Is there Objective Morality?

[Moral Orel]

Because you will find people to disagree on ANYTHING if you're willing to include nutjobs. Don't you think it's a better idea to keep it limited to rational people?

Climate change deniers aren't crazy. Stupid, maybe, but they're so numerous, no matter what their fault, it still makes for a good parallel to the widespread disagreement on morality.

Yeah, like how we all agree 1+1=2, or how we all agree on the shape of the moon, or that Jurassic Park was a movie about dinosaurs....

So simple objective things. Complex things, like we find in the sciences, have a lot of disagreement even though they're objective.

In my example, I specifically said that I was talking about two different people both watching the same situation can reach two different conclusions.

To apply this to the climate change analogy, it would be like two different people looking at the way the climate is changing and one says it's getting hotter and the other says it's getting colder. It just doesn't happen.

No, that isn't right. Two people watching the same situation of a purse snatching, for instance, will say that a purse was snatched. And perhaps they'll disagree on whether it was wrong to do because there's a myriad of factors to consider. Two people watching the climate change will say it's getting hotter. And perhaps they'll disagree on whether that's something to be concerned about.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok if your bringing things back to morality rather than 'likes and dislikes' we can focus on this. But I am not sure you are understanding what is meant by "lived Moral Experience".

Usually when talking about morality it is the moral behaviour or the moral value applied to a situation being determined as right or wrong. Some people view moral acts as subjective where the determination of right or wrong is within the person (the subject) whereas others view the moral act as objective where determination of right or wrong is outside the person.

So people will either be subjectivist or objectivists when it comes to determing moral right and wrong and the two positions cannot be held at the same time.

So under a subjective moral position there is no ultimate moral truth outside the person and moral truth only applies to the person hold the moral view. So people’s subjective moral view says nothing about moral acts being ultimately right or wrong and therefore they cannot really condemn other peoples moral behaviour as ultimately wrong.

But what seems to happen a lot is that people with subjective moral views take the position that the wrongs don’t by others or to themselves especially are ultimately wrong like they are a moral truth that applies to all. They don't just say "in my opinion or it’s my view" that the act is wrong. They send a truth out into the world beyond themselves like the act is wrong as a truth beyond themselves.

This is understandable because all people intuitively know that there are certain moral values that are like laws that we all must live by and cannot be justified as subjectively OK. So in reality people cannot proclaim a subjective moral position while at the same time wanting to claim moral truths beyond themselves that apply to all people. That’s a contradictory position to take and is unworkable.

No, I understand your argument just fine. Things are objective and we know this because we act like they're objective. Right?

 

[Kylie]

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/ther...-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/

Science is not a popularity contest. Even if it was, those 500 scientists are in the minority of scientists in relevant fields - that is if they are all in relevant fields. I note that the CLINTEL co-founder leading this group of 500 is Guus Berkhout, who has no qualifications in any climate areas of research, he has worked in the fossil fuel industry, and has many ties with climate change denial groups. And regarding that list, only ten of the signatories are climate scientists. That letter is worthless. Letter signed by "500 scientists" relies on inaccurate claims about climate science

The overwhelming majority of scientific data indicates that human activities are causing climate change far beyond what would be happening without human interference.

Remember, scientific consensus is not a bunch of scientists agreeing on something. Scientific consensus is a wealth of data that all shows the same thing.

 

[Kylie]

But the important point for objective morality is that just because there are varying views and opinions about the observable world doesn't mean there is no objective fact in science or moral truth for morality to be found. Having subjective views on something factual in the science world shows this. As science determines things better a consensus is reached.

So therefore just like in science where we have to understand something better and then we determine the facts better. The same under moral realism we can get to understand how we act/react morally and determine if there are moral laws that apply independent of peoples personal views.

If there was an objective morality, there would not be such different views. We do not see such differing views when it comes to how the speed of light changes as it passes through different materials. We do not see such differing views when it comes to how different chemical elements react in chemical reactions. We do not see such differing views when it comes to how subatomic particles behave. If morality was objective we should see consistency, and we do not.

 

[Kylie]

So simple objective things. Complex things, like we find in the sciences, have a lot of disagreement even though they're objective.

Nothing like what we see in morality though. Quantum mechanics is complex, yet any differing viewpoints are put forward with mathematical explanations to support them.

Given that objective things can be described with clear language - mathematics, logic, etc, perhaps we should develop some way of describing morality with a similar language? If it was possible to do that, it would go a long way towards showing that morality was objective, since it would be almost impossible to have such a means of description if it was subjective.

