Is there Objective Morality?

[Moral Orel]

Yes I see this but I am not contradicting myself because I think there are moral objectives so I can claim there are "Shoulds".

Not when you are speaking "under moral subjectivism". You are claiming that under moral subjectivism there are shoulds!

 

[stevevw]

It's just something you say every post, Steve. But I've not seen in any way whatsoever at any time what you might think it can actually be. There is zero evidence for this. There is no way that you indicate how you might have access to it. You haven't told us how you know it's right when you access it. You haven't gone into any details about it whatsoever.

Are we talking about information you personally receive in a supernatural way? Do you mean God? Is this revelation? If it is, how do you know it's accurate? If it is, what do we say when someone else says they have it but their opinion on a moral matter is completely different?

If you know what's right or wrong because you have some way of knowing, then if we have any moral problem whatsoever then we can simply ask you. You become the oracle. So if you have some way, then I want to know about it.

If you don't, then your personal views on any moral problem are just as valid as mine. So let us know how you access this grounding. Tell us how you know what is right and wrong.

I agree objective morality is hard to describe/explain. I cannot like many other philosophers and ethicists give a knock down answer to what is objective morality. It would be a bit like trying to describe the experience of colours. Both colours and morals are real yet hard to explain. So the first thing is to understand how moral truths/facts differ from physical facts and that truths/facts can be supported in non-material ways

Perhaps I just have an inability to explain things well. All I can say is read a couple of articles on moral realism and you will get a better understanding of what I mean.

 

[stevevw]

Not when you are speaking "under moral subjectivism". You are claiming that under moral subjectivism there are shoulds!

OK well its actually the opposite so I don't know how that could be. If I was speaking under subjective morality to explain subjective morality I would say to the person who has done me the moral wrong I hate so much that "I see it my way and you see it yours and neither of us has done any wrong so live and let live".

 

[Bradskii]

I agree objective morality is hard to describe/explain. I cannot like many other philosophers and ethicists give a knock down answer to what is objective morality. It would be a bit like trying to describe the experience of colours. Both colours and morals are real yet hard to explain. So the first thing is to understand how moral truths/facts differ from physical facts and that truths/facts can be supported in non-material ways

Perhaps I just have an inability to explain things well. All I can say is read a couple of articles on moral realism and you will get a better understanding of what I mean.

I'm not asking to describe objective morality. I'm asking you where this 'grounding' comes from. So again...

Are we talking about information you personally receive in a supernatural way? Do you mean God? Is this revelation? If it is, how do you know it's accurate? If it is, what do we say when someone else says they have it but their opinion on a moral matter is completely different?

If you know what's right or wrong because you have some way of knowing, then if we have any moral problem whatsoever then we can simply ask you. You become the oracle. So if you have some way, then I want to know about it.

If you don't, then your personal views on any moral problem are just as valid as mine. So let us know how you access this grounding. Tell us how you know what is right and wrong.

 

[o_mlly]

The example is anything ...

... and that's the problem. In the concrete, there is no "anything"; only "something".

 

[Ken-1122]

The stones are just tools to help you show the facts that are already there. 2+2=4 was a fact before you laid the stones out. We have no physical evidence for it and yet its a fact we cannot totally explain why.

I disagree. I use the stones to provide physical evidence for it by explaining why 2+2=4

Morality works the same. For example when 2 people get togther to seek the "Truth" of a matter the moral value of "Truth" needs to be an objective measure for this to happen coherently.

Truth cannot be an objective measure unless you already know the truth. By definition; the measure must already be agreed upon by all parties involved in order for it to be an objective measure.

The Math equation is based on human thought. They are calculating the numbers to get the answer. The same with morality as I explained above.

Math equations are based upon agreed upon rules, morality is not.

We can measure the behaviour of people in moral situations to see if we need moral truths to make them work (add up if you like). There is no gusessing it can all be reasoned out and by using logic.

A measurement of behavior? No; popularity is not an indicator of truth! 400 years ago, everybody behaved as if slavery were morally acceptable, today everybody behaves as if it is not. Going by your logic and reason what was moral 400 years ago is not moral today. That is not the definition of objective morality. Again; what is objective morality based on if not human thought?

Like the legal law we could point to certain moral "Truths"or "Facts"and say this behaviour is right and that behaviour is wrong without any personal opinions undermining their status.

No it can’t. You indicated moral facts can be determined by looking at human behavior. Human behaviors change over time and culture; facts do not. Again how would you objectively prove the person who slept with your wife was wrong to do so?

