Is there Objective Morality?

[Moral Orel]

I am not sure what your point is. I was talking about how when debating it is reasoning and logic that will determine the facts.

You didn't say "determine the facts" you said "sway the argument". It's emotion that is more likely to sway an argument in favor of one debater or another.

The Appeal to Emotion fallacy is more persuasive than logic and reason. That's why people think morality is objective.

 

[stevevw]

You didn't say "determine the facts" you said "sway the argument". It's emotion that is more likely to sway an argument in favor of one debater or another.

Ok well theres another example of my grammar. But its silly to now force me to take on a misrepresentation of my arguement because of one word. You and I both know I have consistently talked about reasoning and logic being the key to determining morality.

In saying "sway" it wasn't about talking people into accepting something competely false and baseless. It was to sway the arguement, give it weight with independent support that takes the emotion and opinions out. I don't think your link was saying that either.

They were not saying abandon reasoning and facts in favour of feelings especially for morality which needs truthful answers not opinions. They were saying sometimes reasoning and logic is not enough to sway people. Facts are cold and clinical and people turn off. So a mixture of reasonong and logic along with feelings works best.

But feelings do not help when it come to morality because morality is an important matter that needs a right and wrong answer. Because we are rational beings and morality is a rational enterprise we need to reason moral truths to be sure we get to the truth rather than rely on feelings and opinions which can be arbitrary and unpredicable.

So your example really misses the mark because we are not just trying to convince people about morality we also want to find the truth of the matter. We also want to be able to have a clear platform to stand on so that we can say a moral act is right or wrong.

The Appeal to Emotion fallacy is more persuasive than logic and reason. That's why people think morality is objective.

Yes but when it comes to morality we want and need to know what is right and wrong. Thats where logic and reason are important. Most ethicists agree that morality is a rational enterprise.

one question poppped up about using feelings to sway people. How can this be done on say a forum like this without being present to experience that emotion. I don't think I have experienced any feelings from your arguement.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, it did. She is never to turn the radio to the R&B station when I am in the car.

Can this type of relationship be applied in any normative way like morality. Afterall a kidnapper can make his victim do what he wants as well. Your example only works in a closed environment and even it opens the door for immoral acts or exploitation of people under duress.

You may say your situation is fine but what about someone else who is using the same logic to control and abuse their partner. Theres no real basis for what OK or not. Morality doesnt work that way. Either something is right or wrong.

your example cannot be applied openly like morality can thus is not a good example of how morality works. Otherwise we would have to say that every situation where people force others or set standards for them to follow which could also include immoral acts are counted.

 

[Moral Orel]

Can this type of relationship be applied in any normative way like morality.

I set a rule for her behavior based on my subjective view that R&B sucks.

Afterall a kidnapper can make his victim do what he wants as well. Your example only works in a closed environment and even it opens the door for immoral acts or exploitation of people under duress.

You may say your situation is fine but what about someone else who is using the same logic to control and abuse their partner. Theres no real basis for what OK or not. Morality doesnt work that way. Either something is right or wrong.

your example cannot be applied openly like morality can thus is not a good example of how morality works. Otherwise we would have to say that every situation where people force others or set standards for them to follow which could also include immoral acts are counted.

Moving the goal posts. You claimed we wouldn't enforce our subjective views in a normative way, I demonstrated we do.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok well theres another example of my grammar. But its silly to now force me to take on a misrepresentation of my arguement because of one word.

One word? You changed "sway the argument" to "determine the facts". Only word word stayed the same, "the", and it's the only part of that which isn't integral to your meaning. It's fine if you misspoke. Just say you misspoke and move on.

 

[stevevw]

I set a rule for her behavior based on my subjective view that R&B sucks.

Moving the goal posts. You claimed we wouldn't enforce our subjective views in a normative way, I demonstrated we do.

No its not moving the goal posts. You have to be able to apply your scenario generally because thats how morality works. Your private arrangement with your wife doesnt apply noramtively. Private arrangements could mean anything including immoral acts. The fact it cannot apply normatively shows it is a false analogy.

As the article states moral norms are a code of conduct accepted by anyone who meets the intellectual and volitional conditions. That means applying to every human (all society) who who intellectually capable and and has free will and not just your wife.

