Is there Objective Morality?

[o_mlly]

You didn't answer the question. Let's have a straight answer. In the case of the wife who found out she was pregnant, was the act objectively bad?

You didn't give the complete case. Get back to me when you do.

 

[VirOptimus]

All animals are not human.

That is a truism yes.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then use "good" or "bad" or "right" and "wrong".

That does not change the underlying problem with your reasoning.

 

[Bradskii]

Technically raped? Either she was raped or she was not; which is it?

Tell us all we need to know to judge the morality of this human act. For instance, did she have a sign on her unconscious body that read, "No sex tonight, dear. Thank you." When you've thought your "good" rape case through completely and disclose all the circumstances one needs to know to judge the morality of the act then we can move forward.

He had sex without her consent. That's rape, which is the only fact you need. Was it objectively bad? It can't be difficult to answer.

As someone posted: The answer is binary; its "Yes" or "No".

 

[o_mlly]

Where is the morality situated? Is it like beauty, in the eye of the beholder? Or is it in the act itself?

Where is the idea of spherical earth situated? In the eye of the beholder?

 

[VirOptimus]

Where is the idea of spherical earth situated? In the eye of the beholder?

Thats not how facts work.

Now answer the question.

 

[o_mlly]

That does not change the underlying problem with your reasoning.

What problem is that?

 

[VirOptimus]

Have you read the definition of a "human act"? Please do so as understanding the difference between the act of a rational being and an irrational being is critical to understanding morality. Animals never commit rape.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_coercion_among_animals

 

[VirOptimus]

What problem is that?

That you believe that good and evil are real things and therefore a objective morality when there are no data supporting this.

 

[o_mlly]

He had sex without her consent. That's rape, which is the only fact you need. Was it objectively bad? I mean, the answer is either yes or no. It can't be difficult.

If she was raped then the act was objectively bad. Next?

 

[VirOptimus]

If she was raped then the act was objectively bad. Next?

So a legal definition will determine the objective morality?

 

[o_mlly]

Thats not how facts work.

Just how do facts work?

Now answer the question.

Most everything you post is questions. How about some answers for a change.

 

[o_mlly]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_coercion_among_animals

Spare me the "wiki" site and answer the question.

 

[o_mlly]

So a legal definition will determine the objective morality?

Nope.

 

[VirOptimus]

Just how do facts work?

Most everything you post is questions. How about some answers for a change.

I take that as a "I cant answer" then.

 

[o_mlly]

I take that as a "I cant answer" then.

Answer the question, just how do facts work?

 

[VirOptimus]

Answer the question, just how do facts work?

Definition of FACT

 

[Bradskii]

If she was raped then the act was objectively bad. Next?

So you say that an act which both participants was glad happened, was done in a loving way and which produced a result that both were extremely happy about and had no negative implications was...objectively bad. I have to say that this is a meaning of the term that most of us haven't come across before.

And if you are using such terms to describe situations like that, then it's patently obvious that your views on this matter are so far removed from what most people would consider reasonable, then your arguments, based on that, can also now be defined as unreasonable.

 

[Moral Orel]

But given a belief, it is not so easy to turn into a fact in every case. Given certain beliefs about food tastes or musical tastes, I don't think any such objective facts exist. The question on the table is about moral beliefs. Can they be transmogrified into objective facts? I don't see how.

I think it's weird to call our subjective statements "beliefs", honestly. We both find Brussel sprouts to be nasty, yes? But would you say that you believe "nastiness" is a property of Brussel sprouts? I wouldn't. When I say that "Brussel sprouts taste nasty" all I'm doing is describing my personal experience of them.

In terms of morality, I don't hold a belief about some quality of "wrongness" that an act has. I hate some acts, and I love some acts.

 

[Bradskii]

And what about Fred and Wendy? Was raping Wendy only bad if Fred thought that it was, you know only subjectively bad?

You've given your answer on the matter. Albeit a completely unreasonable one. But we now know your position. Everything that you say is bad must be bad because you say it is bad. Even if the people directly involved would say otherwise. What else is there to discuss?