Is there Objective Morality?

[Kylie]

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

I don't know that I'd phrase it like that.

When I think of subjective issues, like whether Star Trek or Star Wars is better, or what flavour ice cream is the best, I don't think there is any such thing as "the truth." Just what is true for each person. What is true for me regarding those things may not be true for you. I think chocolate icecream is the best, but you may think vanilla is better. That doesn't make either of those positions "true," it just means that it's true that chocolate is the best for me, and likewise it's true that vanilla is the best for you.

And when it comes for objective things, there are still times when different people will have different views. There's a classic example of the train and tunnel paradox - a train is running at 90% the speed of light, and it goes through a tunnel. The tunnel is a hundred meters from end to end, and the train is 120 meters long. From one point of view, relativistic effects mean the train is shortened enough so that the entire train fits within the tunnel, but from another point of view the tunnel is shortened so that the first end of the train emerges before the back end of the train enters. (Here's a video about this:

)

I think the difference is that with something objective, there is a single way of describing it that all (rational) people will agree upon, even if they experience different things. (For example, with the train/tunnel situation, all rational people will agree on how relativistic effects affect how different observers perceive the events, and any observer from one particular point of view can predict how an observer with a different point of view will see things.) With subjective things, there is no such single explanation.

 

[Kylie]

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.

And all of those issues come about because of subjective perceptions that can't be verified objectively.

Ask a person what they witnessed when the incident took place, and you can get a different answer from everyone, because how are they going to verify their perceptions? It's not like they can experience the incident again.

But if you get a video recording of the incident, suddenly it becomes a lot more objective, and it becomes possible to verify what happened. This happens because we are removing the subjectivity of the witness's experience.

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.

There's no actual evidence for that idea though, is there.

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.

I don't recall ever making that claim. Can you show me where I did?

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.

That's assuming God exists, and that's a big IF 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.

So what?

You are the one who claimed "...evolution does not explain why we ought to be good..." as though there actually IS an "ought" in there. You have not shown that there's any reason to believe that there's an "ought".

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.

As I have said several times now, we can't reach a conclusion on the morality of honesty just on the basis that it's honesty.

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.

Again, any lived experience is a SUBJECTIVE thing.

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.

If you have to rely on "believe intuitively," then what you're talking about is not objective.

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.

The passerby who steps in and tries to stop the abuser does so because their morality tells them it is wrong. The abuser's morality tells them that it is acceptable to abuse the child. This is exactly what we'd expect to see from subjective, not objective morality.

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.

Intuition is not objective.

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.

No, much of Human behaviour is caused by genes. Dawkins described how this works in his book "The Extended Phenotype." If there were Humans who did not act like survival was something to strive for, then they would have not tried to survive and the genes for such behaviour would have died out with them. Natural selection favours those who try to stay alive as much as possible.

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.

As I just said, evolution and natural selection can account for behaviour.

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.

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding evolution.

From an evolutionary point of view, there is no objective moral right and wrong in just the same way that there is no objectively best body shape.

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

You have not shown that a proscriptive explanation is required.

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

Once again, lived experiences are subjective, not objective.

 

[Kylie]

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

If there are two explanations, A and B, and neither of them can be disproved, then anything that happens must be consistent with both of them.

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

No, as I said, if we can never disprove an explanation, then everything we see must be in agreement with that explanation.

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

This sounds very much like the "You can't prove it's not true" argument.

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

What is broad is the fact that temperatures are changing. I don't think there's much disagreement about that these days. What is disagreed on - the cause of the change - is not as broad.

Of course, once again I'll point out that when it comes to climate change, there is very little disagreement among scientists in relevant fields.

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

I think what I said was quite clear.

 

[stevevw]

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:

Yes thats more or less a correct understanding. We can know morality is objective by our intuition of lived moral experience and observing how morality works in real life situations rather than what people verbally express.

People will often contradict their subjective verbal moral claims because how they really view morality in deep inside them and it comes out when they react to moral situations which they have no control over. In other words it shows their true moral colours.

 

[stevevw]

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.

So therefore I provided support for my arguement. I linked arguemnets that support moral realism and now you need to refute them and show that human intuition is unreliable when it comes to our lived experience of morality.

I gave 2 examples
1) can you and I have this debate without the moral values of Honesty and Truth if we are seeking the truth of a matter.
2) You need to provide an arguement that refutes human intuition of knowing that certain things are morally wrong beyond personal opinion. The example I gave was how people don't just walk on by a women or child being attcked/abused in the street and think the attacker is justified in abusing the women or child because its their subjective view.

But rather we become upset and know it is wrong and want to stop the abuse. Everyone is the same and no personal opinion or views on the morality of this situation will change this.

