- May 22, 2015
- 7,379
- 2,640
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
We're talking about my argument on proving things to be true; we aren't talking about how we colloquially speak with one another.
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.
We're talking about my argument on proving things to be true; we aren't talking about how we colloquially speak with one another.You dont have to convince a person they should achieve a goal when they already want to achieve the goal. Thats already settled.
Well its my contention that many moral statements work exactly like the example Im using. They are fundamentally instrumental statements about how to effectively achieve various goals. The emotional baggage of duty and rightness and wrongness is a useful compliance mechanism to get the not-yet-wise on board.We're talking about my argument on proving things to be true; we aren't talking about how we colloquially speak with one another.
Correction: “I'vestatedasserted that very clearly quite a few times now.” Yes, I agree you’ve clearly asserted many times your opinion but you have not argued the truth of your opinion.
I can just as clearly assert my opinion that measurement is not essential to objectively categorizing human acts. The difference between us is that I also offer an argument in support, ie., the objective existence of the earth’s moon does not require a specification of the measurable differences in earth’s moon to other moons.
Do you see that implicit in your comment is an admission that morality is objective? I could not agree more.
On matters of taste (subjective) there is no dispute. On matters of truth (objective) there is an obligation to dispute.
At least you acknowledge we all share a core of moral truths. Others on this thread won’t even go that far.I agree that most people share the same moral truths, but that's not because we are somehow magically sensing some objective nature of the universe.
The research seems to show its more than that. Sure culture and upbringing influence our views but our knowledge of moral truths is there from a very early age.It's because we have been raised in a society that uses those moral guidelines as its basis.
There has to be a light source that emits the light for it to be measured in any level so yes there is either light or there’s not. But we can also measure the level of light with a meter. The light at midday will be stronger than the light at dusk.The light can be measured objectively in terms of colour, which can be precisely given as a wavelength measured in nanometers. For example, if you measure the wavelength of light to be 700 nanometers, you know it's some shade of red. If you measure 413 nanometers, you know it's more around a bluish violet colour.
The amount of light that is emitted from a light source is measured objectively in lumens, and the light that hits a particular surface is measured objectively in terms of lux.
These are objective measures and can quite handily deal with shades of grey, if you'll pardon the pun. Your argument would seem to have us reduce to saying either, "Yes, there is light," or, "No, there isn't light," and nothing more.
What’s being vegan got to do with things.I take it you're a vegan then?
Just because we intuitively know that killing is wrong doesn’t mean humans cannot kill. We all know the law and yet humans are constantly breaking the law.Which is perfectly explained by the societal cause I mentioned earlier.
Also, if you were correct, then we wouldn't have those untouched tribes who kill any intruders. Remember that North Sentinel Island tribe who killed that missionary? Why didn't they intuitively know that it would be wrong to kill him?
The same way and tribunal or the courts do with different criteria for different levels of killing.More horrific? And how do you determine that if there is no measure of how horrific manslaughter/killing in self defense is so you can compare it to how horrific genocide is?
So are you saying that when they decide if someone has committed 1st degree murder or manslaughter they subjectively decide? They just say in my opinion or view is worse than the other. Are you saying theres no measure they use to determine worse.Then how is it measured? In what units is it measured in?
Or are you just talking about a subjective gut feeling? I mean, that would explain why different people assign different moral values to the same thing, right? Like abortion?
So like I said are you saying that to tell the difference between all these levels of severity we just use subjective opinions and not some objective basis? Couldn’t the defendant say that he is being convicted by an opinion and it’s not correct in his opinion? Lol. Afterall its just one opinion against another.Again, this can be explained perfectly with a SUBJECTIVE morality that is shared by most people.
So how do we decide that. With an opinion or with some objective measure like intent to kill and the facts.And I'm not arguing about that. No one is saying that we generally consider murder with intent to be worse than murder that was unintentional.
Of course it makers it objectively wrong. Its wrong regardless of peoples opinions. Its wrong due to the facts. The facts show how the different levels of severity are determined anmd not opinions. We would be in a hossible situation if we went around accusing and blaiming people based on opinion.But that doesn't make it objective, it just makes it a shred subjective viewpoint.
