Is there Objective Morality?

[Kylie]

"Threeness" is a property of a group of three. It's part of reality. Because a social group is involved, doesn't mean it's imaginary.

Also, I laid out a series of propositions for the existence of an objective morality that have not been contradicted.

I was responding to one of Steve's posts. If you are referring to a different post, then you'll have to link to it. And nothing that you say here addresses the points I made with regards to Steve's post.

 

[Kylie]

Well yes people on this thread have actually said objective morality is a irrational position. They were so confident that they were right that they make aan objective claim.

I don't recall anyone say that objective claims can't be made.

I can make lots of objective claims. I just don't think that any objective claims can be made regarding what is morally good or bad, in just the same way that I can't make any objective claims about whether Star Trek or Star Wars is better.

But thats a logical fallacy to say then it follows that there must be no objective morals because people cannot explain this. The same logic can be used in science and shows its illogical.

True.

But if no statement about morality can be demonstrated to be objective, then there is no support for the claim "morality is objective."

But another point. Those who make this claim that there is only subjective morlaity and no objective morality also cannot demostrate that this is objectively true. So its seems that they are doing exactly the same and yet think that this is enough to show they are correct.

I think the fact that all objectively true things have certain qualities (they can be clearly and unambiguously expressed in a mathematical type way, such as the symbols we use for expressing logical statements, all people will come to the same conclusion about a particular set of information, etc) and yet there has not been any such qualities that morality has been shown to have is evidence for subjective morality.

 

[stevevw]

First of all, argument from popularity.

Now your making a logical fallacy about a logical fallacy. It doesn't follow that its only an arguement from popularity. The people involved in the survey are also qualified to make expert opinion. Just like we use the experts at the Heart Foundation will know about the Heart. They have credentials that cause us to take what they say more seriously.

Second of all, I suspect those who hold that morality is objective do so because there are many moral viewpoints that everyone seems to have in common. They see these commanalities and conclude that the commonalities exist because they are somehow built into the very fabric of the universe, like the speed of light, or the value of pi. But, as I've explained, these commonalities can be explained in a differnt way, that as Humans started living in societal groups, we needed a way of interacting with others in a way that did not damage the social structure of the group, and that's why we have such shared moral viewpoints. Not because they are objectively true, but because we live in social groups where those viewpoints are beneficial.

BUt thats just another way to appeal to some objective ie that it damages social structure. Rather than a subjective position which has no logical or rational basis.

Thirdly, the idea of objective morality doesn't explain why there are so many situations where moral viewpoints are widely varied.

Thats a great big Logical Fallacy which I have pointed out at least 10 times. It doesn't follow that because there are different moral views there cannot be any objective morals. It may be that those who disagree with the core morals are wrong. If we applied this to other situations we know are objective the logical wouldn't follow.

Is premarital sex morally good or not? Is it morally acceptable for a woman to be topless in public? And other issues like euthanasia, marriage equality, and many others. If there really was an obnjective morality, then there would be much more widespread agreement about these issues, just as we see widespread agreement on the issue "Murder is wrong." And yet we don't.

There is wide spread agreement about the core morals. Disagreement is exaggerated and this can be supported. Often the disagreement isnt about morals but the facts around that moral situation. The second point will relate to your examples.

The disagreement objection
* First, disagreement about morality is a bit overblown. Pretty much everyone agrees that there’s something morally wrong with torturing children for fun, that we ought to keep promises, that being kind is usually better than being cruel, and so on.

* Second, areas of apparent moral disagreement, such as the arguments over gay marriage, often rest on a disagreement about non-moral matters: for instance, whether same-sex parenting causes children psychological distress.

* Third, disagreement about a topic isn’t itself a reason to think that there’s no truth there. People disagree about physics, especially between cultures, but nobody takes that to be a reason to doubt physics. Most people - or everyone - could just be wrong.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhiloso..._there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/

So an issue euthanasia isnt about negating the moral truth that Killing an innocent person is wrong. It actually supports the idea of objective morality because we need to reason about why and when its OK to allow someone to kill themselves or for others to end their life. This needs an objective basis to work out.

