Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

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

So are you saying that there are no morals. What we think are morals are our preferences, feelings, perceptions. Because it seems what is best human behaviour is determined by subjective thiinking which allows self determined truths for something that we know needs an objective way to determine what is right and wrong behaviour.

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.

What do you mean by identities.

 

[VirOptimus]

So are you saying that there are no morals. What we think are morals are our preferences, feelings, perceptions. Because it seems what is best human behaviour is determined by subjective thiinking which allows self determined truths for something that we know needs an objective way to determine what is right and wrong behaviour.
What do you mean by identities.

”We” certainly dont need ”an objective way to determine what is right and wrong behaviour”.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So are you saying that there are no morals.

It may seem that way to you, but only because of your dogged insistence that morals must have an objective grounding, unsullied by mere human judgments.

I am not saying there are no morals. I'm trying to explain what kind of a thing morals are. They are judgments by human judgers. Like matters of aesthetics or taste.

something that we know needs an objective way to determine what is right and wrong

I don't know this. However, what is your objective way of determining right from wrong? Many of us have been desperate to hear of this thing.

What do you mean by identities.

We use analogies to compare things that are similar in some way.
Things that are identical are identical in all respects.

I could make the analogy that 'a spinster is like a bachelor'.

If someone responded "But a bachelor is defined as an unmarried man! It's absurd to say a spinster is a man." she would be missing the point of the analogy and insisting on some kind of identity between the two things.

Similarly, you are misinterpreting my analogy if you insist I have to slap the Brussels sprouts off other people's forks. (Or that I must allow rapists to enjoy their rape.)

 

[Belk]

Yes we intuitively know some things are objectively wrong or right.

That is still not what self evident means and does not match your description. Knowing without water we die is not intuitive, it is learned information. Likewise morality is learned which is why it varies depending on time and culture.

yes I believe so. Because no one can explain moral objectives like we do in science so moral truths/facts seem more supported along the lines of how abstracts can be facts or truths or real if you may. Like Math, experiences of colour, music, arguing propositions about moral values rationally and logically to support them as truths and something that is real that matters.

If they are abstracts pointing to real things like math then they would model things that exist and can be measured in the real world. I have yet to see evidence of such for morality.

How people act like morals are truth statements and expressions beyond our heads. Like I say what better evidence do you need then the very people who claim morals are subjective act like their objective.

That people act a certain way is not evidence of existence. People act as if ghosts are real. Heck, some people act as if zombies are real even though they know they are fake.

Also, I do not trust your claims of people acting as if things are objective. You never responded to my previous post pointing out that you seem to be conflating "objective" with "enforced".

But why. Do you think we could have our debate without "Truth" and "Honesty" being necessary morals for our debate.

"Truth" is not a moral. Also what is the difference between "Truth" and "truth"?

"Honesty" is also subjective. I can see an argument for "Truth" being subjective as well.

 

[IWalkAlone]

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

If I stole your wife or children who you loved, or your money that you need to survive, I would be breaking Gods moral code that says i should treat you with love. This love is not a feeling but a way of conducting ones self. So I obey Gods law of love and i don't steal the things you love or need. Am i being subjective or objective?

 

[Tinker Grey]

If I stole your wife or children who you loved, or your money that you need to survive, I would be breaking Gods moral code that says i should treat you with love. This love is not a feeling but a way of conducting ones self. So I obey Gods law of love and i don't steal the things you love or need. Am i being subjective or objective?

Subjective.

 

[IWalkAlone]

Subjective.

Why is is subjective? Its not based on opinion or feeling but fact. He loves his wife and children and needs his money. Those would be facts, hypothetically speaking.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes we intuitively know some things are objectively wrong or right.

Many peopple intuitively know that things dropped from moving objects fall straight down. But this is false.
(PDF) Intuitive physics: The straight-down belief and its origin

Also, it's odd to use 'intuition' as a grounding for what is supposed to be an objective fact, regardless of human feelings.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Why is is subjective? Its not based on opinion or feeling but fact. He loves his wife and children and needs his money. Those would be facts, hypothetically speaking.

What is subjective is your evaluation of what you should do. That's why morality is subjective.

 

[VirOptimus]

If I stole your wife or children who you loved, or your money that you need to survive, I would be breaking Gods moral code that says i should treat you with love. This love is not a feeling but a way of conducting ones self. So I obey Gods law of love and i don't steal the things you love or need. Am i being subjective or objective?

I dont belive objective/subjective are meaningful terms as objective/subjective pre-supposes an objective agent. I.e. God(s).

I say you are religious and not philosophical and that you still has in no way supported an ”objective morality”.

 

[IWalkAlone]

What is subjective is your evaluation of what you should do. That's why morality is subjective.

My evaluation is based on fact not opinion or feelings. I still dont understand how its subjective.

 

[VirOptimus]

My evaluation is based on fact not opinion or feelings. I still dont understand how its subjective.

What fact(s)?

 

[IWalkAlone]

I dont belive objective/subjective is meaningful terms as objective/subjective pre-supposes an objective agent. I.e. God(s).

I say you are religious and not philosophical and that you still has in no way supported an ”objective morality”.

You say that but without refuting my argument you are just being subjective.

 

[IWalkAlone]

What fact(s)?

The fact that you love your family and need your money to survive. Hypothetically speaking.

 

[VirOptimus]

You say that but without refuting my argument you are just being subjective.

What argument? You have no argument, just meaningless assertions.

 

[VirOptimus]

The fact that you love your family and need your money to survive. Hypothetically speaking.

Que? And why would that support an ”objective morality”?

 

[IWalkAlone]

What argument? You have no argument, just meaningless assertions.

That's your subjective opinion.

 

[IWalkAlone]

Que? And why would that support an ”objective morality”?

Its based of observable fact not opinion or feelings.

 

[VirOptimus]

That's you subjective opinion.

No, thats a fact.

Try to make a rational case for an ”objective morality”.

 

[VirOptimus]

Its based of fact not opinion or feelings.

You lost me, explain.