowing is important when it comes to moral judgements. Subjectivists seem to insist on reducing our ability to use rationality and logic to determine moral truths. Yet it is these tools which allow us to be more knowing so we can make the right determinations and not just leave the determination up to a whim such as feelings, preferences or opinions.

Though reasoning helps we are fallible beings so we cannot be capable of knowing everything so we are still limited. That is why if there are moral objectives then this points to their being a transcedent being that grounds morality. Because morality can only happen between sentient beings but not be determined by fallible humans there would have to be some god like being that is omniscience, and omnipotence and necessary and perfectly good.

 

[food4thought]

Good enough.

Whether or not something is a matter of preference is another question entirely. We've established that the deliciousness of a flavor is strictly a matter of preference, that's all we've done so far. Do you agree, that because the deliciousness of a flavor is strictly a matter of preference, that one cannot be correct or incorrect to prefer it or to not prefer it?

I'm not very fond of parsing semantics, but sometimes it is helpful to more clearly define a term in a discussion such as this. I think preference is an acceptable word, here, yet I also think it is important to acknowledge that one might "prefer" something that others do not, yet the options might genuinely include things that are objectively superior to other options, depending upon the objective. People may "prefer" to drink alcohol excessively as a way to escape a painful reality for a time, but it is true that there are obviously much better ways to obtain the same goal (at least until addiction begins to set in, after which there is a different dynamic at play). If we can include that caveat, I'll agree.

--------------Edit----------------
Or, maybe "a matter of taste" is the better way to express what is being talked about here?

------------2nd edit-------------
Even that doesn't really work, because a man's "taste", or "preference", in females (or males) might include personality traits that are not suited to a solid relationship with his personality traits... soo... not sure where to go here, except to just say I provisionally agree, as long as we understand the exactness of our definitions may prevent agreement at a future time.

 

[stevevw]

No, it's impossible to argue.

I think we can argue that reality "is what it is" because of the way we treat our physical world (reality). We live like our reality "is what it is". We know that when we sit in a chair we won't fall like nothing is there. We don't think we are in some simulation that has programmed us to think we are sitting on a chair typing this post.

So we trust our intuition of the world like that what we experience is a real representation of what is real, true and fact. So if we are justified to believe our physical world "is what it is" without any concrete evidence but our experience then why can't we do the same with our intuition of morality

Please stop churning out the same rehashed cut and paste arguments that the thread has been over repeatedly.

Actually I mentioned this early in the thread and maybe another time or two or more even without any cut and paste and it hasnt been addressed yet. It has got to a point where I am now providing some evidence so that people can address this.

Do you not have the interest to engage with what I've said?

Yes I do. Our intuition of the physical world is more than an assumption. We treat reality in a way that points to us believing to the point of risking life in how we behave in the world. So its more like a fact or truth. Otherwise we would be too scared to even step outside our front doors for fear that something unreal was going to happen.

Besides I question what "Assume" means here. Many scientific theories assume the basis for theory. So why can't we then assume there are objective morals and then see if we can reason the moral truths, facts or reality. If our intuition is good enough for us to be humans in our physical world then our intuiton of morality can be good enough for us to be moral in whatever reality it happens to be in.

As morality is a rational enterprise unfortunately sometimes solipsism is what is needed to determine moral truths.

No, it's a well documented fallacy:

Your Logical Fallacy Is: Burden of Proof

yep I see that one. I realize I have to provide an arguement for objective morality which I was attempting to do with the " Our Intuition of the physical" world analogy. Obviously you think its not a valid reason so we need to argue this.

So I'm interested what you mean by this
"This is a bad analogy. No one can claim that it is what it appears to be"

 

[Moral Orel]

I think we can argue that reality "is what it is" because of the way we treat our physical world (reality). We live like our reality "is what it is". We know that when we sit in a chair we won't fall like nothing is there. We don't think we are in some simulation that has programmed us to think we are sitting on a chair typing this post.