So are scientific theories. Just because its written by humans doesnt mean its not indepednent of humans. To determine 1st degree murder for example is about facts of internt, planning ect. That is an objective destinction as opposed to say manslaughter which can be objectively determined by non-intent, accidental.No, that not how it works. For something to be "objective" it has to be independent of humans. Legal laws are written by humans.
Thats your opinion which doesnt count for anything in our debate. Facts are whats imnportant.This is getting embarrasing (for you).
Morality is like Maths and both are facts even if there are no humans.Where there morals before humans existed?
So are scientific theories. Just because its written by humans doesnt mean its not indepednent of humans. To determine 1st degree murder for example is about facts of internt, planning ect. That is an objective destinction as opposed to say manslaughter which can be objectively determined by non-intent, accidental.
Thats your opinion which doesnt count for anything in our debate. Facts are whats imnportant.
Morality is like Maths and both are facts even if there are no humans.
"Ought" statements are not statements about how to achieve a goal, they are a prescription to do the thing that achieves your goal.Well its my contention that many moral statements work exactly like the example Im using. They are fundamentally instrumental statements about how to effectively achieve various goals. The emotional baggage of duty and rightness and wrongness is a useful compliance mechanism to get the not-yet-wise on board.
Actually laws are to keep law and order. You saidScientific theories is nothing like legal laws, scientific theories explain physical reality. Legal laws prescribe how society (should) work.
They are a form of objectivity just like any extremist group will impose some objective law system on others. Its objective because it is determined as the only correct way to view something. Subjectivity allows for different viewss and no single view is ultimately correct.Oh, the irony.
And its not just my opinion, do you seriously think that legal laws are objective?
Morality is a human enterprise. It can only happen between humans. So thats an irrelevant question.So how did morals exist without humans? Explain, and also explain why they existed, how and how you know.
So gravity and relativity are not facts then.And maths is not exactly facts, math is an axiomatic logical system.
So therefore they have determined a measure of what is OK and whats not OK when it comes to smacking. They can only do that if there is an objective basis for measuring smacking. They draw the line at closed hand smacking.In my State smacking a child is considered reasonable force; as long as you use an open hand rather than a closed fist
RCW 9A.16.100: Use of force on children—Policy—Actions presumed unreasonable.
Yes in your country. But other countries may have different laws. Its wrong to say that we can be confident that we know everything there is to know about this matter.There are laws concerning this issue; so it has been determined completely.
So your agreeing that the law about smacking is a sort of objective rule. Its forced onto everyone regardless whether they subjectively think smacking for example with a belt is morally OK.Again; This has already happened hence the laws enforced concerning these issues.
You can measure the harm. For example under the moral value that "Human Life" is valuable accidental killing is wrong. But we can then say "1st degree murder" is a greater moral wrong because it wasnt an accident and was intentional. Or that genocide is the greatest wrong as its intentional and involved many "Human Lives". If human life is valuable then taking more than one is a greater wrong.How do you determine if a greater moral harm is being done if you can’t measure the harm?
The circumstances don't change that there is an objective truth. It just means the circumstances need to be taken into consideration to get to the truth of what happened. Remember I mentioned that objective morality can accommodate changing circumstances. For every moral situation there will be a moral truth/objective that can be determined.If you have to make exceptions concerning the circumstances, that is not objective; it’s subjective.
So if there is no objectively right or wrong way to behave if a child has a gun to their head the with that logic if it was a subjective determination then a person could choose to sit their and just let the crazed gunman kill the innocent child. There would be nothing morally wrong with that under a subjective system.objective truth needs to be determined Killing a crazed gunman is not an objective issue, but a subjective moral issue. All you’re doing here is describing subjective morality and calling it objective morality.
"Subjective" vs. "Objective": What's The Difference?
? Just more assertions w/o arguments.But I assert that you can't show the moon exists without making some sort of measurement.
After reading your post, I could not decide whether to douse it with Thousand Island or Ranch Salad dressing. Maybe an emulsion type of dressing is the better choice as you have two contradictory claims which you claim are (illogically) both true.The 'should' (or 'ought') refers to whether one should attempt to reach agreement on moral matters. As one should. That one 'should' (or 'ought') do this is not determined by whether the moral act is objective or subjective. It can be either and the requiremnt that one 'ought' to reach agreement still stands. As it applies in both cases it cannot be used to determine the objectivity or subjectivity of the act in question. And so your suggestion is invalid.