The disagreement is about when should we be able to end someones life and not whether its wrong to Kill. So we all agree on the moral truth but just disagree when we are justified to ends someones life if they are in pain ect. So in other words ending someones life doesnt mean KIlling becomes morally subjective. It just means we have genuine disagreement about when we can or whether we can in the first place.

 

[TheWhat?]

I was responding to one of Steve's posts. If you are referring to a different post, then you'll have to link to it. And nothing that you say here addresses the points I made with regards to Steve's post.

It was more so in response to your comment on having killed the thread. I was trying to encourage more conversation, and it does address your statement:

They see these commanalities and conclude that the commonalities exist because they are somehow built into the very fabric of the universe, like the speed of light, or the value of pi. But, as I've explained, these commonalities can be explained in a differnt way, that as Humans started living in societal groups, we needed a way of interacting with others in a way that did not damage the social structure of the group, and that's why we have such shared moral viewpoints.
​

To which I responded:

"Threeness" is a property of a group of three. It's part of reality. Because a social group is involved, doesn't mean it's imaginary.
​

In other words I think it is very possible that there are morally relevant facts that are "built into the very fabric of the universe."

 

[Kylie]

Now your making a logical fallacy about a logical fallacy. It doesn't follow that its only an arguement from popularity. The people involved in the survey are also qualified to make expert opinion. Just like we use the experts at the Heart Foundation will know about the Heart. They have credentials that cause us to take what they say more seriously.

However, by your own argument, there are a significant number of EQUALLY QUALIFIED people who disagree with them.

BUt thats just another way to appeal to some objective ie that it damages social structure. Rather than a subjective position which has no logical or rational basis.

And I've agreed several times that there can be objective harm done by some things that we consider to be morally wrong, haven't I?

My point is that such objective harm is not sufficient to count as a basis for objective morality, since there are many cases where the harm done is subjective (someone making a crude joke may leave on person who overhears it slightly offended, but could leave another person quite traumatised), and many cases where there is no demonstrable harm at all (such as pre-marital sex).

Thats a great big Logical Fallacy which I have pointed out at least 10 times. It doesn't follow that because there are different moral views there cannot be any objective morals. It may be that those who disagree with the core morals are wrong. If we applied this to other situations we know are objective the logical wouldn't follow.

We've bneen over this. If what you say is true, then there should be a number of things that we both agree are objective that see a similar wide variation in view. Can you provide an example of such a thing? Do we get such wide variations in the conclusion of how far away the moon is?

There is wide spread agreement about the core morals. Disagreement is exaggerated and this can be supported. Often the disagreement isnt about morals but the facts around that moral situation.

So what? That can happen even if morality is subjective, you know.

And you can give two people the same facts about a moral situation and they can reach different conclusions, ewven when there is no disagreement at all about the facts.

So an issue euthanasia isnt about negating the moral truth that Killing an innocent person is wrong. It actually supports the idea of objective morality because we need to reason about why and when its OK to allow someone to kill themselves or for others to end their life. This needs an objective basis to work out.

Okay then, how much pain does a person need to be in, objectively speaking, for ending their life to be the morally good thing to do?

The disagreement is about when should we be able to end someones life and not whether its wrong to Kill. So we all agree on the moral truth but just disagree when we are justified to ends someones life if they are in pain ect. So in other words ending someones life doesnt mean KIlling becomes morally subjective. It just means we have genuine disagreement about when we can or whether we can in the first place.

And that disagreement shouldn't be happening if it's objective!

 

[Kylie]

In other words I think it is very possible that there are morally relevant facts that are "built into the very fabric of the universe."

There are many things that are fundamental constants in the universe. The speed of light, for example. We can measure these things and all who measure them will get results that will be in agreement. If I measure the speed of light and you measure it too, then we'll get the same result.

How do you propose we measure morality?

 

[TheWhat?]

There are many things that are fundamental constants in the universe. The speed of light, for example. We can measure these things and all who measure them will get results that will be in agreement. If I measure the speed of light and you measure it too, then we'll get the same result.

How do you propose we measure morality?

Well, firstly, I'm speaking of morally relevant facts. I am not a medical professional, but many professionals make a living at studying the various things that could result in injury, etc. Medical science involves quantifiable facts, which are morally relevant facts as well.

