(Ken)
I am convinced there is no such a thing as objective proof when it comes to morality because morality is subjective. But you on the other hand seem to think morality is objective, and if that is the case you should be able to do what I would consider impossible; provide objective proof.
That is why I asked "by what measure do you determine truth". Certainly science cannot determine truth so there seems to be a category difference in the type of truth we are seeking. I think most people would agree that there are truths about ourselves and our place in that are beyond objective truths. Morality seems to be one of those ideas that we embody as real but cannot be reduced entirely to our bodies or the objective measure.
(Ken)
What does to be beyond our understanding, time and space have to do with being morally good?
Because we don't know if there is some unobservant influence that causes us to intuitively know when something is right or wrong. So we cannot assume that if there is no evidence as in the way we measure things scientifically or logically then this must mean there is no evidence at all or that measuring things scientifically or logically equals the truth when it comes to moral truths. I think the truth of the matter is in us, in our experience. We naturally know right from wrong, its not something we learn or are indoctrinated with. At least not fundamentally.
(Ken)
Perhaps they’ve become laws; which would make it objective.
Or perhaps they are not laws but rather social norms which people create and then there is this natural inclination to try and force others to conform to them because the nature of morality means there cannot by more than one moral truth. In other words people believe there are certain moral truths that should apply to everyone and can't help but act them out and push them on others.
(Ken)
Company laws are laws. They may not be like Federal laws or State laws that are applied to everybody, but they are laws; only applied to those who choose to work for the company
So therefore we have these little pockets of entities that impose their personal subjective moral views on people within those pockets. This could be a smaller group or 1,000's of employees with larger global organizations. Within these groups the organisation which could hyothetically represent the personal moral views of 1 person with enough power to dictate to 1,000s of people their personal morals which could destroy peoples lives.
Added to this individuals with relatively little power on their own can have great power potentially with social media to push their moral views or as groups impose their moral view3s on individuals or groups and destroy their lives. That doesn't sound like a good moral sysytem. Seems very divisive. Surely we can do better than that.
(Ken)
Company laws are not like the laws of the state, they only apply to employees. They are enforced in many ways to include suspension from work to termination from work.
But as they are not laws like criminal law where its illegal company ethic like laws are social conventions which we usually consider not illegal to do, like having a relationship with a co-worker or holding a certain belief that may oppose the companies views. So for a company to enforce their moral views on others seems unjustified if social morals are truly subjective because no one is actually doing anything illegal. It would be like sacking someone for liking chocolate cake.
(Ken)
That which is objective can be proven. If what you say is objectively wrong, provide the proof.
But you just said that legal laws and company ethic like laws are objective. So I could ask what is the evidence used by the companies to make their morals objective.
(Ken)
It’s only acceptable when you agree with it.
But not everyone agrees but they still have to work in the company keeping their moral views to themselves. Especially when companies want to align themselves with certain green and socially woke issues today. Qantas is a good example. Dare to make your personal views know and speak up to loudly. You may not get sacked right away but your not really welcome when you express a different view to the company line.
Someone or a group of people decided it is NOT okay to loot business so they made it a law to not do this. Now all of a sudden, you agree with the system you was just complaining about; don’t cha!
I agree with a system that makes objective determinations about certain bad behavior like stealing, murder, abuse ect. I disagree that a system based on morals being only subjective can function consistently and coherently while maintaining there is no objective reality.
It doesn't work in practice as someone or some group will always end up imposing their version of morality and make it objective because thats how morality works. Its impossible to have multi views all holding equal status. Its divisive as it pits different views of morality against each other.
It comes down to who has the most power or sway, who shouts the loudest often imposing biased standards on people which aim to undermine the person to while elevating the other as being morally virtuous or what do they call it today 'woke'.
(Ken)
Bruh! We used to have slavery! Now before you claim we know more now than we used to; remember this is the society where a supreme court justice doesn’t even know what a woman is, and we have psychologists claiming men can get pregnant and bear children. Are we really smarter than we used to be?
Yeah its ironic really. You would think we would get smarter about whats right and wrong with all the experience we have had. But I think what you mention about even those who represent our justice system and scientific establishments have become dumb in that regard. I think because we have gone overboard with subjective thinking. Now the truth of the matter is what the person believes is true.
There is no single truth but many truths. So people are too scared to speak up anymore about the truths we know are real because of political correctness. A good example is gender. We know that there are only town genders but now we have to accept a growing list of varied genders as a truth or otherwise we can be hauled off to the anti-descrimination tribunal.
(Ken)
The reason you can’t give a straight answer is because the answer is based on subjectivity.
I don't think so. Its wrong to jump from thinking that its too hard to find the answer to there is no answer at all. I think that a pessimistic view that gives up before we try. I think its common sense to say that if we have a situation where the outcomes of behavior cause problems in one way or another than we cannot improve on that. Improvement is the first step to finding answers and perhaps a truth about what is the best way to behave in that situation.
We have already done this throughout our history. The world was shocked by 2 world wars and we realized we needed to put some rules in place to prevent this happening again. It wasn't a coincident that the same truth principles of Human Rights is also reflected throughout our history. That's because they are truth like laws that have been there all the time. It just took 2 world wars and a lot of other horrible human acts on each other to wake us up to those truths.
There not just agreed upon because there agreed upon. They are agreed upon for good reason. We have embodied them and they have become part of the real world through our experience of how life happens when we treat each other badly. So they represent truth like laws just as much as truth like laws in the objective world through science because we've lived them out.