What does "We all agree X is wrong -> objective morality" actually mean

[Hans Blaster]

Well, the trinity can be confusing. I don't currently feel compelled to go too deep into it. I will say that the Gospel is presenting a compassion/Love, that being Eternal, suffered the ultimate humiliation in a temporal wicked world and was never compromised. The term God in scripture is axiomatic meant to represent the source of the energy that created all things for the purpose. There is no other imagery other than what we imagine in our own vanity. Subsequently, the Christ means the True Image of God that was sent by God to believe in and receive Eternal Life through faith in this Image that He sent.

I wasn't really interested in any theology. I'd rather not be bored to death tonight.

 

[childeye 2]

I wasn't really interested in any theology. I'd rather not be bored to death tonight.

Okay, but I edited my post. I encourage you to re-read it and not dismiss it out of hand.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Okay, but I edited my post. I encourage you to re-read it and not dismiss it out of hand.

Still mere theology. Still uninteresting. I think this has run its course.

 

[childeye 2]

Still mere theology. Still uninteresting. I think this has run its course.

Thanks for your consideration anyway.

 

[FireDragon76]

You have to be Born Again before you can form an objective view on ethics.

Jesus said,
“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot (even) see the kingdom of God.”

John 3:3 NKJV​

If something is only comprehensible to a few through some occult, private source, that hardly bodes well for its objectivity

 

[public hermit]

I don't understand the comment "We all know torturing children is wrong so there must be objective morality"

Could something that thinks it is true explain it in a totally different way

please please please do not just say "but why do you think that"
I would suggest that you only use scripture

I think we could say torturing children is wrong due to a widespread intersubjective agreement that it's wrong. I doubt that would qualify as being objective if by objective we mean to say that the assertion "Torturing children is wrong" is somehow a fact that can be observed as if it is an item in the world.

However, if there is widespread intersubjective agreement, then that would be fact. Let's assume it could be established that the vast majority of people agree that torturing children is wrong, it could be said, I think, that it is an objective fact that torturing children is wrong in so far as most all people agree it is. I think that's the most we can say.

But there is no objectivity to morality short of what humans experience and what people agree is morally good or evil (right or wrong). If there were, we would hardly ever disagree. In those areas where there is widespread agreement-theft, lying, murder, torture etc.- I think our agreement is due to our common experience of what is needed for flourishing life. But I still don't think you can go from that common experience and widespread agreement to moral facts. Morality cannot escape its inherent subjective nature.

 

[zippy2006]

I think we could say torturing children is wrong due to a widespread intersubjective agreement that it's wrong. I doubt that would qualify as being objective if by objective we mean to say that the assertion "Torturing children is wrong" is somehow a fact that can be observed as if it is an item in the world.

So it is wrong, but not objectively wrong? What does that mean?

However, if there is widespread intersubjective agreement, then that would be fact. Let's assume it could be established that the vast majority of people agree that torturing children is wrong, it could be said, I think, that it is an objective fact that torturing children is wrong in so far as most all people agree it is. I think that's the most we can say.

This is word salad. There is a fact of agreement, not a fact of wrongness, and hardly anyone actually holds that consensus creates truth (moral or non-moral).

But there is no objectivity to morality short of what humans experience and what people agree is morally good or evil (right or wrong). If there were, we would hardly ever disagree. In those areas where there is widespread agreement-theft, lying, murder, torture etc.- I think our agreement is due to our common experience of what is needed for flourishing life. But I still don't think you can go from that common experience and widespread agreement to moral facts. Morality cannot escape its inherent subjective nature.

All you describe here could be equally applied to non-moral truth, and your subjectivism is at bottom a variety of Scientism. Generally speaking the moral subjectivist is just someone who hasn't noticed that his arguments apply equally well to the epistemological realm (despite the fact that the Kantian foundation undergirds his entire paradigm).

 

[zippy2006]

I don't understand the comment "We all know torturing children is wrong so there must be objective morality"

The idea is that if at least one thing is morally wrong then objective morality must exist. The torture of children is the easy example that proves that not anything goes. It is something like a practical dilemma: either you admit that the torture of children is wrong and objective morality exists, or else you show yourself to be a sociopath.

C.S. Lewis does a similar thing in Mere Christianity, albeit in a smoother way. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people really do believe in objective morality, whether they are willing to admit it or not, and whether they can give an adequate explanation or not.

 

[partinobodycular]

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people really do believe in objective morality, whether they are willing to admit it or not, and whether they can give an adequate explanation or not.

Since when does majority rule have anything to do with objectivity? So some people believe that it's objective...so what? IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!

Go ahead and torture the heck out the little brats...I don't care...and your opinion doesn't matter one whit.

 

[zippy2006]

Since when does majority rule have anything to do with objectivity?

You managed to miss my point entirely, and I already made your point in the post before the one you quoted:

...hardly anyone actually holds that consensus creates truth (moral or non-moral).

-----

Go ahead and torture the heck out the little brats...I don't care...and your opinion doesn't matter one whit.