As for how we measure morality, I am of the position that morality is experienced. If you invite someone for dinner, their intrusion most likely wouldn't be experienced as such. If they enter your home without welcome, you'll likely experience what it means to be wronged. A wrong is in reality an experience, no less than any other ailment, and it cannot be subject to opinion. It is necessarily a violation of consent and some necessary provision for personal safety and/or wellness. Our laws can and should be determined out of necessity to protect members of a society from experiencing wrongs, although they are not always guaranteed to protect us.

 

[Kylie]

Well, firstly, I'm speaking of morally relevant facts. I am not a medical professional, but many professionals make a living at studying the various things that could result in injury, etc. Medical science involves quantifiable facts, which are morally relevant facts as well.

But those facts are not morals in and of themselves.

As for how we measure morality, I am of the position that morality is experienced. If you invite someone for dinner, their intrusion most likely wouldn't be experienced as such. If they enter your home without welcome, you'll likely experience what it means to be wronged. A wrong is in reality an experience, no less than any other ailment, and it cannot be subject to opinion. It is necessarily a violation of consent and some necessary provision for personal safety and/or wellness. Our laws can and should be determined out of necessity to protect members of a society from experiencing wrongs, although they are not always guaranteed to protect us.

Experiences are subjective, not objective.

 

[TheWhat?]

But those facts are not morals in and of themselves.

Right, I'm saying they are morally relevant.

Experiences are subjective, not objective.

A doctor doesn't bother herself with the subjectivity of a pain response in a patient, unless hypochondria, or worse, some form of manipulation is suspected. That the experience is "in the mind" doesn't render it to be non-real, necessarily, and that it is involuntary places this in a special class, in my view. In the world of ethics, after Kant, we seem to have a tendency to blow subjectivity way out of proportion in a way that's not very consistent with the the way we use the sciences.

 

[stevevw]

I don't recall anyone say that objective claims can't be made.

I can make lots of objective claims. I just don't think that any objective claims can be made regarding what is morally good or bad, in just the same way that I can't make any objective claims about whether Star Trek or Star Wars is better.

My point is that objective claims are being made about morality all the time. Thats because morality is different to a persons preferences for a TV show. Morality comes down to a matter of right and wrong and thats why people make objective claims. You cannot do that with TV shows. So your comparison is wrong and a fallacy as I have pointed out several times now.

[/quote] True.
But if no statement about morality can be demonstrated to be objective, then there is no support for the claim "morality is objective." [/quote] First no support for objective morality doesnt mean theres no objective morality. Theres no support that its not objective. But the issue is people who say there is no support for objective morality make objective claims that there is no objective morality and they also have no support. So its funny how they don't even see the irony of this. They want to make truth claims while at the same time claiming there are no truths.

I think the fact that all objectively true things have certain qualities (they can be clearly and unambiguously expressed in a mathematical type way, such as the symbols we use for expressing logical statements, all people will come to the same conclusion about a particular set of information, etc) and yet there has not been any such qualities that morality has been shown to have is evidence for subjective morality.

Thats not the case. Logical arguements for objective mroality have been made many times. Objective moral truths can be supported in the same way Math is. For example

Premise 1: If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
Premise 2: Epistemic facts do exist
Conclusion 1: Moral facts do exist.
Premise 3: If moral facts do exist, then realism is true.
Conclusion 2: Moral realism is true.

or

There is however, a clear path to a universal and powerful moral objectivity, the view that morality (or most of it, anyway) is just as objectively true as science and mathematics. The key ingredient is the notion of harm.

The question now is “Why ought we to check (or mitigate) such harm.” The answer is because it is harm! Harm is bad by definition. Morality requires us to avoid doing bad things, again, by definition. Hence, we all have a moral duty not to harm other living things. This moral duty exists objectively because harm exists objectively. Just as 1 + 1 = 2 is objectively true, so “we should not harm other living things” is objectively true. This truth is based simply on the fact that harming exists and should be checked.

