Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

I "can't"? I'm physically capable of typing whatever I want.

Yes thats true but saying I misrepresented something implies some epistemic value of honesty. Its because when it comes to morality it matters to us when we engage with others to have some values guiding our debate. Otherwise we cannot have any coherent debates or discussions. You certainly can write what ever you want but don't expect it to be coherent or resolve matters.

But when you make certain claims and engage with another you subject yourself to those epistemic values and for their to be a coherent debate.. A debate seeking the truth of a matter as we are doing becomes incooherent without these epistemic values.

Yet we both act like it does matter and we object to any logical fallacies and misrepresentations as you have done. That is moral realism in that we may claim subjective morlaity but cannot help but live by moral truths in reality.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-

Why can't this same logic apply to moral intuition. When we see someone getting mugged we don't think that is how morality is. We know its wrong and want justice. Our moral intuition allows us to venture out of our front doors. Otherwise we won't not go outside for fear of getting mugged. So our intuition shows us that mugging is wrong and we all know this and that is our default position.

No, thats not how it works. And "we" certainly can and do think about it in non-objective terms and stances.

Not believing in objective moraility is not the same as being okay with every moral stance. How many times does this have to be pointed out until you understand it?

 

[stevevw]

No. I'm not claiming it's true or false because people believe otherwise. I'm only pointing out that it isn't self-evident or it wouldn't be possible for them to disagree. No one disagrees with the law of non-contradiction because holding the opposite claim is incomprehensible nonsense. That is what it means to be self evident. That a lot of people intuit something is not proof of something being self-evident.

The proposition "My life is not valuable" is not logically incoherent. You believe it is false, but that doesn't make it self-evident. The Rules of Thought are self evident, and the fact that you exist is self-evident to you. That's it.

So if life did have "Intrinsic value" then the opposite "Life doesnt have intrinsic value" is absurd.

 

[stevevw]

No, thats not how it works. And "we" certainly can and do think about it in non-objective terms and stances.

Not believing in objective moraility is not the same as being okay with every moral stance. How many times does this have to be pointed out until you understand it?

But if theres no moral objective then how do we know the other moral stances are the correct way to determine right and wrong. Sorry thats what I keep getting stuck on. Trying to understand morality without an objective basis. I guess thats why they say subjective morality is not about morality at all.

 

[VirOptimus]

But if theres no moral objective then how do we know the other moral stances are the correct way to determine right and wrong. Sorry thats what I keep getting stuck on. Trying to understand morality without an objective basis. I guess thats why they say subjective morality is not about morality at all.

And then Ill ask you, why has there got to be a "correct way" to determine right and wrong? Correct for whom? By what metric? And by what authority? And what does "right" or "wrong" really mean?

 

[stevevw]

....

this.. is.. something....

"You cant call out my lies cause we didnt agree on not to lie."

or

"You cant tell me where Im wrong cause we didnt agree on being right."

Priceless.

How is this wrong. You constantly point out my fallacies and misrepresentations. If you reply to my post and you claim I am misrepresenting you or lying then you are implicitly prescribing epistemic values such as we must be honest.

So if you on the one hand claim there is no epistemic values as honesty yet want to call out my misrepresntations then you have to accept that these values apply and stand independent.

 

[VirOptimus]

How is this wrong. You constantly point out my fallacies and misrepresentations. If you reply to my post and you claim I am misrepresenting you or lying then you are implicitly prescribing epistemic values such as we must be honest.

So if you on the one hand claim there is no epistemic values as honesty yet want to call out my misrepresntations then you have to accept that these values apply and stand independent.

Nope, pointing out an error or dishonesty is nothing more then just that.

 

[stevevw]

And then Ill ask you, why has there got to be a "correct way" to determine right and wrong? Correct for whom? By what metric? And by what authority? And what does "right" or "wrong" really mean?

Lets just start simple ah. There has to be a correct way to determine right from wrong because humans demand it. We demand it becaue we are moral creatures and want justice and the right thing to be done.

That requires a right and wrong answer. Saying that rape "is maybe wrong" or "in my opinion is wrong but my opinion could be wrong" is not good enough for us when it comes to morality. We want to declare morally wrong behaviour as being wrong in a truthful way that applies to everyone and beyond our subjective opinions.

 

[VirOptimus]

Lets just start simple ah. There has to be a correct way to determine right from wrong because humans demand it. We demand it becaue we are moral creatures and want justice and the right thing to be done.

No, "we" dont demand an "correct way", we only want a way that makes us feel good.

That requires a right and wrong answer. Sayong that rape maybe wrong or in my opinion is wrong but my opinion could be wrong is not good enough for us. We want to declare morality as being wrong in a truthful way that applies to everyone.

Again, not beliving in an "objective morality" does not mean that anything goes. How many times does I have to point this out? Learn the very very basics.

And you didnt answer about by which metric or by wich authority.

Try again.

 

[stevevw]

Because you think it's an objection! It isn't an objection to anything. You're simply describing an aspect of subjective morality. That you think it'd be a bummer if it was true doesn't mean it ain't true. You keep pointing out the things you don't like about morality being subjective as if that matters to any argument. It doesn't.

I'm not saying its a bummer. I'm saying its illogical and impossible position to take.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes thats true but saying I misrepresented something implies some epistemic value of honesty.

