Is there Objective Morality?

[Bradskii]

Not quite. I wrote that a condition, not a point, renders the act immoral.

When the condition is met, a point is reached. Who can tell us when this has happened?

No, the claim that is not self-evident must be argued with evidence and reason to be true by the claimant. That's the way it works in logic. For instance, I claim that there is human life other than in the Milky Way galaxy -- prove me wrong.

If you said there was no human life apart from that in the Milky Way then the claim would stand until we found some. If you claim there is, then you'll need to provide evidence. If one said that there were no objective truths that cannot be measured then the claim would stand until you found some. If one claims there are objective truths that cannot be measured then you'll need to provide evidence.

As we have seen, you can do neither.

 

[o_mlly]

When the condition is met, a point is reached. Who can tell us when this has happened?

It's not a question of "when" but "if". Write a conditional statement, eg., "If the temperature reaches zero degrees Celsius, water freezes."

If you said there was no human life apart from that in the Milky Way then the claim would stand until we found some. If you claim there is, then you'll need to provide evidence. If one said that there were no objective truths that cannot be measured then the claim would stand until you found some. If one claims there are objective proofs that cannot be measured then you'll need to provide evidence.

Nope. Negating the claim does not magically "stand" until proven wrong. All claims, positive or negative, other than self-evident must be supported. That which is gratuitously given may just as easily be gratuitously dismissed.

 

[VirOptimus]

It's not a question of "when" but "if". Write a conditional statement, eg., "If the temperature reaches zero degrees Celsius, water freezes."



Nope. Negating the claim does not magically "stand" until proven wrong. All claims, positive or negative, other than self-evident must be supported. That which is gratuitously given my just as easily be gratuitously dismissed.

You make the claim that morality is objective, its on you to support it.

 

[o_mlly]

You make the claim that morality is objective, its on you to support it.

Have you read about the Dunning-Kruger Effect? Read about it first and then read my posts in this thread.

 

[VirOptimus]

Have you read about the Dunning-Kruger Effect? Read about it first and then read my posts in this thread.

Yes, I know of it and I'm certain its applicable to your posts. And not in a good way (for you).

 

[o_mlly]

Yes, I know of it and I'm certain its applicable to your posts.

If you say so, Vir.

 

[Bradskii]

It's not a question of "when" but "if". Write a conditional statement, eg., "If the temperature reaches zero degrees Celsius, water freezes."

And when the temp reaches zero, water freezes. So who can tell us when this change in morality happens?

Nope. Negating the claim does not magically "stand" until proven wrong. All claims, positive or negative, other than self-evident must be supported. That which is gratuitously given my just as easily be gratuitously dismissed.

It's your position that there are objective truths that cannot be measured. Yet you cannot name a single one. Your answer (or I should say 'answers' because a few have been asked) is simply to say 'Shan't!' And I keep explaining to you that an answer is not expected. It's the refusal to answer is what's required. I'm honestly surprised that you don't seem to appreciate that.

 

[VirOptimus]

If you say so, Vir.

Are you academicaly educated in moral philosophy?

 

[o_mlly]

And when the temp reaches zero, water freezes. So who can tell us when this change in morality happens?

The morality of a human act is a snapshot, not a movie. There is no change in a real human act. Got one?

It's your position that there are objective truths that cannot be measured

Strawman, (again). Need I write more?

Measurement of the harm caused by an immoral act is possible but not necessary to objectively determine the act as immoral. If measurement were essential, and not accidental, to determine an immoral act then measuring the harm done would change an immoral act to be moral. But it does not.

Confined to the Milky Way:
Planet: a large round object like that circles around the sun.
Moon: a large round object like that circles around a planet..

• Is it an objective fact that the earth has a moon? Yes.
• Is it true that other planets have moons. Yes
• Do the moons of other planets have physical properties different than earth's moon? Yes.
• Does the objective existence of earth's moon remain in oblivion until the measurable difference are known? No.

 

[stevevw]

But why would a "objective morality" matter?

Lets take spanking children, that is perfectly acceptable in lots of cultures/countries, but here in Sweden its illegal. One has to be right and one has to be wrong, but what happens to those in the wrong? Why will "right" matter?

Because it will matter at some point in one way or another. Moral truths are discoverable. We can come to understand the facts around the moral issues better which helps us get closer to the truth of the matter. So those who are wrong don't have the same awareness of the facts as say the west have now.

For example most of the countries that ban smacking use to allow smacking. They obviously thought smacking was OK back then. But we just didn't have the understanding we have today. So those who are wrong according to the standard determined by more morally advanced nations are just like we were decades ago.

Because we believe we are better informed about the effects smacking can have on children we can say that there is a growing consensus that smacking is objectively wrong regardless of subjective or relative views. Therefore the better informed will be trying to get those who were wrong to become better informed (reasoning things out).

And it matters because moral issues always matter. It matters to us that other cultures are doing wrong, it matters to the culture doing the wrong because if smacking is objectively wrong as determined by the more informed west alliance smacking will have an affect on those behaving wrongly that will make it become a moral issue that matters just in the same way as happened in the west.

So we are discovering the moral truth, not inventing it.

 

[VirOptimus]

Because it will matter at some point in one way or another. Moral truths are discoverable. We can come to understand the facts around the moral issues better which helps us get closer to the truth of the matter. So those who are wrong don't have the same awareness of the facts as say the west have now.

For example most of the countries that ban smacking use to allow smacking. They obviously thought smacking was OK back then. So those who are wrong according to the standard determined by more morally advanced nations are just like we were decades ago.