You have to come up with a valid arguement why it would be OK for the attacker to abuse the child or women and we should just walk on by and how we should not trust our moral intuition of this situation.

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.

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.

Morality is not measured the same way science measures things because morality is not a physical thing. So you have to get the idea of using the same method as science for morality. BUt that doesnt mean we havnt got a way of measuring morality.

There are many non-physical things we can measure though logical arguements or even through math and they are accepted as evidence. I just gave you a couple in my last post.

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.

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

You missed the point. Logical fallacies are a misrepresentation of another persons position. They are a form of dishonesty and thats the moral. When we debate you expect me to be honest and not lie, twist or misrepresent the what you are saying. I expect the same. We are both seeking the truth of the matter ie is morality subjective or objective.

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.

Then thats an honest mistake. I am talking about a sort of agreement between you and me or anyone debating that each person will aim to be honest in their responses and not purposely lie or twist things. Otherwise we cannot have a coherent debate as it will fly off into all sorts of made up claims.

BUt even if a person uses a logical fallacy and doesnt realize it because honesty is the rule I could question your accidental fallacy to see if it stands up. So without honesty I could not do that because it would not matter if your logical fallacy was purposely or accidently made because there would be no standard to determine lies from truth.

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.

First before I answer this I want to give another example of how Honesty is an important moral value in debates. I could say "so what that I have made a logical fallacy because I think Honesty is relative to our debate".

You may think Honesty is a moral value in our debate but I don't. So I can lie and you have to accept my subjective moral view. This just shows how Honesty is an independent required moral value that no one can reject through personal opinion if they want to find the truth of a matter. In other words my subjective moral position just destroyed my arguement and our debate.

Back to epistemic values. Epistemic and moral facts are so closely related that you cannot have one without the other in a philosophical debate seeking the truth. Epistemology is about how we come to know things cognitively. But in seeking to know something in a philosophical debate without honesty as a rule or guide we could not know anything because there would be no value directing us.

Terrence Cuneo is a well regarded ethicists who mentions how epistemics and morality are closely linked.

The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism
Terence Cuneo
ABSTRACT
Antirealist views about morality claim that moral facts do not exist. An interesting question to raise about these views is whether they imply that other types of normative facts, such as epistemic facts, do not exist. This book develops the argument that they do. That is, it contends that moral and epistemic facts are sufficiently similar that, if moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts also do not exist. But epistemic facts (facts that concern reasons for belief), it is argued, do exist. So, moral facts also exist. And if moral facts exist, then moral realism is true.
Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism - Oxford Scholarship

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.

Please refer to the above.

 

[Moral Orel]

If there are two explanations, A and B, and neither of them can be disproved, then anything that happens must be consistent with both of them.

No, anything we can observe happening must be consistent with both of them. Not everything that happens is something we're capable of observing. And it is these things, things which we cannot observe, that are actually happening and we can't know whether it happens one way or the other.

No, as I said, if we can never disprove an explanation, then everything we see must be in agreement with that explanation.

No, that isn't what you said. You claimed that "both explanations are objectively true".

This sounds very much like the "You can't prove it's not true" argument.

Well, you didn't prove it isn't true. I dunno if you can or not. But until you do, it's a baseless assertion.

What is broad is the fact that temperatures are changing. I don't think there's much disagreement about that these days. What is disagreed on - the cause of the change - is not as broad.

Of course, once again I'll point out that when it comes to climate change, there is very little disagreement among scientists in relevant fields.

??? The thing that requires one single data point (the temperature) is the broad thing, and the thing with lots and lots of various explanations is the not broad thing? That's nonsense.

I think what I said was quite clear.

I didn't say I didn't understand your statement. I asked why you bothered to mention two of the many causes.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes thats more or less a correct understanding. We can know morality is objective by our intuition of lived moral experience and observing how morality works in real life situations rather than what people verbally express.

People will often contradict their subjective verbal moral claims because how they really view morality in deep inside them and it comes out when they react to moral situations which they have no control over. In other words it shows their true moral colours.

Okay, then I understood you just fine from the beginning.

p1 Acting like some thing is objective shows that thing is objective.
p2 Sometimes I act like X is objective.
c Therefore I know that X is objective.

Still correct, right?

 

[Kylie]

No, anything we can observe happening must be consistent with both of them. Not everything that happens is something we're capable of observing. And it is these things, things which we cannot observe, that are actually happening and we can't know whether it happens one way or the other.

Of course, that requires that there are things which we can NEVER detect, either directly or indirectly. And as such, they can't make any difference, since if they did, we'd be able to use that as an indirect method of detection.

No, that isn't what you said. You claimed that "both explanations are objectively true".

And that would explain why what we observe is in agreement, wouldn't it?

Take for example the train and tunnel situation I mentioned earlier.