No, that isn't right. Two people watching the same situation of a purse snatching, for instance, will say that a purse was snatched. And perhaps they'll disagree on whether it was wrong to do because there's a myriad of factors to consider.

Not necessarily. They might disagree on which one in a group took the purse (I've seen thieves stealing camera lenses off cameras and it's impossible to know who took the lens. Thieves Stealing Camera Lenses from Around Photographers' Necks

 

[Moral Orel]

Nothing like what we see in morality though. Quantum mechanics is complex, yet any differing viewpoints are put forward with mathematical explanations to support them.

There's another good example of an objective thing that a lot of disagreement happens with. Which interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct? Copenhagen interpretation? Many worlds interpretation?

Given that objective things can be described with clear language - mathematics, logic, etc, perhaps we should develop some way of describing morality with a similar language? If it was possible to do that, it would go a long way towards showing that morality was objective, since it would be almost impossible to have such a means of description if it was subjective.

Well that's getting closer to examining the nature of morality. What does the objectivist use to justify calling one value "good" and another value "bad"? I've found that it always ultimately boils down to likes and dislikes, that's why I'm a subjectivist.

Not necessarily. They might disagree on which one in a group took the purse (I've seen thieves stealing camera lenses off cameras and it's impossible to know who took the lens. Thieves Stealing Camera Lenses from Around Photographers' Necks

Now you're giving your own examples of objective things that people disagree on. Do you see how just because people disagree it doesn't show subjectivity? I mean, there is an objective fact as to who stole the lens.

 

[Ken-1122]

Why is that. If subjective morality is about how one sees morality personally and doesn't hold any moral weight beyond the person then how can they be denied a moral opinion. Theres no reason they can't.

I didn’t say they are denied a moral opinion, I said they are not entitled to such moral opinions.

You are sort of making a case for objective morality. Because saying people are not morally entitled to hold moral views means there must be some moral truth that we can use to determine/measure this by.

I think you’re reading a little too far into all of this. When I say they aren’t entitled to such views, that is my opinion, and the opinion of others who may agree with me; that’s it.

Because people don't agree with objective facts in science doesn’t mean there are no objective fact to be found.

Scientific objective facts??? No! Science deals with laws. All scientists agree with scientific laws.

In complex maths equations there can be more than one answer or people arrive at the wrong answer because of assumptions but believe it to be true.

With math the correct answer can be demonstrated as right or wrong.

Newton thought he worked out gravity but Einstein came along and found a different way to view it. But while he was developing his relativity theory there were others who had their own versions and disputed Einstein. Some still do today. Even Einstein thought he was wrong at one and became disappointed in himself.

So though scientists may have different views on the natural world and may not fully understand things and thus come up with different ways of perceiving reality/Natural world doesn’t mean there is not an objective fact out there to be found. They just haven’t worked it out yet.

Scientists get things wrong all the time. When they get it right and it becomes a law, there is a consensus in the scientific community

It’s the same for morality. Just because people have different views on morality doesn't mean there is no objective moral truths.

Actually it does. The fact that such a truth can’t be demonstrated as true means it isn’t objective.

It just may be we don't understand or tune into how moral realism works or are blinded by various influences like bias or self-interest.

Bias and self-interest has no effect on that which is objective.

The difference is though if a person holds an objective moral position then they can claim that the moral system they believe is correct can also apply to the other person regardless of their subjective moral views. That’s because the objective moral laws have been determined outside humans and is an independent law.

Are you kidding me? Take abortion for example; if a pro-choice objectivist made the claim that abortions were morally good to a pro life activist, and claimed this moral view is outside humans and is an independent law, do you really think the pro-life activist will "turn coat" and start supporting abortions? C’mon; that pro-choice activist would get cussed out!

I will respond to the rest later

 

[Kylie]

There's another good example of an objective thing that a lot of disagreement happens with. Which interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct? Copenhagen interpretation? Many worlds interpretation?

No idea. But I am confident that when the correct interpretation can be shown, all rational people will accept it and will not argue and say that some other interpretation is the truth (which is what we're currently getting with morality).

Well that's getting closer to examining the nature of morality. What does the objectivist use to justify calling one value "good" and another value "bad"? I've found that it always ultimately boils down to likes and dislikes, that's why I'm a subjectivist.

In that, it seems, we are agreed.

Now you're giving your own examples of objective things that people disagree on. Do you see how just because people disagree it doesn't show subjectivity? I mean, there is an objective fact as to who stole the lens.