So we trust our intuition of the world like that what we experience is a real representation of what is real, true and fact. So if we are justified to believe our physical world "is what it is" without any concrete evidence but our experience then why can't we do the same with our intuition of morality

We are not justified when we "trust" that it is what it is or when we "assume" that it is what it is.

Besides I question what "Assume" means here. Many scientific theories assume the basis for theory. So why can't we then assume there are objective morals and then see if we can reason the moral truths, facts or reality. If our intuition is good enough for us to be humans in our physical world then our intuiton of morality can be good enough for us to be moral in whatever reality it happens to be in.

For starters, our intuition is faulty. We've been over that. But regardless, I don't intuit the things you claim I do. When someone steals from me, I feel anger, and I want bad things to happen to the thief, and I want my stuff back. "I wish that hadn't happened" simply does not translate to "That shouldn't have happened". But that's all that's happening when I am "wronged".

So I'm interested what you mean by this
"This is a bad analogy. No one can claim that it is what it appears to be"

Well, technically anyone can claim anything they want. It's also a topic I don't care that much about, and impertinent to the discussion. Read up on Hard Solipsism.

And its besides the point because there's good reason to think morality is impossible to objectively justify. And we can know this thanks to the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Which, ironically, is often used to prove the universe had a creator, lol. Consider any moral fact such as "One ought not kill innocent people". To prove that is a true fact, we can't just go by intuition because some people disagree. The only way to prove who is correct and who is incorrect is through reasoned argumentation, right?

 

[o_mlly]

There are different moral laws depending on which community one lives in?

No, there are different laws depending on particular communities. A community that builds homes with basements most likely has laws protecting children from the abuse that your imaginary father imposes on his imaginary daughter. You could clear this up by imagining the locale for your imaginary daughter. See the problem with non-concrete morality questions?

 

[o_mlly]

So it's purely dependent on how much harm was done?

If your pronoun "it" refers to the objective morality of the act then the answer is, "No". The presence in an animal of nipples, whether one or twenty, satisfies one criterion of a mammalian categorization. The presence in a human act with a sole end-in-view that impedes the existence or flourishing of a human being, whether death or health, satisfies one criterion of an immoral classification.

 

[stevevw]

We are not justified when we "trust" that it is what it is or when we "assume" that it is what it is.

Why is it not justified that we believe (trust) or assume that what we experience is what it is and not some simulation. The fact that we go outside our houses into the world and drive cars without trusting that they will do what they do and won't change into another alternative reality. We are so intuitively trusting of our reality that we don't even realize we do it until we stop and think about it.

For starters, our intuition is faulty. We've been over that.

Yes I realize we have been over intuition and this is an important sticking point which we disagree on but makes a big difference is how we understand morality and the debate. So maybe we should be exploring that more.

But regardless, I don't intuit the things you claim I do.

I am not claiming you are intuiting anything. I am just pointing out the widely accepted science that we have intuitions and its a useful cognition or sense if you like. It is a good starting point for what is true and real.

When someone steals from me, I feel anger, and I want bad things to happen to the thief, and I want my stuff back. "I wish that hadn't happened" simply does not translate to "That shouldn't have happened". But that's all that's happening when I am "wronged".

So what about the law. Under the law that shouldnt happen. Thats sort of like an objective but a forced one. More like the Talaban say.

So are you saying your anger, wishes, revenge, "Justice" in getting your stuff back your not expressing morality but rather your psychological state (your feelings, preferences, opinions) and not any truth about a moral wrong being committed.

Well, technically anyone can claim anything they want. It's also a topic I don't care that much about, and impertinent to the discussion. Read up on Hard Solipsism.

And its besides the point because there's good reason to think morality is impossible to objectively justify. And we can know this thanks to the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Which, ironically, is often used to prove the universe had a creator, lol. Consider any moral fact such as "One ought not kill innocent people". To prove that is a true fact, we can't just go by intuition because some people disagree. The only way to prove who is correct and who is incorrect is through reasoned argumentation, right?

yes and whats wrong with that.

 

[stevevw]

I'm constantly perplexed by your posts that say that you disagree, but you then throw in a sentence or two that completely demolishes your own position.