One observer sees the entire train inside the tunnel, and another observer sees that the train does not fit entirely within the tunnel. Aren't they both objectively correct?

Well, you didn't prove it isn't true. I dunno if you can or not. But until you do, it's a baseless assertion.

Oh look, you've made a claim and then shifted the burden of proof onto me.

The burden of proof remains squarely on your shoulders, and I do not have to disprove it. You are the one who presented the argument so you are the one who must support it.

??? The thing that requires one single data point (the temperature) is the broad thing, and the thing with lots and lots of various explanations is the not broad thing? That's nonsense.

Perhaps you'd be happier with the term "The big picture."

The big picture is that the temperature is changing. What is causing it to change is one part of that issue.

I didn't say I didn't understand your statement. I asked why you bothered to mention two of the many causes.

Please read my post again and look for the word MAJOR.

 

[Moral Orel]

And that would explain why what we observe is in agreement, wouldn't it?

No, two mutually exclusive things cannot both be true. You're literally arguing that the law of non-contradiction is not true.

Oh look, you've made a claim and then shifted the burden of proof onto me.

The burden of proof remains squarely on your shoulders, and I do not have to disprove it. You are the one who presented the argument so you are the one who must support it.

No, that was me retracting my claim. Here's the original claim:

whatever excuse you have for any other objective thing causing disagreement, you can't rule that excuse out for morality.

So I had to admit:

I dunno if you can or not.

I acknowledge I was incorrect to claim I knew whether or not you could provide reasoning for something. So I'll ask instead, can you give any reason to rule out any sort of excuse for objective morality?

Perhaps you'd be happier with the term "The big picture."

The big picture is that the temperature is changing. What is causing it to change is one part of that issue.

I don't see how it helps your argument. There are objective things people disagree on. You'll need to do more than point to disagreement to prove subjectivity. Creating arbitrary and ill-defined distinctions between morality and all the other objective things we disagree on isn't an argument.

Please read my post again and look for the word MAJOR.

Please read my post again and look for the word MAJOR. When did I accuse you of using the word "MAJOR"? What is so difficult about this question? Why did you bother mentioning two of the many causes for our tastes and preferences?

 

[Kylie]

No, two mutually exclusive things cannot both be true. You're literally arguing that the law of non-contradiction is not true.

How can you say they are mutually exclusive if neither of them can be disproved?

If we see something that contradicts one of the explanations, that means that the particular explanation has been disproved. Since that is not a possible outcome (as per your claim in post 552 that we can't show that one is right over the other), then anything that we see will fit with both possible explanations.

And since this will ALWAYS be the case, again as your claim that we can never make a determination, then we can use either explanation and get an accurate result.

I acknowledge I was incorrect to claim I knew whether or not you could provide reasoning for something. So I'll ask instead, can you give any reason to rule out any sort of excuse for objective morality?

And that's what I was talking about. You are shifting the burden of proof onto me. It is not my job to come up with some way to dismiss any argument for objective morality. You are the one claiming that objective morality, thus it is up to you to present evidence to show that objective morality exists. Since I have claimed that morality is subjective, my only burden is to support that claim, and I have.

I don't see how it helps your argument. There are objective things people disagree on. You'll need to do more than point to disagreement to prove subjectivity. Creating arbitrary and ill-defined distinctions between morality and all the other objective things we disagree on isn't an argument.

Once again, you have not shown such a thing where people with people who can reach a rational conclusion about it have significant disagreement.

And no, your climate change example doesn't count, for reasons which I have already explained.

Please read my post again and look for the word MAJOR. When did I accuse you of using the word "MAJOR"? What is so difficult about this question? Why did you bother mentioning two of the many causes for our tastes and preferences?

Please pay closer attention. I never said you accused me of using the word MAJOR, I was pointing out the fact that I did indeed use the word MAJOR.

Specifically, I said that culture and society are, in my opinion, the MAJOR influences on our morality. And if you'd paid attention to that, you would have known that the answer to your question about why I used those two influences out of the many influences that actually shape our morality is because those two are the MAJOR ones.

 

[stevevw]

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.

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

Yes but that doesnt prevent people reasoning and thinking about situations outside themselves. All it means is we are moving from thinking about our own views on morality which are wholly within ourselves to thinking about an outside source that morality is grounded in.

Truth is what is aligned with reality.

Ever heard of the saying “There are three sides to a story— mine, yours and the truth”. Reality can be different for different people which can affect each persons truth. If you want to include all sentient beings like dogs, cats, apes, and elephants then these creatures will have a completely different reality again.

So it seems reality is one thing and the truth is another. Though reality can line up with the truth I don’t think the truth always lines up with reality.

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.