And if people could see the whole picture, they would all agree.

Yet if there was some moral situation and we had several people who could see the whole picture, I think they would still DISagree. this is what we'd expect from something SUBjective, not OBjective.

 

[Moral Orel]

No idea. But I am confident that when the correct interpretation can be shown, all rational people will accept it and will not argue and say that some other interpretation is the truth (which is what we're currently getting with morality).

That's what we're currently getting with quantum mechanics interpretations. Rational people arguing that their interpretation is more correct than others.

And if people could see the whole picture, they would all agree.

Yet if there was some moral situation and we had several people who could see the whole picture, I think they would still DISagree. this is what we'd expect from something SUBjective, not OBjective.

It's something we'd expect from things whether they're subjective or objective, as the examples you and I have given show.

In that, it seems, we are agreed.

Really? It's rare to meet someone else ready to accept that morality is built on personal tastes and nothing more.

 

[Ken-1122]

Didnt you claim that "Morality does not exist outside of sentient beings; so what do you mean by outside of the person?"

A sentient being is an any being capable of thought. trees, rocks, bacteria are not sentient beings; they are incapable of thought, so morality does not exist with those things.

I asked how can you objectively know that morality doesn't exist outside sentient beings. How can you demonstrate this claim.

In order to judge morally, you have to be able to think.

What do you mean by ultimate truths. What do they apply to.

Truth is what is aligned with reality.

Our intuition of moral objective is self evident. It is understood by our senses and appears in the way we live like morality is objective.

I disagree. You mistakenly assume people who believe morality is objective behave differently than those who know it is subjective. There is no difference in behavior between the two groups.

Under moral realism certain moral values are factual. It applies to everybody because its like a law.

Care to provide an example of a moral value that is factual? And provide the facts of course.

In certain lived moral experiences such as any interaction between people seeking a truth matter there will be undeniable moral truths that have to apply regardless of personal moral view.

Can you provide an example of this?

Thats my understanding of objective morality anyway. Seems pretty plausable.

No, objective morality means the moral issue can be demonstrated via facts. I have yet to have a moral objectivist demonstrate and prove their moral issues were objective. Perhaps you can be the first?

 

[Kylie]

That's what we're currently getting with quantum mechanics interpretations. Rational people arguing that their interpretation is more correct than others.

But there's not enough data to reach a scientific consensus yet, is there?

It's something we'd expect from things whether they're subjective or objective, as the examples you and I have given show.

I've given plenty of examples of objective things where this does not happen.

Really? It's rare to meet someone else ready to accept that morality is built on personal tastes and nothing more.

Personal tastes that are shaped by the society and culture we grew up in, I must point out.

 

[Moral Orel]

But there's not enough data to reach a scientific consensus yet, is there?

There may not be any possible way to determine which interpretation of quantum mechanics is right. Point is, that whatever excuse you have for any other objective thing causing disagreement, you can't rule that excuse out for morality. I'm not saying that those excuses aren't valid ones either. But if you were to claim that morality can't have an excuse as well as any other objective thing that has no consensus, well that would be special pleading.

I've given plenty of examples of objective things where this does not happen.

That doesn't matter. If you want to deduce that a thing isn't objective because of prevalent disagreement then prevalent disagreement must always mean a thing isn't objective. Since plenty of objective things are disagreed upon, disagreement over morals isn't evidence of anything.

Personal tastes that are shaped by the society and culture we grew up in, I must point out.

There are a lot of different causes for our tastes and preferences to be what they are. You don't think society and culture are the only things influencing you, do you?

 

[Kylie]

There may not be any possible way to determine which interpretation of quantum mechanics is right.

If we can never show that one particular interpretation is wrong, then every single test we could ever do must show that interpretation is correct. If this condition applies to multiple interpretations, then we can conclude that both interpretations are objectively correct.

Point is, that whatever excuse you have for any other objective thing causing disagreement, you can't rule that excuse out for morality. I'm not saying that those excuses aren't valid ones either. But if you were to claim that morality can't have an excuse as well as any other objective thing that has no consensus, well that would be special pleading.

I think it's a long stretch to conclude that morality and quantum mechanics can be objective AND disagreed upon for the same reasons.

That doesn't matter. If you want to deduce that a thing isn't objective because of prevalent disagreement then prevalent disagreement must always mean a thing isn't objective. Since plenty of objective things are disagreed upon, disagreement over morals isn't evidence of anything.

