Where does morality come from?

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie love your new avatar.

Thanks.

Harm is bad, why?

Why is it bad for me to beat up Kenny and steal his property?

Try a bit of empathy. How would you feel if someone did that to you? And do you think that Ken would have similar feelings about it?

You engaged me my dear.

What accountability would that be?

Give me some details?

No, you first started talking about accountability in post 1855.

You quoted my words. I would assume the defeater of illogic wouldnt make a redundant statement.

You think calling someone big ears is appropriate?

It's not. It's very rude.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm not saying nothing I believe requires evidence, just not everything. Some things require empirical evidence before I can believe it, other things (like my car starting in the morning) a reasonable assumption is all that is needed.

That's not an assumption. You have evidence in that it's started before. An assumption has no evidence, that's why it can't be reasonable. A solid argument is evidence too. If you used reason to come to a conclusion, you would have evidence, and you wouldn't have to assume.

Your belief that "nobody makes ice cream flavor a moral issue" is an assumption, and it is not reasonable because you didn't use reason to come to that conclusion. It just "feels" true to you.

The reason i looked up the word "reasonable" is because that is the term I used. Remember; a reasonable assumption that my car will start? I don't need to inspect the engine?

And the definition of "reasonable" uses the word "reason" as in, "with the use of reason" but you don't know what "reason" is. Reason is logic, it deals in facts. You don't have to assume your car will start because you have evidence it will, you are being reasonable to anticipate that it will start.

Even if you didn't already start that car, you have evidence that it will start. The vast majority of cars that aren't in a junkyard start just fine. The probability that you could choose a car at random on any given street and it start is very high. That is using reason to anticipate your car will start.

The fact that you don't stop think about all this stuff every single time you start your car doesn't mean you aren't aware of it. You have evidence, it doesn't compare to your other claim.

 

[the iconoclast]

Thanks.

Hey kylie

No worries.

Try a bit of empathy. How would you feel if someone did that to you? And do you think that Ken would have similar feelings about it?

I like your response. Do onto others as you would have them do unto you.

Ok let's try a different scenerio. I'm pregnant with an unborn @Ken-1122 in my womb. I decide to abort the unborn Kenny.

Why would the standard of 'do unto others' be irrelevant in respect to aborting Kenny but relevant if I beat him up and stole his property?

No, you first started talking about accountability in post 1855.

Yep, checks out post 1855. Anyways I'll turn a card over.

This part was about accountability which was going to lead us to liability and answerabilty.

You suggest I'm accountable to Kenny.

I'm responsible to Kenny as I owe him a debt but I'm accountable to the law.

D. The law is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. It is objective.

Is that statement true or false and if so, why?

You think calling someone big ears is appropriate?

Please excuse me. Where I come from it's used in a colloquial manner and not a term of abuse. I will never know what you actually look like so please forgive me if I caused offense.

It's not. It's very rude.

Again please forgive my trespass. Would you call it dishonest?

If I say "cheers big ears" to you, why is it wrong? What moral principle have a wronged and by what authority am I accountable to?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

My thoughts.

Hey hey my dear boy ken

So at the age of 4 you knew that stealing was wrong? You were never taught morality but managed to figure it out?

Is morally taught or natural to humans?

I would say that particular act you did was immoral. If such acts are typical of you, then I would assume you are immoral.

I'm immoral because your thoughts tell you.

In order to know what immoral is you must have a standard to compare moral to. How could you know what was beautiful if you could not compare it to something ugly.

Your thoughts tell you that if that were the case then I would be immoral.

What standard do you base your system off? (eg society, parents, a particular philosopher, etc)

What you did was unfair.

Unfair to you maybe but you and I - in this scenario - believe that good and wrong are moral constructs. How I feel about the situation is contrary to how you feel. How can just morality be fair if its subjective?

Yes; but I would like to add the only way it can’t be up for interpretation is because it has to be verifiable. If you can’t verify it, you can’t call it objective.

Using my original scenerio, How do we verify such a thing?

No. I consider moral absolutism as the view that all moral views are equal and should be respected as such. However if you wish to discuss using your interpretation, I would be fine with that.

My dear that is not my own interpretation. I just typed moral absolutism and picked the first thing that came up.

What interpretation is more adequate to you?

There need to be consequences for your actions otherwise you might try it again.

Would you say I have made a debt against you? If yes or no please explain in detail.

Cheers


Ps
I'm Christian, i believe all morality and law comes from God. So we both know each other properly, what is your position?

 

[Kylie]

I like your response. Do onto others as you would have them do unto you.

Ok let's try a different scenerio. I'm pregnant with an unborn @Ken-1122 in my womb. I decide to abort the unborn Kenny.

Why would the standard of 'do unto others' be irrelevant in respect to aborting Kenny but relevant if I beat him up and stole his property?

A fertilised egg is not a person.

