Is there Objective Morality?

[essentialsaltes]

I am not saying that people don't know what is right or wrong morally and therefore cannot express that. I am saying they have no grounding for this and I think grounding matters in moral matters.

What more grounding does one need other than sincere belief? If I don't need any objective grounding to marry someone or buy a house, I don't see why I need it to wag my finger at a litterer.

So therefore it logically folows that its right to determine if there is a moral truth through reasoning and logic.

Reasoning and logic are not required to determine the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Why? Because it is an objective fact. You just check the electoral college totals. But these hypothetical moral facts don't seem to be checkable that way.

 

[Moral Orel]

But being intolerant means there is an objective measure for when someone is tolerant of not.

No it doesn't. Keep trying. You already said it: "We can't say that they are morally wrong" and yet you say that subjectivists are "acting wrongly". You can't have your cake and eat it to, bub.

 

[Belk]

IMO lol, I think this is the crux of the differences in our understanding. You see being intolerant of other peoples moral views (preferences, opinions) is consistent with subjective morality.

But being intolerant means there is an objective measure for when someone is tolerant of not.

That does not logically follow. We are perfectly capable of enforcing our subjective views on other people.

 

[VirOptimus]

I can answer my question. Can you guess what it is?

I dont care. Wanna try answering mine?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Apart from people born with hermaphroditism.

An extremely rare condition that does not justify the gender blender approach that is becoming common now.

 

[Ken-1122]

That you don't act like rape is judge the same as a choice between vanilla vs chocolate Ice cream? You actually want to stop people raping and you cant do that with food "Likes and Dislikes".

So therefore morality is different to "Likes and Dislikes" for food or at least you act like it is and that points to you knowing that rape is really wrong outside your "Likes and Dislikes".

You don’t know me well enough to make such a claim. Supposed I did judge rape the same as I judge vanilla vs chocolate ice cream; that I didn't care either way? How would you prove me wrong?

 

[Bradskii]

Clearly you quickly dismissed the idea of pursuing a career as a script writer. Now. when do we find out that the child had Tourette Syndrome?

Rather than play 20 questions with your imagination, choose a human act from history to analyze.

Because it might be easier to answer? I'll stick with this one, thanks. You've asked for further information in order that you can answer it. I've given it to you.

So when does the punishment become objectively immoral?

 

[Kylie]

? I don't want to talk about ad hominems but I would like, as I requested of you several times, to read about my "flawed arguments". Please do point out the flaws.


A universal claim is defeated if just one instance of a contradiction can be shown:
All swans are white.
All morality is subjective.

Black swan exists.
Rape is objectively immoral.

"Objectivity" - claims are not ... influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias or personal interests ... Scientific Objectivity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Yeah, still waiting to hear how we objectively determine the amount of moral goodness or moral badness an act has.

 

[stevevw]

What more grounding does one need other than sincere belief? If I don't need any objective grounding to marry someone or buy a house, I don't see why I need it to wag my finger at a litterer.

Not sure about belief and marriage and house buying as they are not about morality. Nevertheless people seem to get marriage more wrong that right if you look at the divorce stats so its based more on feelings.

Buying a house does involve some objective facts. We get a solicitor to check that theres no risks with titles and an inspector to ensure its built properly. We check the house ourselves to see its solid and suitable for our needs. So its not as though its based on pure feelinsg or personal opinions that the house is a good buy.

Reasoning and logic are not required to determine the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Why? Because it is an objective fact. You just check the electoral college totals.

Reason and logic are required to get to that point of understanding the facts so that those people who believed that TRump won the election can be convinced that he didn't. Then they have arrived at the "Truth" of the matter.

But these hypothetical moral facts don't seem to be checkable that way.

Thats because they are not physical things that have happened. But do you think that we can never check facts that are not physical. You mentioned marriage. How do we know our wife loves us. Love is a non-physical thing yet people live by it and will even die for it. Maths is a non physical. What about propositions they can make truth statements and can be logically argued.

We can also check the behaviour of people in moral situations to see what they act like. Whether they express or claim moral truths and act that way. This same method is used in science such as psychology, and animal behaviour.

So we can look at a moral situation and determine if there is a better or best way to act than other ways to act that will make living as humans more possible. We can see if there are only certain ways humans can act to ensure propoer interactions and outcomes. For example lying all the time doesnt enable people to interact in any coherent way.

So the "TRuth" is an important moral by the fact that it helps human interaction. We cannot be human without these "Truths". Just as we need air to breath and food to eat we need moral truths.

 

[stevevw]

You don’t know me well enough to make such a claim. Supposed I did judge rape the same as I judge vanilla vs chocolate ice cream; that I didn't care either way? How would you prove me wrong?

I can prove you wrong by the fact that you act like rape matters more than your taste for ice cream. You don't protest and condemn people who like the flavour of icecream you hate. But you do with rape. So equating food likes and dislikes to morality doesnt work.

 

[stevevw]

That does not logically follow. We are perfectly capable of enforcing our subjective views on other people.