As to whether any of us could be wrong about moral matters, some of have admitted that we certainly could be. You were asked if you could be as well. What was the response?
Actually laws are to keep law and order. You said
For something to be "objective" it has to be independent of humans. Legal laws are written by humans.
I was pointing out that just because someone writes a law doesnt mean it isnt an objective law. If you applied this logic to science then we would have to say that science cannot verify objectives because the physical laws are written by humans.
For example the law of gravity cannot be subjectively denied or changed. If you subjectively think gravity is not a law and walk off a building the law of gravity stands. The same for the law of stealing. You may subjectively think the law is not true but you will end up being prosecuted so the law of no stealing stands. They are both above subjective human determination.
They are a form of objectivity just like any extremist group will impose some objective law system on others. Its objective because it is determined as the only correct way to view something. Subjectivity allows for different viewss and no single view is ultimately correct.
Morality is a human enterprise. It can only happen between humans. So thats an irrelevant question.
So gravity and relativity are not facts then.
My claim was that morality was not objective; not laws.So therefore they have determined a measure of what is OK and whats not OK when it comes to smacking. They can only do that if there is an objective basis for measuring smacking. They draw the line at closed hand smacking.
Yes in your country. But other countries may have different laws. Its wrong to say that we can be confident that we know everything there is to know about this matter.
So your agreeing that the law about smacking is a sort of objective rule. Its forced onto everyone regardless whether they subjectively think smacking for example with a belt is morally OK.
The question was about smacking vs not smacking; not variations of the same action. So how do you objectively measure the harm of smacking vs the harm of not smacking?You can measure the harm. For example under the moral value that "Human Life" is valuable accidental killing is wrong. But we can then say "1st degree murder" is a greater moral wrong because it wasnt an accident and was intentional. Or that genocide is the greatest wrong as its intentional and involved many "Human Lives". If human life is valuable then taking more than one is a greater wrong.
Actually it does. If you have to use subjective means (like opinions, or beliefs} to determine if it is right or not, it is not objective.The circumstances don't change that there is an objective truth.
And you were wrong to say that. Name something else objective that can accommodate changing circumstances based on human thought, beliefs, or opinions; go ahead I'll wait.....It just means the circumstances need to be taken into consideration to get to the truth of what happened. Remember I mentioned that objective morality can accommodate changing circumstances.
Remember; as far as the individual is concerned, objective and subjective morality are the same; because it's based on thought. The difference is objective is based outside of human thought. The same thing (freewill of the gunman) that allows the crazed person to kill the child would not change if morality were objective.For every moral situation there will be a moral truth/objective that can be determined. So if there is no objectively right or wrong way to behave if a child has a gun to their head the with that logic if it was a subjective determination then a person could choose to sit their and just let the crazed gunman kill the innocent child. There would be nothing morally wrong with that under a subjective system.
No I'm not saying that. I am saying that this is how these groups and states act like they are objective.If someone wriites a legal law its by definition not a "objective" law. You may think its a codification of an objective truth but then that has to be supported.
The view you are saying now is that all legal laws are objective, from Sharia laws, to the laws of North Korea to western laws etc. This is a very strange view.
But it has been formulated Mathmatically by Newton and is especialy good at explaining the effects of gravity like "What goes up must come down" so acts like a law. In fact it is called a law Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia.Gravity is not a law, its a physical phenomena.
Yes I understand the difference. I am saying that the thinking that goes into making them laws are similar. The are not just someones personal opinion, preference or view but based on substanciate facts and justified beliefs that have been reasoned.Do you not understand the diference between scientific "laws" and legal ones?
Well being like a law or truth similar to Math facts then it doesnt act in time and space like physical things. It cannot be there and not be there. It is "Just There" and always will be. Like 2+2=4 is a truth or fact and is still a fact even if there are no humans.No, its not. You said it existed before humanity, so support your point. Answer the questions.
But there is a mathmatical formula that these theories are based on. LikeGravity and relativity is observed physical phenomena, its not math. Do you not understand the difference?
There has to be a light source that emits the light for it to be measured in any level so yes there is either light or there’s not. But we can also measure the level of light with a meter. The light at midday will be stronger than the light at dusk.