We know harm exists, we just don’t know its boundaries. But given what we do know, it is objectively clear that where there is intentional harm, there is immorality.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective

We can make assumptions in science without having any evdience that the assumption is correct. We then support those assumptions. It is the same for morality. We assume that our intuitionis are true/real representation of morality and then set about supporting that.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-

We can make assumptions in science without having any evdience that the assumption is correct. We then support those assumptions. It is the same for morality. We assume that our intuitionis are true/real representation of morality and then set about supporting that.

Thats not how science works and thats certainly not how moral philosophy works.

But it doesnt matter, you have not supported your assertions, just given more assertions.

 

[stevevw]

However, by your own argument, there are a significant number of EQUALLY QUALIFIED people who disagree with them.

I have never argued that there is an equal number of people who disagree. The Survey showed that for every philosopher that disagreed with moral realism 2 agreed with it. Even those who disagreed said that moral realism isnt an irrational position. So that says a lot about the rationality of moral realism.

And I've agreed several times that there can be objective harm done by some things that we consider to be morally wrong, haven't I?

My point is that such objective harm is not sufficient to count as a basis for objective morality, since there are many cases where the harm done is subjective (someone making a crude joke may leave on person who overhears it slightly offended, but could leave another person quite traumatised), and many cases where there is no demonstrable harm at all (such as pre-marital sex).

But we all know that the subjective view of a person is not a good way to determine morality because as you say people can have personal experiences that make them overly sensitive and therefore have a distorted view of things. We should not allow those subjective views to determine morality. We need to reason the moral truth independent of subjective views.

We do that by reasoning the facts. Harm is a fact. Its a fact that harm can be associated with doing bad things to people. Just because someone has a subjective view doesnt negate that " Harm" can be a sign of doing something bad. We just have to reason that it is wrong. That can be done through different ways. The fact that science can determine harm as being bad for human " LIfe" is one way.

We've bneen over this. If what you say is true, then there should be a number of things that we both agree are objective that see a similar wide variation in view. Can you provide an example of such a thing? Do we get such wide variations in the conclusion of how far away the moon is?

And I have given examples before which you dismissed. For example climate change. Climate change is an objective fact. It can be measured. Yet people have varying views about whether it is a fact or real. You can take many things. The Heart Foundation will have objective facts that a poor diet lifestyle can lead to a heart attack. But people still have varying views that this is not the case.

So what? That can happen even if morality is subjective, you know.

I don't think so as the disagreement is about " Facts" around moral truths and facts are not subjective. Thats the whole point. The logic is that under subjective morality any agreement is just personal preferences, or feelings. Its not reasoned but more a claim about self. So anyagreement would be just a fluke as far as being actually right or wrong.

Morality is a matter of right and wrong and I don't think that lucky or fluky thinking should be how we determine what is right and wrong and people know that. Thats why they keep contradicting themselves morally.

And you can give two people the same facts about a moral situation and they can reach different conclusions, ewven when there is no disagreement at all about the facts.

But we can show that they are objectively wrong. People can disagree with facts but thats just their opinion. A " Fact" by definition cannot be disputed by subjective thinking.

For example if the science shows that rape physically and psychologically harms a person then no amount of subjective opinion will change that. The tests and studies suport the facts.

Okay then, how much pain does a person need to be in, objectively speaking, for ending their life to be the morally good thing to do?

But your objection doesn' t change that we need an objective basis to determine whether its right or wrong to end someones life. How do you think we determine whether or not we should ends someones life now.

Are you seriously saying its based on subjective feelings or opinion. Like someone can end a persons life because they personally percieve that being lonely is a fate worse than death. Come on thats silly. The fact that has such a strict criteria to even be allowed to happen shows it is based on some sort of objective.

You think that if I fail to give a specific point of right and wrong that this wil prove that there is no objective basis to measure this. Thats just another big logical fallacy and is not a basis for any objection.

And that disagreement shouldn't be happening if it's objective!

You are coming up with logical fallacies on just about every reply now which for me shows that you have no arguement.
If we applied this to science then we should never disagree about objectives and yet science is full of disagreements. Look at climate change, quantum physics, Multiverses, diets, ect.

 

[stevevw]

Thats not how science works and thats certainly not how moral philosophy works.

But it doesnt matter, you have not supported your assertions, just given more assertions.

So science makes the assumption that there is only physical stuff. But science cannot possibly know this or step outside itself to verify this assumption.