No, it doesn't. A lie is saying something you know is false. I don't care whether you know it's false or not. I score points by being right simply because you said something false.

 

[Moral Orel]

So if life did have "Intrinsic value" then the opposite "Life doesnt have intrinsic value" is absurd.

What? No. If "Life has intrinsic value" is true then "Life does not have intrinsic value" is false. That's it. Not "absurd". If "Orel has short hair" is true then "Orel has long hair" is false. Not "absurd".

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm not saying its a bummer. I'm saying its illogical and impossible position to take.

It's not impossible to take that position, I do, so that claim is demonstrably false. If it's illogical you can demonstrate it using reason. Calling "But then there would be no real Justice" an "objection" is how I know you're implying an Appeal to Consequences fallacy. There's no reasoning.

 

[Moral Orel]

There has to be a correct way to determine right from wrong because humans demand it.

This is false. We don't get things just because we demand them. And this, I believe, is the true heart of your argument. You want morality to be objective. You're emotionally invested in morality being objective. Me, I couldn't care less. I picked the side that has the best argument because I like winning arguments.

 

[stevevw]

No, it doesn't. A lie is saying something you know is false. I don't care whether you know it's false or not. I score points by being right simply because you said something false.

I am noy just talking about me knowing somethings flase. I am saying you know its false. You are saying you score points by my false statements so you are claiming you know when something is false or not. But you cannot know my statements are false to score points unless you use honesty to determine what I am saying is false. So you are implicitly using honesty as a basis.

 

[stevevw]

This is false. We don't get things just because we demand them. And this, I believe, is the true heart of your argument. You want morality to be objective. You're emotionally invested in morality being objective. Me, I couldn't care less. I picked the side that has the best argument because I like winning arguments.

No I look at how people behave morally. I see people acting like morality is objective. This supported by the literature.

Murder is wrong. This is not just a matter of subjective personal preference, it’s an objective fact. That means if it’s true for me, then it’s true for you and for everyone else too. And if someone claims that murder is OK, then they’re mistaken.

This is the way many of us tend to think and talk about many moral issues, not just murder. We refer to moral facts. And we prove our moral stance is the correct one by appealing to these facts.
The greatest moral challenge of our time? It's how we think about morality itself

To claim that moral judgments are subjective is to claim that they are true or false based on how a particular person feels. That’s not how most of us regard moral judgments.
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God | Free Inquiry

When I assert 'this is good' or 'that is evil', I do not mean that I experience desire or aversion, or that I have a feeling of liking or indignation. These subjective experiences may be present; but the judgment points not to a personal or subjective state of mind but to the presence of an objective value in the situation.

What is implied in this objectivity? Clearly, in the first place, it implies independence of the judging subject. If my assertion 'this is good' is valid, then it is valid not for me only but for everyone. If I say 'this is good', and another person, referring to the same situation, says 'this is not good', one or other of us must be mistaken... The validity of a moral judgment does not depend upon the person by whom the judgment is made...

In saying that moral values belong to the nature of reality... the statement implies an objectivity which is independent of the achievements of persons in informing their lives with these values, and is even independent of their recognising their validity. Whether we are guided by them or not, whether we acknowledge them or not, they have validity... objective moral value is valid independently of my will, and yet is something which satisfies my purpose and completes my nature...[20]
Can Moral Objectivism Do Without God?

 

[stevevw]

It's not impossible to take that position, I do, so that claim is demonstrably false.

It maybe true for you but its false as a moral system for everyone. It cannot work as others will have a different subjective view to you to work from and think its just as valid as yours.

If it's illogical you can demonstrate it using reason. Calling "But then there would be no real Justice" an "objection" is how I know you're implying an Appeal to Consequences fallacy. There's no reasoning.

I don't think I said "But then there would be no real Justice". From memory I said "people want justice" when they see an immoral act. This is because they know morality is an important issue beyond someone "hating"or "feeling" that something is bad. Hating and feeling something is bad like horrible food or some bad music doesn't rachet up to how morlaity works in real life. What is determined as bad is subjective as well.

 

[VirOptimus]

It maybe true for you but its false as a moral system for everyone. It cannot work as others will have a different subjective view to you to work from and think its just as valid as yours.

Just as there are several ideas what the objective morality contains, like ISIS, fundamental christians, catholics, hindu etc etc.

They all claim to have the "real objective" truth, explain how this is different?

I don't think I said "But then there would be no real Justice". From memory I said "people want justice" when they see an immoral act. This is because they know morality is an important issue beyond someone "hating"or "feeling" that something is bad. Hating and feeling something is bad like horrible food or some bad music doesn't rachet up to how morlaity works in real life. What is determined as bad is subjective as well.

Justice for whom? By what metric? And by what authority?

Ill keep asking until you answer. You cant hide from those problems.

 

[VirOptimus]

I'm not saying its a bummer. I'm saying its illogical and impossible position to take.

Its not, many many people take this position. Its very well supported.

 

[Moral Orel]

I am noy just talking about me knowing somethings flase. I am saying you know its false. You are saying you score points by my false statements so you are claiming you know when something is false or not. But you cannot know my statements are false to score points unless you use honesty to determine what I am saying is false. So you are implicitly using honesty as a basis.

What? No. "Honesty" doesn't determine your statements are false. Reality does.