Even though I agree truth and honesty are necessary in a debate, that is my subjective view; as is yours…… unless you have some objective proof. So how about it; can you prove truth and honesty is necessary in order to get to the truth of a debate? Or do you recognize this is just your subjective opinion.
So my evidence is 'Truth and Honesty' hold their ground as objective values even if you or I subjectively thought they could not in a debate seeking the truth of a matter.
Lets pretend your subjective view if that 'Truth and Honesty' are not necessary morals for a debate seeking the truth. Explain to me how you could still have a debate seeking the truth without 'Truth and Honesty'. If you can then you have just shown that subjective morals views about 'Truth and Honesty' are allowed in that debate.
And by the way; to be truthful and honest in no way means you will get to the truth of an argument/debate.
You don't need to find the truth of a matter in a debate. You just have to necessary have 'Truth and Honesty' as the rule and guide in your attempt to find the truth. Otherwise you can never question or challenge people in that debate as to whether they are telling the truth whether you found it or not.
It would also be objective mortality if it actually existed. Absolute morality is a thing because there are people who actually might believe this way. For objective morality it would have to be that way for everyone; which it is not.
I suggest you read up on the difference. Heres a snippet that shows how objective morality allows for changing circumstances which means it may be objectively OK to kill someone in certain situations like a crazed gunman about to shoot an innocent child. Whereas absolute morality meansyou can never kill even to save an innocent child.
Moral realism (objective morality) doesn’t necessarily imply moral universalism (moral absolutism). Many assume if your an moral realist (objectivist) you have to be an absolute moralist and assume unbreakable moral laws. This is the view that some action is always wrong according to a general principle.
For example Just because I am a moral objectivists doesn’t mean I'm going to think it is always wrong to kill. Circumstances can be seen to play a role for the moral realist (objectivists) in interpreting moral actions. For example
The moral objectivists could say the morally right decision would depend on the circumstances. Not just based on blantant and sweeping rules.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk88sZw4YhM
Footage can be altered; I’m not talking about that. Objective proof would involve taking the person up in a space craft with a window, allowing them to see themselves leave earth and get to a distance where the entire earth is visible with their own two eyes. This would be undeniable proof (unless they refuse to believe their own two eyes)
Again; I’m talking about being there to witness it with their own two eyes. The objective evidence was there, they just weren’t around to see it.
So are you saying that all the scientific evidence which doesnt involve having eye witnesses to the evenst themselves cannot be regarded as evdience. That would wipe out the majority of science. Evolution, the big band, the disoveries and activities on planets in our solar system like Mars right out to Pluto, distant stars, galaxies ect can no longer be regarded as objectively fact because no one can actually go there and see them for themselves.
My claim is subjective; not objective.
So therefore your claim that there are no objective morals can be treated as meaningless as far as it actaully having any fact/truth about it beyond you. It doesn't prove your claim so I don't need to take it seriously.
That’s why morality isn’t objective; because you can’t use objective measures to prove it.
So are you saying the only facts, and truth about something can only be made by science. We cannot argue for truth about a logical propsoition or situation. If I said that that we need to use the "truth" to find the "truth" thats not a logical fact. The proposition has no physical aspect to it yet it can be proven as a truthful claim.
But in a way we can also use observational evidence like science does to prove moral objectives by doing experiemnets with people interacting and seeing if certain truths apply and whether they can interact without those truths.
So for example if I said you need 2 people to have a debate thats a self-evdient truth. Using my "truth" and "honesty" again we could do an experiment with 2 people having a debate seeking the "TRuth" and see if they can have this debate without the moral values of "truth" and "honesty". That would then verify if its possible or not.
Only people who do not look at the objective evidence deny objective events.
The question would be why don't they look at the objective evidence.
How do people deny gravity? Do they know what gravity is?
People know what gravity is when they fall down, when they jump off something high and crash to the ground hurting themselves. So people try to defy gravity by jumping off high places and they fall and get hurt or die. Otherwise they would have realized the dangers and not done it.
IF morality were objective; but it is not.
So if there are no objective morals then how do we know rape is wrong.
How? Please explain how someone can stand 250,000 miles away from Earth and call it flat? Explain how someone can look at scientific proof and deny it? Please explain how someone can stand next to the tree on my front lawn and say it does not exist?
The first thing you have to do is tell me if there are such people that will deny objective physical evdience despite seeing it for themselves.