The fact that there is no specific point at which it becomes wrong is what I am trying to get across.

Who said there was no specific moral truth. Measuring something for its severity or wrongness would be consistent with there being moral truths because otherwise what are you measuring it against. But that’s different to views and opinions which are arbitrary and not measuring anything.

That it isn't black and white. That there are grey areas. Your position doesn't allow for that. It precludes terms like 'better' or 'worse'. It's either good or bad.

Therefore you are misrepresenting my position or you don’t understand what I am saying in my argument. So how does there being moral truths disallow there to be 'better' or 'worse'.

And then you write a couple of hundred words skirting around the position and end up saying that we can get some understanding 'of what is better behaviour'.

Say what? Better behaviour? That's what I'm trying to explain to you. That some behaviours are slightly better or slightly worse. Or a lot better. Or a lot worse. And everyone will have a different opinion on the degree to which it is better or worse.

I could take any number of quotes from you, present them as my position and nobody would be any wiser.

lol “Say what” I like that. So I just want to ask a simple question based on this claim you made

Some behaviour are slightly better or slightly worse. Or a lot better. Or a lot worse.

So how do you measure what is “Slightly worse” or a “Lot worse”.

 

[essentialsaltes]

How do you measure what a Schmuck is that it means something negative that you want to label Trump with as opposed to others who don't want to label him a Schmuck.

The same way I label Brussels sprouts 'nasty'. Words have meanings. Some, like bachelor, have very specific meanings that can be checked as facts. Others, like 'nasty' are value judgments made by people.

This dictionary dodge is a waste of time.

The point is whether a moral truth can be found.

Can one? No one seems to have addressed how.

Take abortion. I would say most people who don't think abortion is wrong (in their conscience) is that they don't think abortion is taking a life. But if they did come to understand through technology that the Fetus is a life then I would just about bet that most will stop having abortions.

Fetuses are alive. First trimester abortions are not immoral

Unless the person was so psychologically damaged that they could not realize the truth we all see things in pretty much the same way morally.

We know this is just not true!

 

[Bradskii]

No, there are different laws depending on particular communities. A community that builds homes with basements most likely has laws protecting children from the abuse that your imaginary father imposes on his imaginary daughter. You could clear this up by imagining the locale for your imaginary daughter. See the problem with non-concrete morality questions?

You couldn't have been clearer the first time, thanks.

Is it immoral to disobey the moral laws of the community in which one lives? Yes.

 

[Bradskii]

So how do you measure what is “Slightly worse” or a “Lot worse”.

Please don't be facetious. Locking a girl up for a year is obviously worse than locking her up for an hour. The point at which it becomes immoral (it certainly is at one year) is a personal decision. Printing out a ticket on your office printer is not going to get you the sack. Printing out two thousand probably would. Breaking the speed limit by one mph won't see you losing your license. Breaking it by 50mph might.

Can I possibly be any clearer? For every moral act, there is a continuum where one could say that this is worse than that. Or this is better than that. For every single act. There are no exceptions. And I mean none. But your position is that every single moral act can be defined as absolute. And we're well over 1500 posts and no-one has given any indication whatsoever how that is even possible, let alone how it could be done.

We can all agree that an act is morally wrong. There'd be some acts where you'd need to be either insane or a psycopath to say that it isn't. Does that make it objectively wrong? Not in the slightest. Because if you can't nominate a specific point where any given act becomes immoral then it becomes a personal decision. Which makes it subjective.

There's no getting away from this point. You either tell us how this point is determined or concede that it's subjective. This is where the rubber hits the road. You need to answer this.

 

[Moral Orel]

Why is it not justified that we believe (trust) or assume that what we experience is what it is and not some simulation.

Assuming means it's without justification. Trusting based on nothing but our intuition would lead us to accept the heliocentric model of the universe.

The fact that we go outside our houses into the world and drive cars without trusting that they will do what they do and won't change into another alternative reality. We are so intuitively trusting of our reality that we don't even realize we do it until we stop and think about it.