I am not sure. If a religious group believes morality comes from God and they only follow Gods moral laws i.e. (10 commandments, Christ’s teachings) then they will live differently to those who believe that morality is subjective and there is no truth to what is right and wrong which may allow them to break the moral laws of that religion. Look at the difference between secular society and some religions.

The point is subjective morality means that each person has their own moral view and therefore there can be many different moral views and there is no (1) specific set of morals that apply. Whereas objective morality is one moral law outside people that all people will agree on and follow.

Under subjective morality for example sex outside marriage, abortion, SSM,, greed, drugs, etc. are allowed as possible alternative morals whereas in most religions like Christianity its immoral.

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

I covered this in my other post to you such as Honesty and Truth are moral laws that apply to any debate between people who are seeking the truth of a matter.

Can you provide an example of this?

Our debate is an example. You implicity apply Honesty and Truth as moral oughts to our debate that we need to abide by regardless of any subjective view and so do I or anyone else who wants to debate the truth of a matter. Try to explain how this debate can happen coherently without the moral values of Honesty and Truth.

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?

Thats because you have asked for an scientific facts when this doesnt apply to morality. There are other facts/truths like the example above.

 

[Moral Orel]

How can you say they are mutually exclusive if neither of them can be disproved?

Because logic. Either "the wave function collapses" or "the wave function does not collapse". One of these things is true, not both. You're arguing that because we can never know, then both are true. That's nonsense.

If we see something that contradicts one of the explanations, that means that the particular explanation has been disproved. Since that is not a possible outcome (as per your claim in post 552 that we can't show that one is right over the other), then anything that we see will fit with both possible explanations.

And since this will ALWAYS be the case, again as your claim that we can never make a determination, then we can use either explanation and get an accurate result.

It means we don't know. It doesn't mean both of the mutually exclusive propositions are true. You don't "get an accurate result" about a hypothesis you can't test.

And that's what I was talking about. You are shifting the burden of proof onto me. It is not my job to come up with some way to dismiss any argument for objective morality.

Your claim is that the examples of other objective things are different from morality somehow. If all you do is describe qualities of the examples, and you don't show that objective morality does not have those qualities, you haven't shown a difference. You've just described some things.

You are the one claiming that objective morality, thus it is up to you to present evidence to show that objective morality exists.

I am not claiming objective morality. I'm simply pointing out that you've made a bad argument against it.

Once again, you have not shown such a thing where people with people who can reach a rational conclusion about it have significant disagreement.

And no, your climate change example doesn't count, for reasons which I have already explained.

You asked for an example of an objective thing that people disagree about. We both provided examples, and you're pulling the special pleading fallacy to claim "But that's different". Either disagreement proves subjectivity, or it does not. Since we know that there are objective things without universal consensus, your proposition that disagreement proves subjectivity fails. Sorry.

Please pay closer attention. I never said you accused me of using the word MAJOR, I was pointing out the fact that I did indeed use the word MAJOR.

Specifically, I said that culture and society are, in my opinion, the MAJOR influences on our morality. And if you'd paid attention to that, you would have known that the answer to your question about why I used those two influences out of the many influences that actually shape our morality is because those two are the MAJOR ones.

I asked why you feel it's important to point out. I didn't ask why you chose those two. Does it impact the nature of morality somehow, that society and culture are major influences on our tastes and preferences?

 

[Ken-1122]

So therefore I provided support for my arguement. I linked arguemnets that support moral realism and now you need to refute them and show that human intuition is unreliable when it comes to our lived experience of morality.

So you are admitting the claim that your moral beliefs are objective is useless?

I gave 2 examples
1) can you and I have this debate without the moral values of Honesty and Truth if we are seeking the truth of a matter.

First of all, people don’t debate issues in an effort to find the truth, they debate issues because they are both convinced they know the truth, and are trying to convince the other person they are right and the other is wrong.

So can I argue against a proposition even if I am in favor of it? YES! That is called “playing the devil’s advocate” This happens all the time in an effort to strengthen one’s own views on a specific proposition.

So truth and honesty is not needed in order to have a successful debate.

2) You need to provide an arguement that refutes human intuition of knowing that certain things are morally wrong beyond personal opinion. The example I gave was how people don't just walk on by a women or child being attcked/abused in the street and think the attacker is justified in abusing the women or child because its their subjective view.

But rather we become upset and know it is wrong and want to stop the abuse. Everyone is the same and no personal opinion or views on the morality of this situation will change this.

You have to come up with a valid arguement why it would be OK for the attacker to abuse the child or women and we should just walk on by and how we should not trust our moral intuition of this situation.