I will respond to the rest later

 

[IWalkAlone]

If you kill all the healthcare workers who would take care of you? If you steal you will go to prison. You can objectively decide that its immoral to kill your doctors and steal. Likewise if God exists you can objectively decide that its just as morally wrong to disobey him because its he who gives you life and can take it away.

 

[Bradskii]

... and that's the problem. In the concrete, there is no "anything"; only "something".

Which I've said you can nominate yourself. How far backwards are you going to lean to avoid answering the question? I've said that you can make up your own scenario as long as you think it's a reasonable punishment.

Whenever you're ready.

 

[Bradskii]

You can objectively decide that its immoral...

I think that says enough.

 

[IWalkAlone]

I think that says enough.

I dont understand. Can you explain please? Thank you.

 

[Bradskii]

I dont understand. Can you explain please? Thank you.

Something which is subjective depends on what a person thinks about it. So if I decide that something is immoral then that makes it subjective. Something which is objective is objective whatever someone thinks about it. So it's immoral whatever I decide.

You can't 'objectively decide' that something is immoral. If you decide it's immoral then it's subjective.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[IWalkAlone]

Something which is subjective depends on what a person thinks about it. So if I decide that something is immoral then that makes it subjective. Something which is objective is objective whatever someone thinks about it. So it's immoral whatever I decide.

You can't 'objectively decide' that something is immoral. If you decide it's immoral then it's subjective.

Does that make sense to you?

Is science is subjective then, because a person decided it was true?

 

[Bradskii]

Is science is subjective then, because a person decided it was true?

No. Nobody decides if 'science is true'. Science is a procedure. Maybe you're thinking of evidence or facts. Or maybe theories. I don't know.

Evidence are the available facts about any given matter. Facts are true by definition. A theory is a proposal which explains the evidence.

 

[IWalkAlone]

No. Nobody decides if 'science is true'. Science is a procedure. Maybe you're thinking of evidence or facts. Or maybe theories. I don't know.

Evidence are the available facts about any given matter. Facts are true by definition. A theory is a proposal which explains the evidence.

Yes i mean Scientific evidence. And you can decide if that procedure is true.
So you don't believe i can scientifically find out whether or not i risk jail for stealing, or risk not having health care if i kill all the HC professionals? Science cannot determine that?

 

[Bradskii]

Yes i mean Scientific evidence. And you can decide if that procedure is true.
So you don't believe i can scientifically find out whether or not i risk jail for stealing, or risk not having health care if i kill all the HC professionals? Science cannot determine that?

Scientific evidence are facts which are by definition true. No scientist says 'this is true because I believe it'. It either is or it ain't. It's either objectively true or false.

Stealing is defined as being wrong. Whether it is morally acceptable is relative to the facts as opposed to it being an absolute truth. We aren't discussing absolute or relative truths (although there is a thread on that if you want to chip in).

And killing all HC professionals? What..?

 

[IWalkAlone]

Scientific evidence are facts which are by definition true. No scientist says 'this is true because I believe it'. It either is or it ain't. It's either objectively true or false.

Stealing is defined as being wrong. Whether it is morally acceptable is relative to the facts as opposed to it being an absolute truth. We aren't discussing absolute or relative truths (although there is a thread on that if you want to chip in).

And killing all HC professionals? What..?

I was just showing how we can objectively decide that killing and stealing can be morally wrong. Science says so.

 

[essentialsaltes]

A "want" is subjective.

Correct.

Each peoples wants are different.

Correct.

A "Want, opinion or preference" is not enough to be an independent measure beyond humans

Yes, yes, we get it. Wants are subjective. That's our whole point.

But we all know we all do have wants. But nobody seems to have this hypothetical independent measure beyond humans.

By definition, my assertion that "morality is subjective" is not going to meet your requirement that morality must be objective. Nevertheless, our wants and opinions is what we got, and there's no one to tell us we can't act on our beliefs -- obviously we all do so all the time. And the backers of objective morality have been unable to show us how to access this hypothetical independent measure beyond humans. So it's not as though you have any solid 'grounding' to stand on either. Assuming it's there, out there somewhere, doesn't bring it into existence.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I was just showing how we can objectively decide that killing and stealing can be morally wrong. Science says so.

It does not.

Science is about how things are, not how they ought to be.

Yes, if there are no doctors about, you cannot receive care from a doctor. If you release a rock held at arm's length, it will fall. This is just a fact about how things are. There is no implication about whether this state of affairs is good or bad or ought to be so.

 

[Landon Caeli]

MOD HAT ON​

Several posts have been removed that contained flaming

Mod Hat off​

 

[IWalkAlone]

Science is about how things are, not how they ought to be.

So science does not say that there ought to be less carbon emissions? Your answer seems like mental gymnastics. I ought to quit smoking for my health. Science says so.