 

[VirOptimus]

So science makes the assumption that there is only physical stuff. But science cannot possibly know this or step outside itself to verify this assumption.

Science makes no assumption of the kind, but science only deal with physical reality.

You really should learn the basics. Your posts are very much Dunning Kruger.

 

[stevevw]

Science makes no assumption of the kind, but science only deal with physical reality.

If science only deals with physical stuff through its methodology then its methodology must be based on the assumption that only physical stuff exists. Otherwise it would include non-physical stuff. Science does tell us about new realities like QM. So it is making ontological claims about reality.

You really should learn the basics. Your posts are very much Dunning Kruger.

Then how do you explain that the scientific literature actully acknowledge this assumption.

The ten assumptions of science
1. MATERIALISM: The external world exists after the observer does not.
2. CAUSALITY: All effects have an infinite number of material causes.
(PDF) The ten assumptions of science and the demise of cosmogony

Philosophical bias is the one bias that science cannot avoid
Doing science without making any basic philosophical assumptions is impossible.
These are basic implicit assumptions in science about how the world is (ontology), what we can know about it (epistemology), or how science ought to be practiced (norms). As we shall see, philosophical biases influence, justify and enable scientific practice: in short, they are an integral part of science.

Basic philosophical assumptions count as biases because they skew the development of hypotheses, the design of experiments, the evaluation of evidence, and the interpretation of results in specific directions.
Philosophical bias is the one bias that science cannot avoid

Like the way in which mathematics seems to map the intrinsic rational structure of the physical world, this is presupposed within science and cannot be given a scientific explanation. It appears to be a metaphysical fact, and the explanation for which, if there can be one, must come from beyond science.
The Paradox We Face When We Use Science To Explain Science

1The modern scientific worldview is predominantly predicated on assumptions that are closely associated with classical physics. Materialism—the idea that matter is the only reality—is one of these assumptions.
The Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science - Campaign for Open Science

 

[VirOptimus]

If science only deals with physical stuff through its methodology then its methodology must be based on the assumption that only physical stuff exists. Otherwise it would include non-physical stuff. Science does tell us about new realities like QM. So it is making ontological claims about reality.

Then how do you explain that the scientific literature actully acknowledge this assumption.

The ten assumptions of science
1. MATERIALISM: The external world exists after the observer does not.
2. CAUSALITY: All effects have an infinite number of material causes.
(PDF) The ten assumptions of science and the demise of cosmogony

Philosophical bias is the one bias that science cannot avoid
Doing science without making any basic philosophical assumptions is impossible.
These are basic implicit assumptions in science about how the world is (ontology), what we can know about it (epistemology), or how science ought to be practiced (norms). As we shall see, philosophical biases influence, justify and enable scientific practice: in short, they are an integral part of science.

Basic philosophical assumptions count as biases because they skew the development of hypotheses, the design of experiments, the evaluation of evidence, and the interpretation of results in specific directions.
Philosophical bias is the one bias that science cannot avoid

Like the way in which mathematics seems to map the intrinsic rational structure of the physical world, this is presupposed within science and cannot be given a scientific explanation. It appears to be a metaphysical fact, and the explanation for which, if there can be one, must come from beyond science.
The Paradox We Face When We Use Science To Explain Science

1The modern scientific worldview is predominantly predicated on assumptions that are closely associated with classical physics. Materialism—the idea that matter is the only reality—is one of these assumptions.
The Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science - Campaign for Open Science

Thanks for the Q.E.D.

 

[Kylie]

Right, I'm saying they are morally relevant.

Agreed. But morally relevant objective facts are not enough to make the morality of the situation itself objective.

A doctor doesn't bother herself with the subjectivity of a pain response in a patient, unless hypochondria, or worse, some form of manipulation is suspected. That the experience is "in the mind" doesn't render it to be non-real, necessarily, and that it is involuntary places this in a special class, in my view. In the world of ethics, after Kant, we seem to have a tendency to blow subjectivity way out of proportion in a way that's not very consistent with the the way we use the sciences.