In the normative sense, “morality” refers to a code of conduct that would be accepted by anyone who meets certain intellectual and volitional conditions,
The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

 

[stevevw]

One word? You changed "sway the argument" to "determine the facts". Only word word stayed the same, "the", and it's the only part of that which isn't integral to your meaning. It's fine if you misspoke. Just say you misspoke and move on.

Well yeah in the way you are saying it I have mispoke the word.

But it seems almost dishonest in that you know my position on this which is that we need to reason and logic to support and establish moral truths and that subjective feelings and opinions are not about what is morally right and wrong. In fact even the post where I said sway I clarified it by saying this

But its qualified opinions based on facts that will sway the arguement.

That clearly states what I mean sway to mean. Based on facts to sway people.

I have said it many times and I know you know my position. To then pretend that I take on this contradictory position (that this one word or sentence defines my entire position) seems like you purposely choose to make this misrepresentation and disregard the facts.

 

[stevevw]

You didn't say "determine the facts" you said "sway the argument". It's emotion that is more likely to sway an argument in favor of one debater or another.

Another point is that when you say "Sway" somone does sucessfully swaying someone mean that they have also convinced them about the truth/facts of the matter.

 

[stevevw]

Here's how subjective morality works. I acknowledge that the claim, "I ought to be happy" cannot be true. But at the same time the opposite claim, "I ought not be happy" cannot be true either. So because I want to be happy, I like being happy, and I prefer to be happy, I go ahead and assume "I ought to be happy" as a premise.

From that point I can build a complex morality based on outcomes, and consequences, utilizing empathy to normalize my behavior when interacting with other people and when trying to affect the behavior of others. And all of the moral statements I make in regards to this would be objectively true if "I ought to be happy" is objectively true.

But you have slipped in some objective basis as part of your premise ie empathy (which is subjecvtive by the way). You also mention consequences. What consequences. That implies objectives because you are deeming that whatever action causes the consequences as wrong.

It is impossible to use subjective feelings or views to determine morality because there is no objective basis. The moment you start talking about empathy, consequences, you bring in an objective basis.

Because it can't be objectively true and the only reason I assume it is true is because I prefer that it be true, morality is subjective. But I'm still going to do all of that stuff because I do in fact want to be happy, not because I actually ought to be happy.

Thats a logical fallacy in that because that it cannot be objectively true when it possibly could. If so the same case can be made for objective morality ie "I acknowledge that torturing a child for fun is morlaly good cannot be true therefore I ought to not torture children.

 

[Moral Orel]

That clearly states what I mean sway to mean. Based on facts to sway people.

Another point is that when you say "Sway" somone does sucessfully swaying someone mean that they have also convinced them about the truth/facts of the matter.

Yes, I haven't misrepresented you. You think that facts and logic sway people. You think facts and logic are persuasive. That's what my link refutes. People are swayed by their emotions. You can "sway" people to believe things that are not true, and that's why we named a fallacy after this bit of human intuition: "It would make me feel good if this was true, therefore it is true" -- Appeal to Emotion fallacy.

 

[Moral Orel]

No its not moving the goal posts. You have to be able to apply your scenario generally because thats how morality works.

I did. It applies to every car trip my wife and I take together, not just that specific one. General. Even more general, it doesn't just apply to my wife. Anyone, on any car trip with me is not allowed to tune the station to the R&B station. My wife, her sister, my kid, a hitchhiker... General. I countered your point, admit it so we can move on.

 

[Moral Orel]

It is impossible to use subjective feelings or views to determine morality because there is no objective basis.

This is a good post to talk about. This is how morality works even though it's subjective. You and I both start with the same premise:

I ought to be happy.

You claim that it is objectively true but you can't prove it. I accept that I am assuming it is true based on a logical fallacy, i.e. Appeal to Emotion. It isn't true, but I'll assume it's true and I won't care that it can't be proved.

So you think it's true, and I assume it's true, and we both act in the exact same manner as a result. We both build the exact same morality based on reasons we can prove.

For example. Because I have empathy, I feel bad when I'm surrounded by people that feel bad. So if I act in a way that causes people around me to feel bad, then I will be unhappy. We can state these things objectively. They aren't moral statements yet. I'm just describing things that happen.