Where I live, you need council permission before you cut down a tree. If I was to crush an acorn under my heel, would I be guilty of removing a tree without a permit? Of course not. We know an acorn isn't a tree.

Yep, checks out post 1855. Anyways I'll turn a card over.

This part was about accountability which was going to lead us to liability and answerabilty.

You suggest I'm accountable to Kenny.

I'm responsible to Kenny as I owe him a debt but I'm accountable to the law.

D. The law is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. It is objective.

Is that statement true or false and if so, why?

Just so we're on the same page here, please explain what you mean specifically when you say "accountable" and "responsible."

 

[Ken-1122]

That's not an assumption. You have evidence in that it's started before. An assumption has no evidence, that's why it can't be reasonable.

If you know anything about mechanics; just because your car started yesterday does not mean it will start today. The fact that my car started yesterday is not proof that it will start today. As you can see from the below definition; to assume is defined as

"to take for granted "without proof"
Definition of assume | Dictionary.com

And the definition of "reasonable" uses the word "reason" as in, "with the use of reason" but you don't know what "reason" is. Reason is logic, it deals in facts.

As you can see from the definition below, reason is not about dealing with facts.
Definition of LOGIC

I think much of our disagreement is based on the fact that you have a tendency to use words out of context and though we agree on many of the same principles, we are disagreeing on the words used when describing said principles. Almost as if we were speaking a different language

 

[Ken-1122]

Hey hey my dear boy ken

So at the age of 4 you knew that stealing was wrong? You were never taught morality but managed to figure it out?

Is morally taught or natural to humans?

Both. Moral issues resulting from empathy perhaps is natural where as moral issues like gay marriage, male vs female circumcision, is more likely learned or taught.

I'm immoral because your thoughts tell you.

In order to know what immoral is you must have a standard to compare moral to. How could you know what was beautiful if you could not compare it to something ugly.

I disagree. I don’t need to taste sweet in order to know bitter, I don’t need to experience comfort in order to know pain. I don’t need to experience the opposite in order to understand something.

Your thoughts tell you that if that were the case then I would be immoral.

What standard do you base your system off? (eg society, parents, a particular philosopher, etc)

My own personal standard resulting from society, parents, philosophers, etc.

Unfair to you maybe but you and I - in this scenario - believe that good and wrong are moral constructs. How I feel about the situation is contrary to how you feel. How can just morality be fair if its subjective?

In order to justify it to you we have to have a conversation and I have to convince you that I am right and you are wrong.

Using my original scenerio, How do we verify such a thing?

You cannot verify morality, that’s why it’s labeled subjective.

My dear that is not my own interpretation. I just typed moral absolutism and picked the first thing that came up.

What interpretation is more adequate to you?

The one I listed

Would you say I have made a debt against you? If yes or no please explain in detail.

Cheers

I would not say you owe me a debt, if you could simply pay to fix the problem, the rich would be free to do as he pleases and just pay off those he transgressed against. I think punishment would be in order for such crimes.

Ps
I'm Christian, i believe all morality and law comes from God. So we both know each other properly, what is your position?

If morality comes from God, that would make it subject to whatever God says. How is that different than morality coming from me?

 

[stevevw]

I disagree. Because once again you are quibbling over words.

So if a person says "that car is black" you cannot distinguish it as a statement of fact or truth compared to if they say " I think that car is black". How then would we ever be able to determine whether someone is just expressing that opinion or declaring something as a fact they want to convey.

When people express that an act is wrong or protest about wrong acts they are not being unsure and undecided about it. They are clearly making a statement of fact and truth that the act is wrong and taking a stand. For example, domestic violence is wrong, abuse of children in labor camps is wrong. They're not saying I think its wrong otherwise they are undermining their own position that it may be wrong but then it may not be wrong, it's only my opinion which may not really be correct.

If you tell person A that " I think you did the right thing" as an opinion then you're undermining your own moral position and theirs. Your more or less saying you may be right but you may be wrong. I cannot really say as a fact that you "did the right thing". I don't believe you would want to convey that uncertainty when it comes to a right or wrong act. Otherwise, it defeats the purpose of standing up and making a point about it in the first place.

 

[stevevw]

I will get back to the rest of the posts tomorrow as I have been a bit busy.

Kind regards
Steve.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think much of our disagreement is based on the fact that you have a tendency to use words out of context and though we agree on many of the same principles, we are disagreeing on the words used when describing said principles. Almost as if we were speaking a different language

I don't use words out of context, I use them precisely. I don't intentionally choose words with double meanings to muddy issues. The way you cite the following definition is a good example.