Because we believe we are better informed about the harms smacking can do we can say that their is a growing consensus that smacking is objectively wrong regardless of subjective or relative views.

If something is "objectivly wrong" consensus is irrelevant.

And you still havent answered the question, why does it matter? Christians belive it matters because of the supposed afterlife, but thats a religious belief.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Your position is not an objective one beyond yourself.

Yes it is. I am not asserting that everything is subjective. Just moral statements.

You agreed that this is not a moral statement:

B: Moral statements do not have an objective truth value. There are no moral facts.

I am asserting B as 'an objective one beyond myself'.

 

[Moral Orel]

Nope. Negating the claim does not magically "stand" until proven wrong. All claims, positive or negative, other than self-evident must be supported. That which is gratuitously given may just as easily be gratuitously dismissed.

I don't like agreeing with you.

Hitchen's Razor: "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

 

[o_mlly]

I don't like agreeing with you.

"Like"? Of course, "like" would be a matter of taste, no? Glad I scored (at least once) with the chocolate ice cream group instead of those detestable Brussels sprouts.

 

[durangodawood]

.....Hitchen's Razor: "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

But then the claim just hangs there as a unknown, as does the dismissal.

Much better to put a stake in its heart by offering a simple disproof.... if one exists.

If bunch of smart people cant think up a single example of a non measurable objective fact, I'm inclined to think - at least provisionally - none exist

 

[Ken-1122]

For example most of the countries that ban smacking use to allow smacking. They obviously thought smacking was OK back then. But we just didn't have the understanding we have today. So those who are wrong according to the standard determined by more morally advanced nations are just like we were decades ago.

What objective evidence do you have that the decision to stop smacking is the result of a moral advancement rather than a moral decline? Perhaps it’s just the result of those who oppose smacking are in a position of power now and can now impose their subjective views on everybody else.

 

[Bradskii]

Measurement of the harm caused by an immoral act is possible...

I keep asking who can do this. I keep asking who determines that an act has reached a point when it has become immoral. Is it, as you said at one point 'a reasonable person'? Maybe you think that all reasonable people think alike. If they don't (and they obviously don't) then how do we determine who is right?

 

[Bradskii]

But then the claim just hangs there as a unknown, as does the dismissal.

Much better to put a stake in its heart by offering a simple disproof.... if one exists.

If bunch of smart people cant think up a single example of a non measurable objective fact, I'm inclined to think - at least provisionally - none exist

I have two proposals

The first is as there have been no dragons ever found in Australia we can work on the premise that dragons do not exist in that country.

If anyone would like to reject that premise by presenting evidence for a dragon in Australia then we'd all be keen to investigate. Otherwise the premise stands.

The second is that as there are no objective facts that can be found that are non measurable, then we can work on the premise that objective facts that cannot be measured do not exist.

If anyone would like to reject that premise by presenting one that cannot be measured then we'd all be keen to investigate. Otherwise that premise stands as well.

 

[Kylie]

I think this doesn’t follow. Saying we cannot find a specific point doesn't mean there is no objective measure. Having any stopping point, variation, degree, measure of something moving along a sliding scale from one point to another needs an objective anchor. Otherwise none of it makes sense speaking about variations and stopping points along some scale.

So though we can’t find some stopping points doesn’t mean there is no truth about what is right and wrong behaviour morally. We may find that point or truth later. But up until then we can determine the better/best we can based on our ability to reason.

Ah, but we can still compare two points along the scale and determine the difference between them in an objective sense. We can measure the amount of water in the glass at two different times and very accurately state the difference in the amount between them. We can measure the difference in light levels at two different times as night falls and very accurately state the difference between them.

Can you do the same with morality?

Then what about "Killing" which we can say is also assault (damaging the body) and risking death. They are along the same scale.

So we could have any variation of the moral not to kill from for example "pushing someone" to "Genocide" and everything in between like mass murder, serial killings, 1st degree and 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, killing in self defence, Punitive killing, killing in war and killing to save an innocent person.

These are all different argued objective truths about the same moral wrong "Killing". None of these variations are subjectively determined. So each and every circumstance has a moral truth even though they are about the same moral.

So they are all comparing the same thing because they are all about taking lives? Again, you are reducing it to the amount of damage that is done. But that can't really give you the objective morality, can it? After all, you've refused to tell me if it is a greater moral good to shoot down the airliner with 200 people in order to save the 1000 people who will be killed if you don't.

And which is morally worse, killing two people in self defense, or killing one person by accident? Can you clearly express how much worse the worse option is than the other option? (I bet you're going to evade this by saying it all depends on the circumstances. So I will cut off that escape for you now and tell you that you can invent whatever specific circumstances you want.)

 

[Kylie]

The burden to argue the truth of a claim is on the one who makes the claim. That would be you.

Except you are demanding that I prove a negative. The only way I can answer your challenge here is to examine every single thing that can possibly exist and demonstrate that it meets the measurability criteria.

No, the fallacy you continue to push begs the very question of this thread. You assume (with no evidence or rational argument) that measurement is essential (and not accidental) to categorizing moral and immoral acts objectively and then leap to a conclusion that morality is subjective. Tell us, how do you measure the harm in a date rape? Is a gang rape measurably more harmful?

If you had actually been paying attention to what I have constantly been saying throughout this entire thread, you would know already that my position on that is that the harm done is SUBJECTIVE. There are some people for whom that would be an event that haunts them for the rest of their lives. There are other people who will be able to deal with the emotional scars. There is no objective level of harm, since as a SUBJECTIVE thing, the amount of harm caused depends on the person who experienced it. My entire argument has been that since the harm can not be objectively measured, it is NOT an objective thing.