It becomes a moral statement when we say "Therefore you ought to not cause people around you to feel bad". Our argument will look the same:

P1 I ought to be happy
P2 Causing others to be unhappy will cause me to be unhappy
C I ought to not cause others to be unhappy

Totally valid argument. You claim it is sound, I claim it is not sound because P1 is not true. But I assume it is true, and therefore act in the exact same manner as you. For instance, consider this statement:

If I leave the house tomorrow, I will be hit by a bus.

No one knows if it is true or false. If I knew it was true, then I wouldn't leave the house. But I'm going to assume it is false, and I'm going to act in a manner in exact accordance with it being false because I am going to leave the house.

Whether the moral statement "I ought to be happy" is true or false doesn't matter when I assume it's true.

Thats a logical fallacy in that because that it cannot be objectively true when it possibly could.

First of all, what I said was true. If it was false, which it isn't, it isn't a logical fallacy to make a false statement. That's not what logical fallacies are. Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning.

If so the same case can be made for objective morality ie "I acknowledge that torturing a child for fun is morlaly good cannot be true therefore I ought to not torture children.

No, not really. I could tell you how it works, but you'll probably just argue with me as though I don't know what I'm talking about, so I won't bother.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, I haven't misrepresented you. You think that facts and logic sway people. You think facts and logic are persuasive. That's what my link refutes.

But now that I have clarified that I did not mean sway as in feelings but to support something with facts your example is no longer relevant.

People are swayed by their emotions. You can "sway" people to believe things that are not true, and that's why we named a fallacy after this bit of human intuition: "It would make me feel good if this was true, therefore it is true" -- Appeal to Emotion fallacy.

So your admitting that your use of a logical fallacy to explain morality is wrong.

If its vital for us to know if something is right or wrong truthfully then isn't using emotion a dangerous basis because as you say we could be convinced that something false is morlaly good.

 

[Moral Orel]

But now that I have clarified that I did not mean sway as in feelings but to support something with facts

Sigh... I know.

Steve: Facts and logic sway people.
Orel: No, emotion sways people. Facts and logic are unlikely to sway anyone.

If its vital for us to know if something is right or wrong truthfully

Let me stop you right there. It isn't vital for us to know if something is wrong truthfully because nothing is right or wrong truthfully. So your "then" to follow that "if" is irrelevant.

 

[stevevw]

This is a good post to talk about. This is how morality works even though it's subjective. You and I both start with the same premise:

I ought to be happy.

No we don't. I don't base it on a subjective idea. As I have stated life having intrinisic value is something that is true regardless of human opinion. Its an inalienable truth and a natural born truth. Happiness can be subjective. What makes you happy may be different to someone else. You can certain believe it for yourself but thats where it stops. It cannot be a basis for morality.

You claim that it is objectively true but you can't prove it. I accept that I am assuming it is true based on a logical fallacy, i.e. Appeal to Emotion. It isn't true, but I'll assume it's true and I won't care that it can't be proved.

Then that isnt a basis for morality as then under your logic everyone can assume different things to be true. That makes the basis for right and wrong arbitray. Doesnt work for morality which needs to be normative.

So you think it's true, and I assume it's true, and we both act in the exact same manner as a result. We both build the exact same morality based on reasons we can prove.

Except your reasons/assumptions are arbitrary and cannot be relied upon for a moral system.

For example. Because I have empathy, I feel bad when I'm surrounded by people that feel bad. So if I act in a way that causes people around me to feel bad, then I will be unhappy. We can state these things objectively. They aren't moral statements yet. I'm just describing things that happen.

NO we can't as they are subjective also. Empathy and feelings are subjective so we cannot built any moral system which needs to be based on objectives outside peoples feelings and opinions. Otherwise it doesnt work.

It becomes a moral statement when we say "Therefore you ought to not cause people around you to feel bad". Our argument will look the same:

P1 I ought to be happy
P2 Causing others to be unhappy will cause me to be unhappy
C I ought to not cause others to be unhappy

Totally valid argument. You claim it is sound,

No Its not sound. You have misprepresented my arguemnet.

I claim it is not sound because P1 is not true. But I assume it is true, and therefore act in the exact same manner as you.

Except your arguemnet is invalid.