"to take for granted "without proof"
Definition of assume | Dictionary.com

See how you snipped the word "or" out of the definition? Sort of makes it look like it's one phrase doesn't it? We use the word "prove" and "proof" colloquially to mean "has a lot of evidence" but in reality, there is no proving anything in the real world. Now, we can use the word assume the way I've described it which lines up with "to take for granted" and it can be useful, or we can use it the way you want it to be used which lines up with "without proof" and it becomes meaningless because it can be applied to absolutely anything out in the real world. Now originally you were using "assume" to talk about believing without evidence, now that you recognize you have evidence, you want to start using it to mean "without proof" where I am fine sticking to the context you introduced the word in.

As you can see from the definition below, reason is not about dealing with facts.
Definition of LOGIC

That doesn't disagree with me. It calls it a science for Pete's sake. What do you think science deals in?

If you know anything about mechanics; just because your car started yesterday does not mean it will start today. The fact that my car started yesterday is not proof that it will start today. As you can see from the below definition; to assume is defined as

Ahh, so you recognize that you have evidence because now you've moved on to talking about proof. So you can see how you were incorrect to compare it to your claim "nobody makes ice cream a moral issue" that you say has no evidence at all.

 

[Kylie]

So if a person says "that car is black" you cannot distinguish it as a statement of fact or truth compared to if they say " I think that car is black". How then would we ever be able to determine whether someone is just expressing that opinion or declaring something as a fact they want to convey.

I take it to mean that the car is, at the very least, quite a dark colour.

Now,m if you can show me that someone would say that in regards to my car (which is light blue), then you'd have a point.

By your logic, I should tell my husband he is wrong when he says, "I'm going to have toast for breakfast instead of cereal," since anything could happen on the way out to the kitchen to stop him from having toast. I'll tell him that he really should be saying, "I think I'll have toast for breakfast," instead, and instruct him on the proper use of the English language as determined by Steve.

\When people express that an act is wrong or protest about wrong acts they are not being unsure and undecided about it. They are clearly making a statement of fact and truth that the act is wrong and taking a stand. For example, domestic violence is wrong, abuse of children in labor camps is wrong. They're not saying I think its wrong otherwise they are undermining their own position that it may be wrong but then it may not be wrong, it's only my opinion which may not really be correct.

If you tell person A that " I think you did the right thing" as an opinion then you're undermining your own moral position and theirs. Your more or less saying you may be right but you may be wrong. I cannot really say as a fact that you "did the right thing". I don't believe you would want to convey that uncertainty when it comes to a right or wrong act. Otherwise, it defeats the purpose of standing up and making a point about it in the first place.

More quibbling.

 

[Ken-1122]

See how you snipped the word "or" out of the definition? Sort of makes it look like it's one phrase doesn't it? We use the word "prove" and "proof" colloquially to mean "has a lot of evidence"

Okay let me rephrase.
If you know anything about mechanics; just because your car started yesterday does not mean it will start today. The fact that my car started yesterday is not evidence that it will start today, though it is perfectly reasonable to assume it will start today if you have no reason to assume otherwise.

but in reality, there is no proving anything in the real world.

There are lots of things proven in the real world. I can provide proof that 1+1=2

That doesn't disagree with me. It calls it a science for Pete's sake. What do you think science deals in?

If you are claiming evidence is based on facts, the definition does not agree with you. Also, if you are under the impression everything given the label of “science” deals with facts, you are gravely mistaken

Ahh, so you recognize that you have evidence because now you've moved on to talking about proof.

You seem to use the term “evidence” a bit looser than I. For me evidence is a bit more empirical than the way you use it.

So you can see how you were incorrect to compare it to your claim "nobody makes ice cream a moral issue" that you say has no evidence at all.

No, I don’t need evidence to make such a claim.

 

[Ken-1122]

When people express that an act is wrong or protest about wrong acts they are not being unsure and undecided about it. They are clearly making a statement of fact and truth that the act is wrong and taking a stand.

They may be making a statement of truth, but you shouldn't assume they are making a statement of fact unless they claim it to be a fact.

 

[stevevw]

They may be making a statement of truth, but you shouldn't assume they are making a statement of fact unless they claim it to be a fact.

You cannot make a statement of truth unless it is a fact. When it comes to morality people don't muck around and be uncommitted. If they see or hear of a wrong like domestic violence or some youth stealing a car they don't say "I think that act is wrong in my opinion but then maybe it isn't because that's just my opinion.

They also don't quibble or be uncommitted to the truth of their position when making their position known to others or trying to convince someone of their moral position. What would be the point of making a point or arguing a position in just expressing your personal opinion? You are undermining your stand and position by acknowledging that what you are saying may not be true and no one does that.

 

[Moral Orel]

Okay let me rephrase.
If you know anything about mechanics; just because your car started yesterday does not mean it will start today. The fact that my car started yesterday is not evidence that it will start today, though it is perfectly reasonable to assume it will start today if you have no reason to assume otherwise.

Ahh the ever shifting sands of Ken's position... First it isn't "direct" evidence, but it is evidence, then it isn't "proof", now it isn't evidence at all. You're wrong, it's evidence but it isn't proof.