No, I'm just pointing out that such disagreement is what we'd expect from subjective issues, not objective ones. Moreover, the amount of disagreement we see with morality is nothing like the disagreement we see regarding the disagreement with objective issues. With those we see that there is, in general, near complete agreement over the broad issues and any disagreement comes when examining the fine details. With morality, the only widespread agreement we get is for the broadest strokes only - murder is bad, rape is wrong, etc. We find disagreement with morality even for relatively broad issues, as my "punishment for a naughty child" example demonstrates.

There are a lot of different causes for our tastes and preferences to be what they are. You don't think society and culture are the only things influencing you, do you?

Did I say they were the only things? Of course not. But I'd say they are the major things. People who come from the same society generally have fairly similar moral viewpoints.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[o_mlly]

I'm just pointing out that such disagreement is what we'd expect from subjective issues, not objective ones.

OK. Do you agree that a subjective issue is one that can not be proven true or false and that an objective issue can?

 

[stevevw]

Yes it is. We act like subjective things are objective and we are mistaken.

How do you know we are mistaken.

 

[stevevw]

The same for objective morality.

Objective morality is based on a fact or truth outside the person so it has an independent measure that cannot be disputed by subjective personal views.

The same for objective morality. The only difference? They can’t even prove their subject exist!

As explained above subject morality is only about the subject’s views and opinion. Objective is about a fact or truth outside the subject (person) and is fact regardless of personal views.

Like in science a subjective view may be that the earth is flat and the person has a right to that and no one can tell them they don't have a right to believe that view is true for the person expressing the view. But in reality there is an fact that proves the earth is round outside and independent of the person which can show the Flat Earther is wrong.

So if 2 people are debating and one says the earth is flat the other person can say "that’s just your personal view and it holds no weight because its only expressing something about you and not facts outside yourself. But the person holding the objective fact that the earth is round can say "the earth is round and this is a fact that applies to everyone including the Flat Earther and its a truth beyond you and men".

So in that sense a person with the objective truth about something can claim that their view applies to everyone but a person with a subjective view cannot say this as it only applies to themselves. Applied to morality this is the same.

Exactly! In other words, in order for me to believe you, you will have to provide more than an empty claim, and a bunch of excuses. Is that too much to ask? I don't think so.

I have been giving you examples of all through this thread. I posted some in a post to you hear #539. The video includes the following arguement for moral realism/objectivity. I will make it more related to our debate.

For example, when you reply to my posts and argue for moral relativism/subjectivism and that there is no moral realism/objectivist and I decide to reply you will assume that epistemic duties must be present in our debate. You will assume that I ought not misrepresent your argument and pretend to have refuted them. I cannot rely on logical fallacies; I should be honest in what I say and not lie. The moral skeptic assumes these things ought to be done in a philosophical debate.

You will prescribe epistemic duties such as these and believe they should be kept and abided by.
But that is exactly the problem. Why should I go along and be Honest and Truthful if it is all relative. If people can choose not to be Honest or Truthful then why even have the debate as it will be meaningless.

So the pertinent point here is that "The moral skeptic assumes these things ought to be done in a philosophical debate" (like our debate) emphasis added.

You or anyone in the whole entire universe cannot deny the moral values of Honesty and Truth in our debate if we are seeking the truth of a matter. Otherwise we could just make stuff up and nothing would be coherent and have meaning.

So the moral values of Honesty and Truth stand as independent moral facts regardless of any persons personal view or opinion that they are not needed in our debate. That makes them objective moral values outside any human because no human can affect the value that these morals have in our debate.

So therefore
Premise 1: If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
Premise 2: Epistemic facts do exist
Conclusion 1: Moral facts do exist.
Premise 3: If moral facts do exist, then realism is true.
Conclusion 2: Moral realism is true.

The same for objective morality. The difference, they can’t provide any evidence that their subject even exists! At least I exist.....

Once again as above objective morality is not about the person (subjects) views or opinion. Its about facts outside the human (subject). So no opinions or views are allowed for objective morality as they are facts outside humans that can be supported.

Whereas subjective opinions, and views are tell us what the subject thinks, about their psychological state and the moral views are only true to the person and not true outside the person.

 

[stevevw]

And doesn't fit in with anything else that is objectively true.
Can you show me anything else that is objectively true that people reject for a good reason?

Of course, humans are even capable of disbelieving for good reason obvious facts and coming up with their won views because they may be in denial, biased, have false assumptions or have just honestly come up with an alternative view due to their their psychological makeup.