For instance, consider this statement:

If I leave the house tomorrow, I will be hit by a bus.

No one knows if it is true or false. If I knew it was true, then I wouldn't leave the house. But I'm going to assume it is false, and I'm going to act in a manner in exact accordance with it being false because I am going to leave the house.

Whether the moral statement "I ought to be happy" is true or false doesn't matter when I assume it's true.

Yes but we can make assumptions based on some facts which allow us to act.

First of all, what I said was true. If it was false, which it isn't, it isn't a logical fallacy to make a false statement. That's not what logical fallacies are. Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning.

And you have made an error in reasoning. You cannot make subjective ideas the basis for morality.

No, not really. I could tell you how it works, but you'll probably just argue with me as though I don't know what I'm talking about, so I won't bother.

Try me, I am open to undersdtanding.

 

[stevevw]

Sigh... I know.

Steve: Facts and logic sway people.
Orel: No, emotion sways people. Facts and logic are unlikely to sway anyone.

But your carrying on a strawman. I am not saying facts and logic sway people anymore remember I clarified that is not what I meant.

My point that I clarifieid was that facts and logic give independnt support beyond feelings which is a better basis for morality which needs to have clear objective basis. They are cold hard facts that cannot be swayed by feelings. Without facts your just talking about salemanship or subjective feelings for something like food.

When it comes to morality its not about being convinced but having some objective to measure of things otherwise we could convince people that horrible things were morally OK based on our ability to use emotion. Those better at it can convinced people that killing is good. Charlie Mason is testament to this.

So its important to reason out those truths and know that we have a good reason and not just feel that it is good. Swaying may be good for sales and other issues that don't require an objective basis but its no good for things like morlaity or science.

Let me stop you right there. It isn't vital for us to know if something is wrong truthfully because nothing is right or wrong truthfully. So your "then" to follow that "if" is irrelevant.

But thats your opinion "that nothing is right or wrong truthfully". We have to make morality objective because thats how it works. It cannot work any other way and be coherent.

If you say there is nothing right or wrong truthfully then torturing children would be no different to being kind to children because nothing truthfully says its wrong. See the incoherent logic.

But we intuitively know that torturing children is objectively wrong. There is no way to rationalise that torturing kids is morally good. If we don't make "Don't torture children" as objectively wrong then we open the door for it also being morally OK.

 

[Moral Orel]

No we don't.

So you don't believe that "One ought to be happy" is objectively true? Quality of life has no objective basis for you?

How do you reason that anything that doesn't kill someone is immoral, then?

That includes certain natural rights like the Right to life, happiness ect.

What's the difference between us having a natural right to happiness, and "One ought to be happy"?

 

[Moral Orel]

But your carrying on a strawman.

Okay, so lemme ask you point blank. Which is more likely to change someone's mind: salesmanship or a sound logical argument?

 

[stevevw]

Okay, so lemme ask you point blank. Which is more likely to change someone's mind: salesmanship or a sound logical argument?

It depends on what you are talking about. When convincing someone to buy teatowels facts are not going to do it. You have to sell a dream or create a feeling of need. I use to be in sale and believe me I quit because I didnt like that we were trying to convince people about something that they didnt really need or was as good as made out.

But that doesn't work for objective facts like in science. You can create as much feeling as possible but if the facts are non verified then that feeling cannot sustain when the facts are proven false.

I agree that salesmanship is also needed when presenting facts. But that is not dismissing the facts. For what we are talking about facts are more important than feelings because we need to base important moral matters on reasoned truths and not feelings.

 

[stevevw]

So you don't believe that "One ought to be happy" is objectively true? Quality of life has no objective basis for you?

How do you reason that anything that doesn't kill someone is immoral, then?

AS I mentioned all ethical theories make some things intrinsic and a common one is human life. So human life itself is valuable. The qualities that make life livable like happiness is a by product.

Once you accept that life is intrinsically valuable there are certain necessary conditions that must exist otherwise life will not happen in a way that respects that value. Happiness or wellbeing are part of valuing life but are not the basis for valuing life.

What's the difference between us having a natural right to happiness, and "One ought to be happy"?

Having a natural right to happiness stems from life being intrinsically valuable. Because happiness is necessary for life to exist we out to be happy as that helps human life exist.