I’ve answered this when you mentioned it before! A child being beaten with a stick will be seen as perfectly acceptable by many people; as the good book says “spare the rod spoil the child.” Depending on the culture, a woman being beaten with a stick (as long as the stick is not thicker than the man’s thumb) is totally acceptable as well
that's all I have time for right now, I'll respond to the rest later

 

[Kylie]

Because logic. Either "the wave function collapses" or "the wave function does not collapse". One of these things is true, not both. You're arguing that because we can never know, then both are true. That's nonsense.

Let me be clear here: I am responding to your claim in post 552 where you said, "There may not be any possible way to determine which interpretation of quantum mechanics is right."

So we are not looking at a situation of wave functions collapsing, we are looking at a situation where there are two possible explanations, Explanation A and Explanation B, and it is fundamentally impossible to determine that one of them is correct and the other one is wrong.

And the only way that we can have a situation like that is if both A and B are both able to explain everything that we see when we conduct tests on them. If we can never determine which is right over the other one, then they can never be wrong, can they? Since the instant one of them is wrong, it's out of the running and is discarded like so much trash.

It means we don't know. It doesn't mean both of the mutually exclusive propositions are true. You don't "get an accurate result" about a hypothesis you can't test.

If, by definition, neither of them can give wrong results (since that would answer the question of which one was inaccurate), then yes, they will both give consistently accurate results, and if they can never be wrong, why shouldn't we accept them as right?

Your claim is that the examples of other objective things are different from morality somehow. If all you do is describe qualities of the examples, and you don't show that objective morality does not have those qualities, you haven't shown a difference. You've just described some things.

No. I have been saying, "Things that are objective have these properties. Morality does not have those properties. Therefore, morality is not objective."

Your response is, "Morality can be objective without having those properties, because it's morality, not those other things, and morality is different, so it doesn't need to play by the same rules as those other things."

I am not claiming objective morality. I'm simply pointing out that you've made a bad argument against it.

Seems to me you are saying that my argument is bad because I haven't been using the special pleading fallacy. I see no reason to use fallacious arguments.

You asked for an example of an objective thing that people disagree about. We both provided examples, and you're pulling the special pleading fallacy to claim "But that's different". Either disagreement proves subjectivity, or it does not. Since we know that there are objective things without universal consensus, your proposition that disagreement proves subjectivity fails. Sorry.

No, I have not used special pleading. It is not special pleading to say that your example (climate change) does not count because the people who actually know what they are talking about do not disagree.

I asked why you feel it's important to point out. I didn't ask why you chose those two. Does it impact the nature of morality somehow, that society and culture are major influences on our tastes and preferences?

Morality is still subjective, regardless of what influences it. I just used them because, as I've said three times now, they are what I believe to be the biggest influences. What do you even mean by "does it impact the nature of morality"? Do you think that some fundamental aspect of morality will be altered if a particular influences it? If so, what thing and what fundamental aspect of morality will it change?

 

[Ken-1122]

Morality is not measured the same way science measures things because morality is not a physical thing.

I agree; morality only exists in your head.

So you have to get the idea of using the same method as science for morality. BUt that doesnt mean we havnt got a way of measuring morality.

Actually it does. You can’t measure or test morality using a scientific means because science is about empirical evidence, and there is n to empirical evidence in morality

There are many non-physical things we can measure though logical arguements or even through math and they are accepted as evidence. I just gave you a couple in my last post.

Those arguments have been refuted already

You missed the point. Logical fallacies are a misrepresentation of another persons position. They are a form of dishonesty and thats the moral. When we debate you expect me to be honest and not lie, twist or misrepresent the what you are saying. I expect the same. We are both seeking the truth of the matter ie is morality subjective or objective.

Again; nobody is seeking the truth of the matter, you and I are already convinced we know the truth, the problem with me is convincing you of the truth, and via vera for you.

Then thats an honest mistake. I am talking about a sort of agreement between you and me or anyone debating that each person will aim to be honest in their responses and not purposely lie or twist things. Otherwise we cannot have a coherent debate as it will fly off into all sorts of made up claims.

What proof do thou have that not being completely honest in a debate will always end up in an incoherent debate, and what proof do you have that being honest in a debate will never end up in ann incoherent debate? Is this just your subjective opinion? Or something you can back up with an outside source.

First before I answer this I want to give another example of how Honesty is an important moral value in debates. I could say "so what that I have made a logical fallacy because I think Honesty is relative to our debate".

You may think Honesty is a moral value in our debate but I don't. So I can lie and you have to accept my subjective moral view. This just shows how Honesty is an independent required moral value that no one can reject through personal opinion if they want to find the truth of a matter. In other words my subjective moral position just destroyed my arguement and our debate.

If you are being dishonest in a debate, though we may not accomplish anything, I don’t find this action to be immoral, just a waste of time.