We have seen this many times in social settings where people get the wrong idea/view of a person despite others showing facts of contrary behaviour. As I mentioned earlier many scientific theories have varying views about what are the facts. Those who think the earth is flat really have an alternative view that the earth is flat based on facts and believe that.

Climate change is another, Human consciousness is another? The fact is we are conscious beings but there are varying views on what consciousness is. Ask any witness of an incident what factually happened and you will get varying views of what happened. The list goes on.

In fact in science the observer plays such an important role that some think there is no objective reality and reality (the physical world) is created by the observer. That really opens up the possibility that peoples views can vary about objective reality.

Special pleading.

How is it special pleading when you were quite willing to debate Gods role and even gave your opinion that God makes moral laws like governments do.

So qualifying Gods role is relevant. Therefore we have to assess whether God can be viewed in the same way we humans view things and use support such as what the Bible says about God and moral law. Philosophers have determined that God is not an entity that dictates moral laws but is made up of the morals like Love, Honesty, justice, kindness, generosity ect.

There is no basis for assuming that there is an "ought" anywhere in there.

Yes that’s right, there is no basis for assuming that there is an "ought" anywhere in the explanation evolution uses to account for morality. Is only descriptive and not proscriptive.

Please, then, show me something that we both agree is objective that also has similar levels of acceptance.

Yes I have done that several times. For example can you or I or anyone who is having a debate like we are in seeking the truth or a matter disregard the moral values of Honesty and Truth in our debate.

See the onus on proving there is not moral realism is on the moral sceptic and not the person claiming moral realism because moral realism or objective morality is based on intuitions of lived morality.

Just like we know and believe intuitively that the physical world is real according to our senses and we are in some simulation and therefore have no reason to doubt this when we for example sit on a chair and it doesn’t disappear.

So too do we intuitively know and believe our experience of moral situations are real. We don’t just walk on by when a child is being abused and think morality is subjective so the perpetrator is just acting out their moral view. Rather we know this act is wrong for anyone and want to stop it.

So just like our physical world is real and there is no reason to doubt it until the moral sceptic can come up with evidence that our moral intuition is not real then we are justified to believe it is real. They would have to come up with the same level of evidence that would prove our physical world is not real because both are based on intuition.

And yet you didn't explain how evolution is unable to account for morality. Evolution can easily explain social behaviors just the same way it can explain physical characteristics.

Explaining or describing morality through evolution or science doesn’t tell us why something is morally right or wrong. For example evolution may say that human getting along and not stealing or killing each other is an evolved behaviour that helps human societies survive and not destroy themselves. But why says that human survival is a morally right act.

Plus evolution is about chemical reactions, how proteins are mutated and naturally selected to pass on genes. Chemical reactions don’t explain or account for morality which is nonphysical and nothing to do with biology.

Plus its a non sequitur because even if we accept that morality came about by evolution this still doesn’t deny that there are objective morals and we are discovering them through evolution just like we discover reality/the world with evolving understanding.

Evolution can explain morality.

but it cannot account for why something is morally right or wrong. It’s just descriptive and not proscriptive.

People acting like their subjective beliefs are objective facts does not make those subjective beliefs are objective facts.

It does if those objective morals apply to lived moral experiences like laws that cannot be denied. I have given the example of Honesty.

I will leave it there as I think this covers all the important points
Regards Steve

 

[Ken-1122]

Objective morality is based on a fact or truth outside the person so it has an independent measure that cannot be disputed by subjective personal views.

It doesn’t matter how many empty claims you make about your “truth” being based outside of people, the person you are debating with will claim you and your non-human source are wrong; IOW you have no way of showing your truth claims trumps his truth claims.

As explained above subject morality is only about the subject’s views and opinion. Objective is about a fact or truth outside the subject (person) and is fact regardless of personal views.

Like in science a subjective view may be that the earth is flat and the person has a right to that and no one can tell them they don't have a right to believe that view is true for the person expressing the view. But in reality there is an fact that proves the earth is round outside and independent of the person which can show the Flat Earther is wrong.

So if 2 people are debating and one says the earth is flat the other person can say "that’s just your personal view and it holds no weight because its only expressing something about you and not facts outside yourself. But the person holding the objective fact that the earth is round can say "the earth is round and this is a fact that applies to everyone including the Flat Earther and its a truth beyond you and men".

Well... that probably wouldn't be enough for a flat Earther, he would probably have to take him up in a rocket ship, leave the atmosphere, and show him that the earth is actually round.