Have you got a source to back up the claim that a doctor doesn't bother with the subjectivity of a pain response? Because for many conditions, the type of pain (stabbing, aching, shooting, etc) and how bad the pain is can be a useful diagnostic tool. And doctors are generally concerned with reducing the pain levels in patients. When my husband cut his finger open while making dinner, we went to the hospital and they glued the cut shut, but not before they gave him some local anaesthetic injections.

 

[Kylie]

My point is that objective claims are being made about morality all the time. Thats because morality is different to a persons preferences for a TV show. Morality comes down to a matter of right and wrong and thats why people make objective claims. You cannot do that with TV shows. So your comparison is wrong and a fallacy as I have pointed out several times now.

Again, you've never seen any Star Trek vs Star Wars arguments, have you? Many fans act as though their opinion is objectively true.

First no support for objective morality doesnt mean theres no objective morality.

True, but it certainly doesn't do you any favours. If morality was objective, we'd surely have seen some supporting evidence for it by now, wouldn't we?

Theres no support that its not objective.

Yes there is. I've given you the reasons why I think morality is subjective.

Besides, you just said that not having support for a position isn't enough to say that position is wrong.

But the issue is people who say there is no support for objective morality make objective claims that there is no objective morality and they also have no support. So its funny how they don't even see the irony of this.

What? Do you think that a person who says that we can't make any oblective moral claims is suddenly not allowed to make any objective claims about anything?

How in the world do you figure that?

If I say, "It's an objective fact that I live in Australia," are you going to say, "Hang on, Kylie! You don't believe in objective morality! You aren't allowed to make any objective claims at all!"

They want to make truth claims while at the same time claiming there are no truths.

There are plenty of objective truths about lots of different things.

It's just that moral judgements are not in the category of things about which objective claims can be made.

Thats not the case. Logical arguements for objective mroality have been made many times. Objective moral truths can be supported in the same way Math is. For example

Premise 1: If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
Premise 2: Epistemic facts do exist
Conclusion 1: Moral facts do exist.
Premise 3: If moral facts do exist, then realism is true.
Conclusion 2: Moral realism is true.

Please explain how epistemic facts require moral objective for their existence.

There is however, a clear path to a universal and powerful moral objectivity, the view that morality (or most of it, anyway) is just as objectively true as science and mathematics. The key ingredient is the notion of harm.

The question now is “Why ought we to check (or mitigate) such harm.” The answer is because it is harm! Harm is bad by definition. Morality requires us to avoid doing bad things, again, by definition. Hence, we all have a moral duty not to harm other living things. This moral duty exists objectively because harm exists objectively. Just as 1 + 1 = 2 is objectively true, so “we should not harm other living things” is objectively true. This truth is based simply on the fact that harming exists and should be checked.

We know harm exists, we just don’t know its boundaries. But given what we do know, it is objectively clear that where there is intentional harm, there is immorality.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective

This makes the flawed assumption that morality always involves harm. What about the issue of premarital sex? How do we objective measure the harm in that? What about marriage equality?

And even in cases where there can be argued to be harm, ther is no objective way to determine how much harm there is. Take the example of euthanasia. Some people would say that the harm caused by causing death far outweighs the benefit caused by the lack of suffering. But others would argue the exact opposite.

We can make assumptions in science without having any evdience that the assumption is correct. We then support those assumptions. It is the same for morality. We assume that our intuitionis are true/real representation of morality and then set about supporting that.

But those assumptions need to be backed up by measurements before they will be accepted. What measurements have you done to support the notion of objective morality?

 

[Kylie]

I have never argued that there is an equal number of people who disagree. The Survey showed that for every philosopher that disagreed with moral realism 2 agreed with it. Even those who disagreed said that moral realism isnt an irrational position. So that says a lot about the rationality of moral realism.

You really should actually read my posts before responding.

I was not saying that there was an equal number of people who disagree.

I said that the people who disagree were EQUALLY QUALIFIED.

But we all know that the subjective view of a person is not a good way to determine morality because as you say people can have personal experiences that make them overly sensitive and therefore have a distorted view of things. We should not allow those subjective views to determine morality. We need to reason the moral truth independent of subjective views.

That sounds like you are saying that we should ignore the feelings of people who react to something more than we think is justified.