Back to epistemic values. Epistemic and moral facts are so closely related that you cannot have one without the other in a philosophical debate seeking the truth. Epistemology is about how we come to know things cognitively. But in seeking to know something in a philosophical debate without honesty as a rule or guide we could not know anything because there would be no value directing us.

And why is this immoral?

Terrence Cuneo is a well regarded ethicists who mentions how epistemics and morality are closely linked.

The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism
Terence Cuneo
ABSTRACT
Antirealist views about morality claim that moral facts do not exist. An interesting question to raise about these views is whether they imply that other types of normative facts, such as epistemic facts, do not exist. This book develops the argument that they do. That is, it contends that moral and epistemic facts are sufficiently similar that, if moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts also do not exist. But epistemic facts (facts that concern reasons for belief), it is argued, do exist. So, moral facts also exist. And if moral facts exist, then moral realism is true.
Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism - Oxford Scholarship

The part I underlined, I find that to be a very poor argument to make. Consider this argument;

But epistemic facts is also argued to not exist. So, moral facts also don’t exist and if moral facts don’t exist, then moral realism is not true.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes but that doesnt prevent people reasoning and thinking about situations outside themselves. All it means is we are moving from thinking about our own views on morality which are wholly within ourselves to thinking about an outside source that morality is grounded in.

What kind of an outside source could morality be grounded in, that is not a sentient being?

Ever heard of the saying “There are three sides to a story— mine, yours and the truth”. Reality can be different for different people which can affect each persons truth. If you want to include all sentient beings like dogs, cats, apes, and elephants then these creatures will have a completely different reality again.

So it seems reality is one thing and the truth is another. Though reality can line up with the truth I don’t think the truth always lines up with reality.

What you are describing are various perceptions of truth, not the truth.

I am not sure. If a religious group believes morality comes from God and they only follow Gods moral laws i.e. (10 commandments, Christ’s teachings) then they will live differently to those who believe that morality is subjective and there is no truth to what is right and wrong which may allow them to break the moral laws of that religion. Look at the difference between secular society and some religions.

People who believe in God are no more righteous in their behavior than those who do not.

The point is subjective morality means that each person has their own moral view and therefore there can be many different moral views and there is no (1) specific set of morals that apply. Whereas objective morality is one moral law outside people that all people will agree on and follow.

Do you really believe there is one moral law outside people that all people have agreed to follow?

I covered this in my other post to you such as Honesty and Truth are moral laws that apply to any debate between people who are seeking the truth of a matter.

Again there is a big difference between seeking an unknown truth vs debating what you already believe to be true. Care to try again?

Our debate is an example. You implicity apply Honesty and Truth as moral oughts to our debate that we need to abide by regardless of any subjective view and so do I or anyone else who wants to debate the truth of a matter. Try to explain how this debate can happen coherently without the moral values of Honesty and Truth.

Again; I am convinced I already know the truth of this matter, as are you. Nobody in this conversation is actually looking for the truth. What we are doing has nothing to do with morality; there are no moral or immoral acts involved in this discussion.

Thats because you have asked for an scientific facts when this doesnt apply to morality. There are other facts/truths like the example above.

By definition, if facts are not involved, it can’t be objective.

 

[stevevw]

So you are admitting the claim that your moral beliefs are objective is useless?

Not sure I follow what you mean.

First of all, people don’t debate issues in an effort to find the truth, they debate issues because they are both convinced they know the truth, and are trying to convince the other person they are right and the other is wrong.

When I say find the truth I also mean establishing the truth of a matter. So even if people are trying to convince someone of their truth people will still question whether you’re being honest and not just making your truth up. In fact it would be hard to prove your truth without an independent measuring stick. So Honesty and Truth are still needed.

As long as people are making claims and questioning those claims and statements to check if they are facts or truths Honesty and Truth are needed morals.

So can I argue against a proposition even if I am in favor of it? YES! That is called “playing the devil’s advocate” This happens all the time in an effort to strengthen one’s own views on a specific proposition.

So truth and honesty is not needed in order to have a successful debate.

Well yes it would be needed because being a devil’s advocate is a tactic to seek the truth. You are questioning a person or proposition as though it’s false to clarify so you can ensure the truth. So being a devil’s advocate would be useless if there was no Honesty and Truth values to guide things along and measure what is the truth or not.

Otherwise the person can just lie to the devil’s advocate and no one would be able to question them because they would only do that if there was a Truth to be found. Because there would be no Honesty as a moral the person could also lie and the devil’s advocate would not be able to question those lies because it would make no sense if Honesty was a subjective value you can take or leave.