These are two different propositions. One, that the universe acts consistently, and another that it's all just a simulation.

Yes I realize we have been over intuition and this is an important sticking point which we disagree on but makes a big difference is how we understand morality and the debate. So maybe we should be exploring that more.

So tell me what you think about how we react to people disagreeing on the deliciousness of a flavor. Our gut reaction is that tasty foods are objectively tasty, that's our intuition at fault.

I am not claiming you are intuiting anything.

Yes you are. You have repeatedly stated that when someone does something bad "to us" then "we feel" that it was "wrong".

I am just pointing out the widely accepted science that we have intuitions and its a useful cognition or sense if you like. It is a good starting point for what is true and real.

It's good enough to make a hypothesis and it's handy for snap decisions. But its been unreliable in so many ways it should never be considered settled as proof of anything.

So what about the law. Under the law that shouldnt happen. Thats sort of like an objective but a forced one. More like the Talaban say.

What?

So are you saying your anger, wishes, revenge, "Justice" in getting your stuff back

Gotta stop you right there. I want my stuff back because I liked my stuff and I miss it. Not "Justice". I want my stuff back in the same way that I also want a million dollars.

your not expressing morality but rather your psychological state (your feelings, preferences, opinions) and not any truth about a moral wrong being committed.

Yep.

yes and whats wrong with that.

If I was to make a claim about what something is, like saying "This log is four feet long" I can get a tape measure and measure the log. Proving a claim about how something ought to be is different though.

Just to be super-duper clear, in order to prove any statement like, "One ought not murder innocent people" argumentation is necessary, correct?

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm not very fond of parsing semantics, but sometimes it is helpful to more clearly define a term in a discussion such as this. I think preference is an acceptable word, here, yet I also think it is important to acknowledge that one might "prefer" something that others do not, yet the options might genuinely include things that are objectively superior to other options, depending upon the objective. People may "prefer" to drink alcohol excessively as a way to escape a painful reality for a time, but it is true that there are obviously much better ways to obtain the same goal (at least until addiction begins to set in, after which there is a different dynamic at play). If we can include that caveat, I'll agree.

--------------Edit----------------
Or, maybe "a matter of taste" is the better way to express what is being talked about here?

------------2nd edit-------------
Even that doesn't really work, because a man's "taste", or "preference", in females (or males) might include personality traits that are not suited to a solid relationship with his personality traits... soo... not sure where to go here, except to just say I provisionally agree, as long as we understand the exactness of our definitions may prevent agreement at a future time.

That's fine. I'm leaving things open for you to disagree on the big point that matters to you, but I want to see if you agree with the concept. The big point you'll want to argue is about what is a matter of preference, and I'm not asking you to commit to that. We've agreed that the flavor of ice cream is strictly a matter of preference, and you've even said that God Himself could have his own personal preference, but no one is correct to prefer something that is strictly a matter of preference.

So here's the rub. I believe morality is a matter of preference. Any given "One ought not..." statement can only be justified by stating "I prefer that one didn't..." And so if you proved there is a God, all you'd do is tell me to do what God prefers I do, but you still wouldn't be proving a moral fact. Even God isn't "more correct" to prefer chocolate over strawberry ice cream, so anything else that is strictly a matter of preference He isn't "more correct" about either.

Did I prove that morality is subjective? No, I'm doing that elsewhere with Stevevw at the moment. I just answered your question about, "What if there was a God, would that make morality objective?".

 

[Belk]

Uhhh ... math is not a real thing. Math is a construct of the human mind; it is not discovered but invented. If there were no human beings then there would be no math.

I was surprised to learn a couple months ago that this is hotly debated.

Math: Discovered, Invented, or Both?

That said I agree that the language we use for moth is a human invention modeling what we see in the physical world.

Morality is similar to math in that it also is a construct of the rational mind. If there were no human being then there would be no morality.

If it is wholly a construct of humans with no real world reference it is subjective by definition.

The rational mind holds as self-evident that to exist is good and to not exist is bad.

You guys keep misusing self evident. No, this is not self evident. It is a derived conclusion.