So in that sense a person with the objective truth about something can claim that their view applies to everyone but a person with a subjective view cannot say this as it only applies to themselves. Applied to morality this is the same.

The shape of the Earth is objective. If morality were objective, you would be able to prove right vs wrong as easily as we can prove the Earth is round. However this is impossible, because morality is not objective.

I have been giving you examples of all through this thread. I posted some in a post to you hear #539. The video includes the following arguement for moral realism/objectivity. I will make it more related to our debate.

For example, when you reply to my posts and argue for moral relativism/subjectivism and that there is no moral realism/objectivist and I decide to reply you will assume that epistemic duties must be present in our debate. You will assume that I ought not misrepresent your argument and pretend to have refuted them. I cannot rely on logical fallacies; I should be honest in what I say and not lie. The moral skeptic assumes these things ought to be done in a philosophical debate.

True! But this is not a moral issue. A person presenting logical fallacies in a debate is not evil, he is just a poor debater.

You will prescribe epistemic duties such as these and believe they should be kept and abided by.

But that is exactly the problem. Why should I go along and be Honest and Truthful if it is all relative. If people can choose not to be Honest or Truthful then why even have the debate as it will be meaningless.

This is not a moral issue, it’s a logical issue; and poor debaters do this all the time. If you have a desire to debate me, presenting logical fallacies only shows your position has no merit, it doesn’t make you evil

So the pertinent point here is that "The moral skeptic assumes these things ought to be done in a philosophical debate" (like our debate) emphasis added.

You or anyone in the whole entire universe cannot deny the moral values of Honesty and Truth in our debate if we are seeking the truth of a matter. Otherwise we could just make stuff up and nothing would be coherent and have meaning.

Just because a person is being true and honest does not mean they will not present a fallacious response; many are unaware that their response to be a logical fallacy.

So the moral values of Honesty and Truth stand as independent moral facts regardless of any persons personal view or opinion that they are not needed in our debate. That makes them objective moral values outside any human because no human can affect the value that these morals have in our debate.

So therefore
Premise 1: If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
Premise 2: Epistemic facts do exist
Conclusion 1: Moral facts do exist.
Premise 3: If moral facts do exist, then realism is true.
Conclusion 2: Moral realism is true.

Speaking of moral fallacies, your Premise 1 is wrong, epistemic facts is a logical issue, not a moral issue. So just because epistemic facts may exist, does not mean moral facts exist. IOW you’ve just presented a logical fallacy.

Once again as above objective morality is not about the person (subjects) views or opinion. Its about facts outside the human (subject). So no opinions or views are allowed for objective morality as they are facts outside humans that can be supported.

Not just a Human subject, but any sentient being. It has to be outside any being capable of thought; be it human, beast, or whatever. Now present an example where a moral issue is true regardless of the thoughts of any sentient being.

 

[Moral Orel]

If we can never show that one particular interpretation is wrong, then every single test we could ever do must show that interpretation is correct. If this condition applies to multiple interpretations, then we can conclude that both interpretations are objectively correct.

No, the different interpretations are mutually exclusive. Either the wave function collapses, or it doesn't.

Failing to disprove something does not prove it instead. I think you just described science as a shifting of the burden of proof fallacy.

I think it's a long stretch to conclude that morality and quantum mechanics can be objective AND disagreed upon for the same reasons.

I didn't conclude that. I said you have no reason to rule it out. Huge difference.

No, I'm just pointing out that such disagreement is what we'd expect from subjective issues, not objective ones. Moreover, the amount of disagreement we see with morality is nothing like the disagreement we see regarding the disagreement with objective issues. With those we see that there is, in general, near complete agreement over the broad issues and any disagreement comes when examining the fine details. With morality, the only widespread agreement we get is for the broadest strokes only - murder is bad, rape is wrong, etc. We find disagreement with morality even for relatively broad issues, as my "punishment for a naughty child" example demonstrates.

I don't get how you're using "broad". Climate change seems like a broad issue to me, and there's widespread disagreement.

Did I say they were the only things? Of course not. But I'd say they are the major things. People who come from the same society generally have fairly similar moral viewpoints.

Okay. Is that just an interesting tidbit, or is it important to understand the nature of morality somehow?

 

[Moral Orel]

How do you know we are mistaken.

This is from a much older post than the one I was waiting for a response on. Can you confirm that I understand your claim just fine before we proceed? Here's my latest post to you, please respond to this:

No, I understand your argument just fine. Things are objective and we know this because we act like they're objective. Right?