Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

No, I get it.

Yep.

OK so the logic would follow that as a subjectivist I can condemn, vilify, stop anyone who does something that conflicts with my subjective preference, opinion, feeling about the situation. So if we can really apply food tastes to morality then if someone eats sprouts which you hate, you would be be within your right to protest, call for them to stop with that behaviour because its wrong, calling them out on social media to the same level of it mattering as people do with morality.

When I say you I don't mean you personally. But as a subjectivists this would be how they would have to behave if food preferences is equal to how we act morally.

Right, it isn't a moral situation, yet we act just like we do when we have a situation where morality is involved. So your claim that we act as though morality is objective doesn't mean anything since we act the same even when morality has nothing to do with it.

I think it doesnt follow that because a non-moral situation can be determined the same way as moral situations means there no objective or fact to the matter. It actually shows how consistent the method is to determine truths whether epistemically or morally.

But certainly I think our intuitions are bigger than our morals. We can intuitive sense/know the physical/material world as well. We can experience pain and its real. We can experience morality and its also real. They are real because we experience them and they enact on our lives and we ac/react in a certain way as well which can give insight into deeper truths about life, morality and the physical world.

For example how else are you justified to believe that the world (reality) you occupy now is really what it is. How do you know your not in some computer simulation made by some future intelligent humans. You can't know because you cannot get outside of yourself to verify this.

So we determine through our intuition of the physical world (like morality) that we are justified to believe that the world we see is a real representation of what reality is and there is no simulation. Our experience of it and how people act/react to it confirms what we are experiencing is the real as it happens.

It is the same for morality. We can be justified to believe that our intuition and experience of morality informs us that there are certain moral right and wrongs. Our Intuition is like a signal to that something matters morally and we can then investigate if the moral truth stands up independently in that situation.

No. We want to determine if there is any way we can act that prevents the things we dislike and promotes the things we do like.

The first question I would ask is what is the measure of a "Like or Dislike".

Just because we want something doesn't mean we should have that thing.

Yes exactly you said it. A "Want" is not a "Need" but really a subjective desire or feeling (not sure). YET we act like these wants are "Needs" or matter more than a want would matter. Thats just one example of what doesnt add up.

Drug addicts act like their next fix matters, so therefore they can and should determine if there is any way they can act that is better at getting them more drugs in any given situation. Is that right?

I guess if your going to deetrmine morality then you should deetrmine the moral situation in the case of the addict. That can be pretty complicated, some say addicts inherit some addictive behaviour and I tend to agree more so through epigenetics.

But I think basically the moral most associated with addiction itself is the value of life and the destruction of life. So theres the starting point for the objective. Its not hard once you begin to look at each moral situation and see what is the best action to ultimately take. The rest is working out how to get there.

 

[Bradskii]

No. Like i said, if i kill or steal i risk going to prison. That's not an opinion but a fact that everybody agrees on and it can be observed.

So if you kill someone who is attempting to kill you, do you go to jail where you come from? And if you steal a terrorist's gun do you think you'll be charged with a felony?

The point that you are not making references absolute and relative moral problems. Problems where context decides the morality of the act. You're in the wrong thread.

 

[IWalkAlone]

So if you kill someone who is attempting to kill you, do you go to jail where you come from? And if you steal a terrorist's gun do you think you'll be charged with a felony?

The point that you are not making references absolute and relative moral problems. Problems where context decides the morality of the act. You're in the wrong thread.

I'll rephrase. If you illegally kill someone you risk going to jail. This is not an opinion but is an observable fact. Same with stealing.

 

[Bradskii]

I'll rephrase. If you illegally kill someone you risk going to jail. This is not an opinion but is an observable fact.

Murder is a legal matter. The law doesn't deal with morality. And the point you are making has nothing to do with the difference between objective and subjective morality.

 

[Ken-1122]

No. Like i said, if i kill or steal i risk going to prison. That's not an opinion but a fact that everybody agrees on and it can be observed.

That only happens in places where it is against the law to kill or steal. There have been places where it was perfectly legal to kill or steal from certain people, and this was done without consequences. Don't confuse legislation with morality.

 

[IWalkAlone]

Murder is a legal matter. The law doesn't deal with morality. And the point you are making has nothing to do with the difference between objective and subjective morality.

I disagree. Laws are often based on morality.

mo·ral·i·ty
/məˈralədē/

1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

 

[IWalkAlone]

That only happens in places where it is against the law to kill or steal. There have been places where it was perfectly legal to kill or steal from certain people, and this was done without consequences. Don't confuse legislation with morality.

The same applies to some other laws as well, not just stealing or killing.

 

[Bradskii]

I disagree. Laws are often based on morality.

mo·ral·i·ty
/məˈralədē/

1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

We have right and wrong. And good and bad. And moral and immoral. And legal and illegal. There are certainly some overlaps between each pair, but not let's confuse one with another.

 

[Moral Orel]

OK so the logic would follow that as a subjectivist I can condemn, vilify, stop anyone who does something that conflicts with my subjective preference, opinion, feeling about the situation. So if we can really apply food tastes to morality then if someone eats sprouts which you hate, you would be be within your right to protest, call for them to stop with that behaviour because its wrong, calling them out on social media to the same level of it mattering as people do with morality.

Yeah, like I said, I got what you were saying the first time. So I'll say it again.