"I'm sorry, Miss Jones. I know your boss yelled at you because you made a mistake in the report for the Johnson account, but my objective determination of the morality of his actions says that your response of breaking down into tears in the lunchroom is completely unjustified. So stop crying, toughen up and get back to work!"

We do that by reasoning the facts. Harm is a fact. Its a fact that harm can be associated with doing bad things to people. Just because someone has a subjective view doesnt negate that " Harm" can be a sign of doing something bad. We just have to reason that it is wrong. That can be done through different ways. The fact that science can determine harm as being bad for human " LIfe" is one way.

I've already talked about how this reduction of morality to "How many lives are saved/lost" is a terrible way to measure it.

And I have given examples before which you dismissed. For example climate change. Climate change is an objective fact. It can be measured. Yet people have varying views about whether it is a fact or real. You can take many things. The Heart Foundation will have objective facts that a poor diet lifestyle can lead to a heart attack. But people still have varying views that this is not the case.

And among the people actually qualified to know what they are talking about in those areas, how much disagreement is there? Virtually ALL climate scientists agree that climate change is a serious problem. I haven't looked at the statistics for the heart example, but I think it's safe to say that virtually ALL people who are trained in relevant fdields will agree with that statement as well.

Yet when we look at the people who are qualified in areas related to morality, we see a much larger disagreement.

I don't think so as the disagreement is about " Facts" around moral truths and facts are not subjective. Thats the whole point. The logic is that under subjective morality any agreement is just personal preferences, or feelings. Its not reasoned but more a claim about self. So anyagreement would be just a fluke as far as being actually right or wrong.

Morality is a matter of right and wrong and I don't think that lucky or fluky thinking should be how we determine what is right and wrong and people know that. Thats why they keep contradicting themselves morally.

As I've said countless times (and you seem intent on ignoring), the agreement on moral issues is easily explained by our sense of morality stemming from the society we are raised in, and all of us in here were raised in broadly the same kind of society.

But we can show that they are objectively wrong. People can disagree with facts but thats just their opinion. A " Fact" by definition cannot be disputed by subjective thinking.

For example if the science shows that rape physically and psychologically harms a person then no amount of subjective opinion will change that. The tests and studies suport the facts.

But we can't determine objectively how much harm will be done. Some people have their entire lives destroyed by it. Other people are able to recover almost completely. It's impossible to say, "The act of rape causes X amount of harm."

But your objection doesn' t change that we need an objective basis to determine whether its right or wrong to end someones life. How do you think we determine whether or not we should ends someones life now.

Of course it's going to be subjective, because the situation for each person who faces the choice is different.

Are you seriously saying its based on subjective feelings or opinion. Like someone can end a persons life because they personally percieve that being lonely is a fate worse than death. Come on thats silly. The fact that has such a strict criteria to even be allowed to happen shows it is based on some sort of objective.

Why do you think it's Person A deciding on whether Person B should die?

It's Person B deciding for themselves.

You think that if I fail to give a specific point of right and wrong that this wil prove that there is no objective basis to measure this. Thats just another big logical fallacy and is not a basis for any objection.

I think your continued failure to do so works very much against you.

I mean, you've been arguing for a long time that there are specific points of right and wrong, and yet when it comes time to put your money where your mouth is, you refuse to step up and actually do it.

If your position really was as correct as you say, surely you can think of at least ONE example of it!

You are coming up with logical fallacies on just about every reply now which for me shows that you have no arguement.
If we applied this to science then we should never disagree about objectives and yet science is full of disagreements. Look at climate change, quantum physics, Multiverses, diets, ect.

Please show me a single area of science that is claimed to be objective where there is widespread disagreement among those who are actually qualified to make comment on it.

 

[stevevw]

Again, you've never seen any Star Trek vs Star Wars arguments, have you? Many fans act as though their opinion is objectively true.

Well thats a bit ilogical don't you think. How can some be wrong about liking a TV show when its an opinion or preference.

True, but it certainly doesn't do you any favours. If morality was objective, we'd surely have seen some supporting evidence for it by now, wouldn't we?

We do have but you don't recognise it. But at the very least it may stop people from claiming it doesnt exist and that subjective morality is all that exists when they cannot possibly know.

Yes there is. I've given you the reasons why I think morality is subjective.