I am not saying that you cannot enforce your moral views on others. I am saying you have no grounding to do so if its just subjective feelings, views and opinions.

 

[stevevw]

No it doesn't. Keep trying. You already said it: "We can't say that they are morally wrong" and yet you say that subjectivists are "acting wrongly". You can't have your cake and eat it to, bub.

But I am not a subjectivists. I believe there are objective morals so therefore can make objective moral claims about rightness and wrongness. I am talking about those who support subjective morality. They have no basis to cliam certain acts are morally right and wrong.

What I am pointing out is though subjectivists cannot say that people are morally right or wrong in any truthful way (beyond them) because its only about their feelings and opinions "they act like they are saying something truthful beyond their feelings and opinions and act like there are moral truths when it comes to morality.

 

[stevevw]

Why did you cut and paste your old post? Are you going to address my response to it or not? I don't care about your appeal to popularity fallacy you added, we aren't arguing over whether or not morality is objective overall. We're arguing about your appeal to consequences fallacy here:
To which I asked:
All you've done since is imply that I'm wrong to be intolerant, or that I'm wrong to act without justification. But you said it yourself, "we can't really say its morally wrong". So I'm still waiting for an answer to my "so what?".

Ok I thought I answered it. OK the "so what?" is that even though you claim under subjective morality there is no "Right and Wrong" you act like these things are morally "Right and Wrong" in an objective way. So your position contradicts itself.

For example when you say "Yes, I am intolerant of other people's views sometimes" you are using the moral value of "Tolerance" as an objective measure of "Intolerant". Otherwise why even use the word if there isnt any right or wrong involved.

This shows that subjective morality is impossible to enact because it refutes itself and that people cannot help but make morals objective.

 

[Belk]

I am not saying that you cannot enforce your moral views on others. I am saying you have no grounding to do so if its just subjective feelings, views and opinions.

I have no grounding to do so? I can't say "I don't want to be raped. Other people don't want to be raped either. Therefore we should not allow rape."? Seems perfectly reasonable to me and other people seem to agree.

 

[stevevw]

I have no grounding to do so? I can't say "I don't want to be raped. Other people don't want to be raped either. Therefore we should not allow rape."? Seems perfectly reasonable to me and other people seem to agree.

Its the "Should" thats the probelm under subjective morality. There isnt any "Shoulds" unless there is a grounding to base them in.

 

[Ken-1122]

I can prove you wrong by the fact that you act like rape matters more than your taste for ice cream. You don't protest and condemn people who like the flavour of icecream you hate. But you do with rape. So equating food likes and dislikes to morality doesnt work.

You are missing my point. I am presenting a hypothetical, I am not expressing how I actually feel. Think of it this way; suppose you met a guy who did not see rape as any more of an issue as ice cream choice? Suppose this person does not condemn those who like chocolate ice cream, and he also don’t condemn those who rape. How would you prove him wrong? After all, equating food likes vs dislikes to morality does work in this case.

 

[stevevw]

You are missing my point. I am presenting a hypothetical, I am not expressing how I actually feel. Think of it this way; suppose you met a guy who did not see rape as any more of an issue as ice cream choice?

What do you mean suppose. That is what subjective morality is "The same as "Likes and Dislikes" for food and other stuff. Anyway.

Suppose this person does not condemn those who like chocolate ice cream, and he also don’t condemn those who rape. How would you prove him wrong? After all, equating food likes vs dislikes to morality does work in this case.

I would prove him wrong in that the act of "Rape " is totally different to "Likes and Dislikes" for ice cream. You may have a subjective view about what flavour ice-cream you like and that will never equate to moral right and wrong. You cannot be morally wrong for disliking chocolate ice-cream for example. You cannot be morally right for liking peas. Its all about the persons views which can never be right or wronbg morally.

But when it comes to rape, it does matter about moral right and wrong. We do want to stop people raping, we do want to say that rape is wrong and anyone who thinks its OK because they "Like" it is just objectively wrong. Otherwise if we treat rape like ice-cream "Likes and Dislikes" we could never condemn anyone for rape who happens to like it.

 

[Ken-1122]

I would prove him wrong in that the act of "Rape " is totally different to "Likes and Dislikes" for ice cream.

How would you prove him wrong? Please be specific.

 

[stevevw]

I have no grounding to do so? I can't say "I don't want to be raped. Other people don't want to be raped either. Therefore we should not allow rape."? Seems perfectly reasonable to me and other people seem to agree.

What does "want" mean. Is it a "should not" or an "Ought not" I dont think so. So though you may say you "Don't want to be raped" there is no objective reason why you "should not"or "ought not" be raped. Therefore there is no "should not"or "ought not" preventing the rapist.

 

[Belk]

Its the "Should" thats the probelm under subjective morality. There isnt any "Shoulds" unless there is a grounding to base them in.

People don't want to be raped. That is the grounding. People don't want to be killed. That is the grounding. People don't want to be robbed. That is all the "grounding" that is required.

Why is this even an issue? None of this is relevant to if morality is subjective or objective.