I’ve answered this when you mentioned it before! A child being beaten with a stick will be seen as perfectly acceptable by many people; as the good book says “spare the rod spoil the child.” Depending on the culture, a woman being beaten with a stick (as long as the stick is not thicker than the man’s thumb) is totally acceptable as well

But heres the point your missing the person walking by doesnt know for what reason the child or women is being abused. They just see the abuse taking place and they know its wrong regardless of knowing why the abuse is happening. They intuitively know it is wrong to abuse a child or women regardless of the reason or personal opinion behind it.

that's all I have time for right now, I'll respond to the rest later

No worries

 

[stevevw]

I agree; morality only exists in your head.

First how do you know morality is only in your head? Do you have any independent support for this? What about consciousness is that only in your head. See already we have two propositions that we need to consider with independent support that is not inside our head and yet are not physical things.

A law in not a physical thing and yet its also not within our heads. You have to let go of this idea that morality is measured the same a science and if its not then it must be in your head as a subjective idea. That is not the case with many things. Look at math equations. They are not physical things and they are not just within our heads. We can write them on a blackboard or apply them to the world outside our heads.

Actually it does. You can’t measure or test morality using a scientific means because science is about empirical evidence, and there is no to empirical evidence in morality.

But empirical evidence isn't the only way to determine facts or the truth especially when morality is a philosophical issue. Are you saying there is not way to tell facts or truth in philosophy? Of course there is.

Besides we can also apply empirical evidence to morality. We can observe moral actions and do experiments to see how people act/react to those moral experiences and then assess and analyse the findings to determine whether people act a certain way in lived moral experiences. I have been doing one with you by using our debate as an example for how Honesty and Truth are needed to have truthful debates.

Those arguments have been refuted already

Have they, I haven’t seen anyone refute them. Someone said they disagreed with proposition 1 but didn’t give any reason. No one has shown we can have debates/discussions seeking the truth without Honesty and Truth as moral values.

You haven’t refuted human intuition as a self-evidence measure of objective morality when we see a child being abused and we know it is wrong regardless of knowing why the child is being abuse. WE just know that any abuse is wrong and needs to be stopped.

Again; nobody is seeking the truth of the matter, you and I are already convinced we know the truth, the problem with me is convincing you of the truth, and via vera for you.

That is not how debates/discussions work. I don't think I know the truth of every matter I debate. I go and do research to find the facts/truth and then offer that. It’s not my truth but an independent truth/fact. Not all claims you make are your truths and can be verified independently.

But how can we do that if we reject the values of Honesty and Truth from our debate. You are I could just lie or twist each other’s claims and there would be no way to tell when we are doing that because there would be no Honesty or Truth to determine things.

What proof do thou have that not being completely honest in a debate will always end up in an incoherent debate, and what proof do you have that being honest in a debate will never end up in ann incoherent debate? Is this just your subjective opinion? Or something you can back up with an outside source.

It’s an independent moral truth like a law. It’s self-evident like gravity. Just try and have a debate seeking the truth of a matter without Honesty. Because Honesty is about Truth you will never be able to have a meaningful debate seeking the truth of a matter without Honesty. So Honesty is a necessary moral value in these debates regardless of your or my personal opinions that Honesty is irrelevant.

If you are being dishonest in a debate, though we may not accomplish anything, I don’t find this action to be immoral, just a waste of time.

First you have just acknowledged my point when you said "we may not accomplish anything" without Honesty in a debate seeking the truth. So therefore Honesty is a necessary required moral value for debates seeking the truth.

Second being purposely dishonest or lying in a debate seeking the truth is immoral.

And why is this immoral?

It’s immoral because you or I or anyone that chooses to respond to another person in a philosophical debate or discussion that is seeking the truth has implicitly implied that the other person and themselves ought to be Honest and tell the Truth. That is the moral rules imposed. You will give your honest views and try to back up your claims with support.

You expect the other person will not lie and make things up and not twist what you say. You are doing this now and anyone can tell by the way you question me and make claims. Claims have to be scrutinized and scrutiny implies Honesty and Truth. Otherwise we may as well be making up fairy tales to each other. Or better still I could claim I am right about everything and you would have no way to prove I am wrong.

The part I underlined, I find that to be a very poor argument to make. Consider this argument;

But epistemic facts is also argued to not exist. So, moral facts also don’t exist and if moral facts don’t exist, then moral realism is not true.

But epistemic facts do exist. They are another self-evident value in knowledge seeking. Its like maths epistemic = facts about knowledge. Take away epistemic facts and you have no knowledge. Honest = coherent debates seeking the truth. Subtract Honesty and you get meaningless debates seeking the truth.

 

[Moral Orel]

Let me be clear here: I am responding to your claim in post 552 where you said, "There may not be any possible way to determine which interpretation of quantum mechanics is right."

So we are not looking at a situation of wave functions collapsing, we are looking at a situation where there are two possible explanations, Explanation A and Explanation B, and it is fundamentally impossible to determine that one of them is correct and the other one is wrong.