There are two experiences you're talking about. Eating Brussel sprouts and someone else eating Brussel sprouts. I experience those two things completely differently. I dislike myself eating Brussel sprouts. I do not dislike other people eating Brussel sprouts. Just because I dislike myself eating Brussel sprouts does not mean that I dislike other people eating Brussel sprouts.

Here's a better example. I dislike eating fish because I despise the taste. But I also dislike smelling fish. So not only will I refuse to eat it, I have banned my family from cooking and eating fish in my house when I am home. So two different experiences result in two different actions from me. Whereas my wife likes eating a lot more vegetables than I do. But I do not dislike the smell of her cooking vegetables, so I don't care if she cooks and eats all the veggies she wants.

I think it doesnt follow that because a non-moral situation can be determined the same way as moral situations means there no objective or fact to the matter. It actually shows how consistent the method is to determine truths whether epistemically or morally.

No, you said that it's proof that it's objective because we act that way. Now you're saying we act that way even though it isn't objective. Ergo, just because we act like it's objective doesn't mean it is objective.

The first question I would ask is what is the measure of a "Like or Dislike".

There is no measure, it's subjective.

Yes exactly you said it. A "Want" is not a "Need" but really a subjective desire or feeling (not sure). YET we act like these wants are "Needs" or matter more than a want would matter. Thats just one example of what doesnt add up.

That doesn't follow from what I said. Just because we want something doesn't mean we should have that thing. Just because we need something to live doesn't mean we should have that thing either.

I guess if your going to deetrmine morality then you should deetrmine the moral situation in the case of the addict. That can be pretty complicated, some say addicts inherit some addictive behaviour and I tend to agree more so through epigenetics.

But I think basically the moral most associated with addiction itself is the value of life and the destruction of life. So theres the starting point for the objective. Its not hard once you begin to look at each moral situation and see what is the best action to ultimately take. The rest is negociating how to get there.

So you're saying that even though he acts like his next fix matters, it doesn't really matter. That's my point. You have said that acting like it matters proves that it objectively matters. Since it doesn't in fact matter, acting like it does means nothing.

 

[IWalkAlone]

We have right and wrong. And good and bad. And moral and immoral. And legal and illegal. There are certainly some overlaps between each pair, but not let's confuse one with another.

Nothing i say will convince you. But we dont need to agree anway.

 

[VirOptimus]

why is that

Probably because you have no academic training in philosophy.

 

[Bradskii]

Nothing i say will convince you. But we dont need to agree anway.

Perhaps more accurate to say that nothing that you have said has convinced me.

 

[IWalkAlone]

Perhaps more accurate to say that nothing that you have said has convinced me.

You implied that morality and law are not the same, as if morality cannot be legislated but it is. You wont agree because your reasoning is subjective i suspect.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-

Moral realism is the complete opposite. Arguements can be made for how life is valuable and all of human history testifies to this. That is I think the basis for I think all the worldviews to converge on. Evolution puts life at the pinacle to keep alive as important. All or most religions and other mystical beliefs, philosophies make life important, precious, valuable. So this is the basis from where all morals have value.

But this can be accomplished without "objective morality".

Noone is stopping anyone from thinking that life has value, and that there should be rules and laws. In fact, that is how society works just because we need rules when we arent on the same page about how we should interact with eachother.

Also, letting everyone do as they please is just as much a stance on morality as a fundamentalist approach.

 

[VirOptimus]

You implied that morality and law are not the same, as if morality cannot be legislated but it is. You wont agree because your reasoning is subjective i suspect.

There are lots of things that people find imoral that is not against the law, and laws that when broken is not considered a immoral act.

But sure, morality is one source for laws.

 

[IWalkAlone]

There are lots of things that people find imoral that is not against the law, and laws that when broken is not considered a immoral act.

But sure, morality is one source for laws.

That's not really relevant to my point though. My point was that morality can be objective. I think i proved that point.

 

[VirOptimus]

That's not really relevant to my point though. My point was that morality can be objective. I think i proved that point.

No, you did not. How did you think that you proved that?

 

[o_mlly]

No, no new facts. We can go with what we've got.

But how it became immoral? It became immoral because he kept her there too long. I would have thought that was obvious.

I think that most people would say that an hour is ok. But three hours is a bit too much. And a day sounds too long. Depending on their views on how children should be brought up of course. And almost everyone would say that keeping a child in the basement for a week is definitely wrong. And a year? Well, it couldn't be more wrong.

So no-one would think that it was perfectly OK at one specific time - say 60 minutes, and then completely wrong at 61 minutes. It gradually becomes less acceptable. And there'd be some grey areas where some might agree and some not. Personal opinion as it were.

So do we have A) a situation where some act is a little bit objectively wrong? And then a little bit more objectively wrong? And then completely objectively wrong?

Or do you think it's B) where there must be a specific point when it went from ok to being wrong. When was that do you think?

It was a four act play and it's over. Remember in Act II where you reported that the girl was "fed and watered, for 10 years". A human act is immoral if there is a defect in any of the three sources of judging. No need to go to the circumstances or even the moral object of the act if the actor wills a bad intention.

Moral judgements are made on principles. Prudential judgements are that which a reasonable, ie., rational actor, would hold. Next?

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-

Moral judgements are made on principles-snip-

Which principles?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I think your misunderstanding the anology. Subjectivists say that morality is the same as food preferences.

No, they are alike, in being subjective judgments in the absence of any objective fact of the matter. Analogies are not identities.

This is why your post #1481 misses the mark entirely. As I have pointed out before, you are taking the analogy to be an identity in order to strawman the subjective argument.