No I'm not saying that. I am saying that this is how these groups and states act like they are objective.
But it has been formulated Mathmatically by Newton and is especialy good at explaining the effects of gravity like "What goes up must come down" so acts like a law. In fact it is called a law Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia. Yes I understand the difference. I am saying that the thinking that goes into making them laws are similar. The are not just someones personal opinion, preference or view but based on substanciate facts and justified beliefs that have been reasoned.
Well being like a law or truth similar to Math facts then it doesnt act in time and space like physical things. It cannot be there and not be there. It is "Just There" and always will be. Like 2+2=4 is a truth or fact and is still a fact even if there are no humans.
A mathematical formula is just a tool to describe physical reality, not physical reality in itself A bit like a map is not the territory.But there is a mathmatical formula that these theories are based on. Like
The equation for universal gravitation thus takes the form:
These are laws and a fact that can be used to ccalculate gravities effects in areas like sky diving, structural engineering and NASA.
But I think we can say that some of our laws are underpinned by morals/ethics. We certainly treat them that way. A subjective moral system allows for those with the most power and position to dictate how we should behave. They have their reasons, they may be factual and maybe self interest. But they apply those laws and codes like they are the "Truth" in how we should behave. It creates a power vacumn for whoever has the most money, influence can promote their truth.My claim was that morality was not objective; not laws.
By reasoning out the situation. Getting evidence as to whether smacking is harmful or not. Obviously each country has evidence and thinks their right. But both can't be right so the truth has to be established. JUst because we cannont establish what is the right way to behave at the time doesn't mean we can't determine whats better/best in the future.The question was about smacking vs not smacking; not variations of the same action. So how do you objectively measure the harm of smacking vs the harm of not smacking?
Taking the circumstances into consideration is about looking at the differences between for example different Killing scenarios where it may be accidental, self defence, intentional.Actually it does. If you have to use subjective means (like opinions, or beliefs} to determine if it is right or not, it is not objective.
I am not quite sure what you mean by that. But if you mean as in the physical things it happens all the time. How you see and measure say a planet will depend on changing circumstances. If your looking for what is causing some activity on a planet then the changing weather circumstances may influence what is really going on or causing the activity or behaviour. It really doesnt matter.And you were wrong to say that. Name something else objective that can accommodate changing circumstances based on human thought, beliefs, or opinions; go ahead I'll wait.....
But surely with that same "Cognition" we can also thing logically andrationally. So we can reason why some behaviours are better than other behaviours. In the situation with the crazed gunman the rational and locial thing to do was save the kid. You can go through the reasoning but it will stand up as its objective.Remember; as far as the individual is concerned, objective and subjective morality are the same; because it's based on thought.
Yes has to be grounded in some objective fact or truth outside the human. But that doesnt mean humans can't use their cognition to work whats a fact or truth.The difference is objective is based outside of human thought.
No it won't but an objective determination that allows us to say killing innocent children is objectively wrong. The gunman may have had all sorts of issues or mental problems even.The same thing (freewill of the gunman) that allows the crazed person to kill the child would not change if morality were objective.
For example the law of gravity cannot be subjectively denied or changed.
If you subjectively think gravity is not a law and walk off a building the law of gravity stands. The same for the law of stealing.
Morality is a human enterprise. It can only happen between humans.
So gravity and relativity are not facts then.
Ecce luna!
I wound imagine there would be a measurement for that as well that shows the constancy of light compare to daylight for example.Why should the measurement of light be stronger or weaker at any particular time of day. A good laser should be able to produce a very consistent beam of light, both in intensity and in wavelength perhaps for days upon days.
One thing people seem to get stuck on is that they think morals should be measured like physical stuff with instruments or test tubes. Pro objectivists usually say morality can be understood like science but isn't science. Its just the analogies help explain things.This was from a long sequence of examples of scientific obective measurement that somehow demonstrates that morality can be measured objectively, or something. I don't know; most of the "pro-objective" arguments (and some of the counters) in this thread made little sense.
What is the definition you are talking about, I am not sure what you mean.I recently voted "no" after a long time monitoring this thread. I hesitated, because I do think there are some underlying moral basics that could be called a "objective moral foundation" found throughout humanity, but no one on the "yes" side was *anywhere* near that sort of definition, so I've sided with the "no" crowd for now.
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?