The rational mind perceives that humans are born with few instincts and must learn how to survive and flourish in community. Human acts which preserve human existence and allow humans to flourish are good. Act that impede either are bad.


Rape is an act that impedes the victim to fluourish. Although this is not the science forum, some wish to impose the scientific method on the issue of objectivity in morality. Science has made progress in measuring the deleterious effects of rape on rape victims. The studies may be embryonic but instructive, ie.,:

Emerging issues in the measurement of rape victimization - PubMed
Sexual assault: key issues

What does any of this have to do with the debate over subjective vs objective?

 

[Bradskii]

If it is wholly a construct of humans with no real world reference it is subjective by definition.

Morality is a construct of the rational mind? This has had me scatching my head all through this conversation. It's been presented in different ways, but it's the very definition of subjective.

 

[Kylie]

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.

Where did all this talk about whims come from? I never used the word, and I never said anything that would imply that the decision about where to send the tree was a whim. "Whim" implies a casualness, and who-cares attitude that simply was not in the situation I described, so your use of it here appears to be a strawman.

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.

Maybe that's because there IS no best place. And that's because people place different values on different things.

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.

Again, this idea that it's just a "whim" is something you appear to have made up yourself and has no support from anything I said. I even clearly showed the thought processes that different people might make - a far cry from your suggestion that people would have an attitude of of "Let the tree fall wherever,. I don't care."

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.

You have so far been unable to demonstrate that "morality is subjective" is a logical fallacy. You can't just claim that anything that disagrees with you is a logical fallacy and act like you established it.

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.

And funnily enough that never seems to happen with things that we all agree are objective. Like the height of a flagpole.

"Hey, Kylie, how high is that flagpole?"

"Well, I measured it at ten meters, but Billy over there is upset after his girlfriend dumped him, so he only measured eight point five meters."

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.

You don't seem to be using logic and rationality. As I've pointed out many times already, invoking variables to explain why different people get different conclusions about the same exact thing is a weakness in your "morality is objective" position, since we don't see it in any other objective things.

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.

Why on earth do you think reason can't be used on things that are subjective? A person's taste in movies is a purely subjective thing, but people can still use reason to conclude that Battlefield Earth is a terrible movie. We can discuss things in terms of plot development, the strength of the character arc, etc. That doesn't mean that others are incapable of disagreeing with our conclusion, but it does give us a way to communicate our ideas. And it shows that our subjective opinion of it is not just a "whim", but something we have reached based on our own standards.

But the fact that we use our own standards is what makes it subjective, and it is what means that others can have differing opinions.

When it comes to morality, the fact is that we have in many cases very similar standards. We both, I presume, think that stealing is wrong, and that helping people is good. But the fact that we share similar standards does not make those standards objectively correct. After all, I can find people who share similar standards with me about Star trek being a great TV show, but that doesn't mean that the guy who hates Star trek is objectively wrong.

Likewise, when I am trying to decide what the most moral course of action is in a particular situation, I try to figure it out based on my own moral standards. They are standards that are in most cases shared by many others, but they are still my own subjective standards. A different person in the same situation would form their decision based on their set of standards, not mine, and so could reach a different result. That's what I was trying to show you with the tree example.

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.

I gave a specific example that happened in real life. There were no variables. Not unless you can travel through time and remove people from the plane.

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.

You really want me to hold your hand through the whole thing?

Very well.

Steve, there is a plan headed towards a city. We have determined they are going to crash the plane into an office block. There are 200 people on the plane and 1000 people in the office block. If the plane hits the office block, all 1200 people will be killed. But we can shoot down the plane, and only 200 people will be killed. There is no other danger to any other people. What should we do?

Now, according to your claim in post 1577, it is always objectively wrong to take an innocent life. By shooting down the plane, you will be taking innocent lives. If you do not shoot down the plane, innocent lives will be lost due to your inaction.

Tell me what the morally correct thing to do is.

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

Funnily enough, I don't see any explanation WHY it's a logical fallacy. Just an unsupported claim that it IS.