We are looking at a situation of wave functions collapsing. That's what the interpretations are about. One interpretation says it does, one interpretation says it does not.

And the only way that we can have a situation like that is if both A and B are both able to explain everything that we see when we conduct tests on them. If we can never determine which is right over the other one, then they can never be wrong, can they? Since the instant one of them is wrong, it's out of the running and is discarded like so much trash.

One of them already is wrong, we just don't know it, and maybe never will. The interpretation doesn't become wrong once we figure it out.

If, by definition, neither of them can give wrong results (since that would answer the question of which one was inaccurate), then yes, they will both give consistently accurate results, and if they can never be wrong, why shouldn't we accept them as right?

Then we should accept all unfalsifiable propositions is true.

No. I have been saying, "Things that are objective have these properties. Morality does not have those properties. Therefore, morality is not objective."

Good! Prove that part I bolded. That's what I've been asking for when you've told me I'm shifting the burden of proof. But now that you've explicitly claimed it, there's no confusion.

Your response is, "Morality can be objective without having those properties, because it's morality, not those other things, and morality is different, so it doesn't need to play by the same rules as those other things."

I never said anything of the sort. This is all rubbish.

No, I have not used special pleading. It is not special pleading to say that your example (climate change) does not count because the people who actually know what they are talking about do not disagree.

Until you prove that there cannot be any such thing as an expert in morality, then yes, you're special pleading. You moved the goal posts, by the way, since you originally only asked for an objective thing that people disagree on. I provided that in spades. Heck, let's get all meta about it. I say that disagreement doesn't prove subjectivity, you say it does. But it too is an objective thing that people disagree about.

Seems to me you are saying that my argument is bad because I haven't been using the special pleading fallacy. I see no reason to use fallacious arguments.

This is just a throwback to that rubbish strawman you dreamed up.

Morality is still subjective, regardless of what influences it. I just used them because, as I've said three times now, they are what I believe to be the biggest influences.

You didn't "use them" like they were examples. You felt that you "must point out that" culture and society cause our tastes and preferences to be what they are. Why did you feel that was important?

What do you even mean by "does it impact the nature of morality"? Do you think that some fundamental aspect of morality will be altered if a particular influences it? If so, what thing and what fundamental aspect of morality will it change?

The nature of morality as being either subjective or objective. Morality is subjective because it's based on tastes and preferences. Why does it matter what the cause of those tastes and preferences is?

 

[Kylie]

We are looking at a situation of wave functions collapsing. That's what the interpretations are about. One interpretation says it does, one interpretation says it does not.

One of them already is wrong, we just don't know it, and maybe never will. The interpretation doesn't become wrong once we figure it out.

If it is not possible to show that one is wrong, then everything it can ever tell us is the truth. You're the one who said it could be impossible to tell, I'm just pointing out the consequences of that.

Then we should accept all unfalsifiable propositions is true.

Who's saying they are unfalsifiable? We're talking about what happens if neither of them is falsified, and that's a very different thing to being unfalsifiable.

Good! Prove that part I bolded. That's what I've been asking for when you've told me I'm shifting the burden of proof. But now that you've explicitly claimed it, there's no confusion.

I have already explained it. If something is objective, then there is clear evidence which can be shown and rational people who are exposed to this evidence will agree. You attempted to show that's not the case by citing climate change, but I've shown that such a counter claim is wrong, because among the climate scientists themselves, there is almost unanimous agreement.

I never said anything of the sort. This is all rubbish.

It may not have been you, but I know there are some people who have used that argument.

Until you prove that there cannot be any such thing as an expert in morality, then yes, you're special pleading. You moved the goal posts, by the way, since you originally only asked for an objective thing that people disagree on. I provided that in spades. Heck, let's get all meta about it. I say that disagreement doesn't prove subjectivity, you say it does. But it too is an objective thing that people disagree about.

Since I've been arguing that morality is subjective and NOT objective, I think it's quite clear that I also have the position that there can't possibly be an expert in morality. How do you think there could be an expert in something subjective?

As such, it is the position of the moral objectivists who must show that an expert in morality can exist.

You didn't "use them" like they were examples. You felt that you "must point out that" culture and society cause our tastes and preferences to be what they are. Why did you feel that was important?

I pointed them out to explain why other people in the same culture and society have the same or similar moral views.

The nature of morality as being either subjective or objective. Morality is subjective because it's based on tastes and preferences. Why does it matter what the cause of those tastes and preferences is?

As I've said, I pointed it out to show why groups of people share similar moral views. There are plenty of people who think that the fact that I share similar moral views to my neighbors proves that morality is objective. My position is that the shared moral views are easily explainable by a shared culture and society. Do you disagree?