But those reasons are logical fallacies and Ive shown you that.

Besides, you just said that not having support for a position isn't enough to say that position is wrong.

It doesnt show its right either. So your claim that you have shown subjective morality is true is also wrong.

What? Do you think that a person who says that we can't make any oblective moral claims is suddenly not allowed to make any objective claims about anything?

They can make objective claims but supporting that is a different story. The point I am making is that you want me to provide evdience for my objective claim but you don't seem to apply the same criteria to yourself when you mak ethose objective claims that there is no objective morality.

How in the world do you figure that?

If I say, "It's an objective fact that I live in Australia," are you going to say, "Hang on, Kylie! You don't believe in objective morality! You aren't allowed to make any objective claims at all!"

But we are not talking about any facts but whether there is objective or subjective morality. You claimed there was no objective morality. Thats an objective claim meaning you are right and hold the truth on this matter and everyone else is wrong. Yet you provide no support.

There are plenty of objective truths about lots of different things.
It's just that moral judgements are not in the category of things about which objective claims can be made.

So what about other ways of supporting facts and truth like with Math or with logical arguements like I have shown. They are still facts and truths. For example do you think your partner loves you. How do you know this is a fact. You have nothing physical to hold that you can measure yet people think its a fact or truth that they love their partner and their partner loves them.

Please explain how epistemic facts require moral objective for their existence.

So for example when you reply to my posts with an arguement for subjective morality and I decide to reply you will assume that epistemic duties must be present in our debate. You will asume that I ought not misrepresent your arguement and not use logical fallacies. That I should be honest and not lie. You will prescribe these epistemic duties and believe they should be kept and abided by.

But thats the point. Why should I abide by these, whey should anyone if morality is subjetcive. So people assume that epistemic truths are binding in a debate. So you are prescribing that honesty should be objectively binding in out discussion. However, this epistemic virtue is tied to our moral virtue of honesty so you cannot moral realism (objectivisty).

You cannot reject moral realism if you wish to debate your position and assume it is wrong for me to misrepresent your argument. Since we agree there are epistemic duties and values used in discussions we therefore agree moral duties and facts are objective.

This makes the flawed assumption that morality always involves harm. What about the issue of premarital sex? How do we objective measure the harm in that? What about marriage equality?

I think all moral wrongs come down to a harm done to humans in one way or another because morality happens between people.

And even in cases where there can be argued to be harm, ther is no objective way to determine how much harm there is. Take the example of euthanasia. Some people would say that the harm caused by causing death far outweighs the benefit caused by the lack of suffering. But others would argue the exact opposite.

So who is right. Surely on such an important issue we must know. We cannot possibly be ending someones life based on someones subjetcive opinion. We have objective measures now for things like this. Doctors are able to state the facts, that the person is suffering, cannot ever be made better ect.

If someone still wants to die then that is their subjetcive view I guess and has nothing to do with whether it is objectively right or wrong. In fact people would say that someone who wants to dies for no objective reason is not really in their right mind and should be stopped.

But those assumptions need to be backed up by measurements before they will be accepted. What measurements have you done to support the notion of objective morality?

I have already gone through this. Obviously we will never have the type of evdience that science uses (physical). But as I said we can reason truths. IE we see an old lady being robbed we can say that the act of stealing her money is wrong and anyone who says its OK is just mistaken. We know this is true because the alternative which is to say that stealing old ladies handbags is morlaly OK is irrational and causes a lot of harm for human " LIfe".

The evidence is there. The old lady will be traumatised as it personally affects humans. Stealing destroys societies, hurts people, creates disorder. Science show us the effects it has on humans. We don't allow subjecti8ve opinions when it comes to these core moral truths.

They are just wrong, no subjective views are allowed to change this and anyone who disagrees is just plain wrong. Its reflected in laws, Human Rights, Decalrations, Treaties, ethical codes ect. People protest the behaviour, condemn it, make it a moral truth and tell everyone that stealing is objective wrong.

Before you say but people acting that way doesnt make it objective. Remember they are not just acting that way. They are making everyone act that way. There is no choice or room for subjetcive views. That is differnt to acting that way. They are actually saying its the only way to act when it comes to morality.