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.

Hardly.

It's NOT an unsupported claim that people disagree, because it's easily demonstrable that people do disagree about morality.

It's NOT an unsupported claim that we can't find any objective morality, because if we had found some objective morality, people would all agree with it, just as people all agree on what the speed of light is.

It's NOT an unsupported claim that morality is hard to measure, because no one has ever presented a method by which to measure morality, and no one has even suggested a possible unit of measurement.

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.

And you have failed to show even one case of objective morality. All you have done is confuse agreement with objective truth.

But heres the ironic thing about all this. You object that objective morality cannot be measured and therefore is not real.

I'd be happy to withdraw my objection if you would care to provide me with an example of something else that is objectively true but can't be measured.

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.

Begging the question. You present morality as an objective thing and ask why it can't be measured, but you have not yet shown that it is objective.

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.

Special pleading. You've given no good reason why morality should be treated any different to any other objective fact other than to say, "But it's different!"

Or are you saying we can just claim anything and say its fact

Hasn't seemed to stop you.

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".

The fact that people act differently in the same moral situation is evidence that morality is subjective.

 

[Ken-1122]

In the end, it boils down to whether I deem the Being trustworthy enough for me to believe that what He tells me about Himself is true.

This communication you have with him; how does this work? Are there actual voices in your head? Or do you get your information from a book written by flawed humans who claim it to be the word of God and you have faith they were telling the truth; how does this communication work?

In a world that has been horribly marred by the consequences of sin, His goodness and trustworthiness can easily be called into question, can they not? Yet, knowing myself quite well, and seeing the actions of people in the world on a daily basis for the last 47 years, I am convinced that humanity is doomed if left to our own devices.

You obviously have a much more toxic view of mankind than I

So, can I really know beyond any shadow of a doubt that He is who He says He is? No. (I dare you to keep reading and thinking about what I'm writing after that statement!)

Challenge accepted

But ask yourself this: could He really demonstrate to you, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that He really is God,

If God knows everything, he would know what would convince me

and not just some highly advanced interdimensional alien with a "god complex", bent on ruling little old us to assuage his bloated ego? How could He possibly prove that the former is true and the latter is false?

For me it wouldn’t make a difference. If God did exist, and was as powerful as they claim, and wanted complete control of my life, this would be the same as an alien from another planet much more powerful than I wanting to control my life; to me they would be the same oppressors. If God existed and wanted me to worship him, bow down to him, give him constant praise, and grovel at his feet in a way that I wouldn’t ask of my dog, I would only do this if forced I could never do this out of love because I don’t love that way. As a human being who has spent his life with the freedom, and freewill to pave his own way, and accomplish my own goals, I can only love those who have love and respect for me; and if you respect me you would not want me to worship you and spend eternity kissing your feet; I would have to be in a very dark place to want to be with somebody like that; I would have to be a completely different person than I am now. I would basically have to be replaced with a robot, a slave mentality, or something with the mindset of a domesticated dog in order to desire such a dark and sinister relationship.

If He parted the heavens tomorrow, and made a pronouncement, what would that really prove to a person without any faith in His Deity and goodness?

I could never apply Deity status to another person, but if he is good, an audible voice from the clouds would definitely be a good start in making such a case.

(another side note) Why doesn’t he do this? If God spoke in an audible voice from the clouds speaking in a language each of us can understand, and cleared up all the misinformation we have of him, clarifying what he wants and expects from us, and all of this confirmed with todays technology, what’s the worse that can happen if he did this? All the fake religious claims would be dispelled, and everybody seeking the truth would immediately know the truth, and those who don't want the truth could still deny, but would be without excuse. Why doesn’t he do this???

 

[Kylie]

If your pronoun "it" refers to the objective morality of the act then the answer is, "No". The presence in an animal of nipples, whether one or twenty, satisfies one criterion of a mammalian categorization. The presence in a human act with a sole end-in-view that impedes the existence or flourishing of a human being, whether death or health, satisfies one criterion of an immoral classification.

Then why were waffling on about all that measurable difference stuff?