Then as noted above, you are a sociopath, and my "opinion" will land you in prison once you act on your sociopathic nature. You are of course free to point out, from your prison cell, that your imprisonment has not settled the question of truth. I'm sure the prison guards will be greatly amused.

 

[partinobodycular]

Then as noted above, you are a sociopath, and my "opinion" will land you in prison once you act on your sociopathic nature.

Thanks for the non sequitur. The fact that I don't see the immorality in torturing children doesn't mean that I'm therefore going to torture children. There are lots of things that I don't do and it has nothing to do with your opinion about them. I couldn't care less. I simply have no desire to do them.

I have no need of a moral code. That would imply that I need something to constrain my inner desires. Seemingly unlike you, I have no need of such a thing.

All that I have, is what I desire to do, and what I don't desire to do, and that as Christ pointed out, is what matters.

 

[Moral Orel]

Go ahead and torture the heck out the little brats...I don't care

All that I have, is what I desire to do, and what I don't desire to do, and that as Christ pointed out, is what matters.

And something you won't desire to do is to interfere in children being tortured because it doesn't affect you emotionally. Even I would feel something if I saw something like that.

 

[partinobodycular]

And something you won't desire to do is to interfere in children being tortured because it doesn't affect you emotionally. Even I would feel something if I saw something like that.

Isn't that the only time that any of us interfere in something...when it affects us emotionally?

If so, then how am I any different than you? I act when my heart compels me to, do you do more?

If not, then how are you any more moral than me?

 

[Moral Orel]

If so, then how am I any different than you?

We differ on the things that affect us emotionally. I would be affected emotionally by tortured children. You would not.

 

[partinobodycular]

We differ on the things that affect us emotionally. I would be affected emotionally by tortured children. You would not.

Really?

There are children being tortured and abused every day... are you losing a lot of sleep over them? Are you doing anything to help them? If not, then I would question the level to which you're being emotionally affected by them. Anyone can claim to be emotionally affected by something, but if it fails to cause you to act then which of us is being more disingenuous? Which of us is being more immoral?

 

[Moral Orel]

Really?

Yes, really.

There are children being tortured and abused every day... are you losing a lot of sleep over them? Are you doing anything to help them? If not, then I would question the level to which you're being emotionally affected by them. Anyone can claim to be emotionally affected by something, but if it fails to cause you to act then which of us is being more disingenuous?

I never said that I am affected by knowing that something happens to some unknown person in some unknown location. Strawmen are disingenuous.

As a reminder, this was my claim:

Even I would feel something if I saw something like that.

 

[partinobodycular]

As a reminder, this was my claim:

Even I would feel something if I saw something like that.

Indeed, that's my point. Your concern is subject to some vague whim determined by any number of circumstances and personal biases. If it happens right in front of you, you care. If it happens behind your neighbor's door, you don't. You have to have some emotional connection to the event in order for you to care about it. Anything that reaches that emotional threshold you care about, anything that doesn't, you don't.

You're not more moral than I am, your just 'otherly' moral than I am. And for some reason you think that your moral standards are better than mine.

But one things for sure, everyone's moral standards aren't the same and we should stop trying to convince people that they are, or should be. LGBTQ is immoral only if you think it's immoral. There's no God or nature that determines morality...we do...you and me, for ourselves.

 

[Moral Orel]

If it happens behind your neighbor's door, you don't.

That's one count of make-believe.

And for some reason you think that your moral standards are better than mine.

That's two counts of make-believe.

But one things for sure, everyone's moral standards aren't the same and we should stop trying to convince people that they are, or should be.

And that is a moral standard you're trying to convince people to follow. @Hans Blaster You 'Agree' with this moral standard? Are you sure?

LGBTQ is immoral only if you think it's immoral.

Thinking that things are true doesn't actually make them true.

 

[partinobodycular]

And that is a moral standard you're trying to convince people to follow.

Indeed it is, and one with no more or less credibility than anyone else's. I'm not arguing that there's no such thing as moral standards, I'm simply arguing that there's no such thing as objective moral standards. Fortunately for you, you're not obliged to live up to mine. But neither should you expect me to subserviently live up to yours.

Thinking that things are true doesn't actually make them true.

But one thing seems to be abundantly clear, your morals and my morals aren't the same.

And that my friend is the whole point.

 

[Moral Orel]

But one things for sure, everyone's moral standards aren't the same and we should stop trying to convince people that they are, or should be.

Indeed it is, and one with no more or less credibility than anyone else's.

Okay, it is a moral standard, with no credibility, and you are applying it to "we" not simply yourself. You're trying to convince me to behave in a manner that I don't try to convince others to behave in ways I don't like.

But neither should you expect me to subserviently live up to yours.

Another moral standard you want others to subserviently live up to.

Your position is inherently contradictory and hypocritical.

LGBTQ is immoral only if you think it's immoral.

Thinking that things are true doesn't actually make them true.

But one thing seems to be abundantly clear, your morals and my morals aren't the same.

How in the world is that a response to me pointing out the fact that you believe thinking something is true makes it true?