There are lots of things proven in the real world. I can provide proof that 1+1=2

An equation isn't the real world, it's an abstract concept.

Here's an example from the world using "assumption" the way you would like to: all of our history books are just full of assumptions if we're going to say that proof is the qualifier to get beyond assuming. No more citing historical facts, just assumptions.

Don't forget, you introduced the word "assumption" in the context of being without evidence at all. And now you want to make it murkier by changing the context to be without proof, rendering the word essentially meaningless.

If you are claiming evidence is based on facts, the definition does not agree with you. Also, if you are under the impression everything given the label of “science” deals with facts, you are gravely mistaken

Who are you responding to? We're talking about the definition of "logic". How does the definition of "logic" disagree about what "evidence" is? Your responses are making less and less sense as you try to maintain this convoluted defense of your belief system without ever learning what reason even is.

You seem to use the term “evidence” a bit looser than I. For me evidence is a bit more empirical than the way you use it.

It's funny that you claim a higher standard for evidence and then turn around and say you don't need evidence at all. Who cares what you think constitutes evidence if you require none to hold a belief?

No, I don’t need evidence to make such a claim.

Who are you responding to? I never said you couldn't.

 

[stevevw]

I take it to mean that the car is, at the very least, quite a dark colour.

Now,m if you can show me that someone would say that in regards to my car (which is light blue), then you'd have a point.

It doesn't matter if the car is a dark color or not. To the person saying it, they believed it was black. The same as a light blue car. But let's make it clearer. What do you think happens in court when a person is asked what color the car was. If they say I think it was black they are crossed examined. The lawyer will ask "you think it was black or it was black". That is how different the two statements are and that is how most people understand it.

But let's apply it to something definite like a car itself. There is a big difference in saying "it was a car" to "I think it was a car. The first is a statement of fact. You are saying it was a car and there are no two ways about it. The second is projecting doubt that it could be something else, you're not sure.

By your logic, I should tell my husband he is wrong when he says, "I'm going to have toast for breakfast instead of cereal," since anything could happen on the way out to the kitchen to stop him from having toast. I'll tell him that he really should be saying, "I think I'll have toast for breakfast," instead, and instruct him on the proper use of the English language as determined by Steve.
More quibbling.

Funny enough that is what happens with subjective morality. Morals are equated with "likes and dislike" in tastes for food. So applying it to the hitting scenario it would be like you saying to your husband " you are right for choosing toast instead of cereal". That is a fact statement by you. As compared to saying " I think you are right for having toast instead of cereal". That is an opinion statement.

You are expressing "you think it is right" and not "it is right". An opinion attaches the personal opinion, feelings, or belief to what is being said. In this case "I think" so it is about what "you think" rather than an independent fact that "it is" like that which makes it a personal statement IE "it is a car" as opposed to " I think it is a car".

Fact, Opinion, False Claim, or Untested Claim?
Opinion
Let’s begin with opinion. An opinion is a self-report of feelings or personal judgment, e.g., I’m thirsty. Opinions often contain clue words pointing to oneself, e.g., I think, I believe, I feel, in my opinion.
Fact
The definition of fact is a fact because that’s how knowledgeable English speakers agree to use the term. Definitions are analytical facts, verified by linguistic usage, not by observation.
Fact, Opinion, False Claim, or Untested Claim? – Bruce Murray, College of Education
In other words when a person says something is right or wrong as a fact they are qualifying it by the language they use IE "It is wrong" or " It is right". We shouldn't have to change the meaning of the language used because it doesn't support what you believe.

More quibbling.

In this case, the quibbling is important as it differentiates between an opinion and a statement of truth or fact, and when it comes to either subjective or objective moral positions that is very important.

Do you really think that when people make a stand or protest about a moral act being wrong or right they are just expressing an opinion? Wouldnt that just undermine their protest and stand in the first place as an opinion means nothing about whether the act is truly right or wrong.

 

[Kylie]

It doesn't matter if the car is a dark color or not. To the person saying it, they believed it was black. The same as a light blue car. But let's make it clearer. What do you think happens in court when a person is asked what color the car was. If they say I think it was black they are crossed examined. The lawyer will ask "you think it was black or it was black". That is how different the two statements are and that is how most people understand it.

But let's apply it to something definite like a car itself. There is a big difference in saying "it was a car" to "I think it was a car. The first is a statement of fact. You are saying it was a car and there are no two ways about it. The second is projecting doubt that it could be something else, you're not sure.

Funny enough that is what happens with subjective morality. Morals are equated with "likes and dislike" in tastes for food. So applying it to the hitting scenario it would be like you saying to your husband " you are right for choosing toast instead of cereal". That is a fact statement by you. As compared to saying " I think you are right for having toast instead of cereal". That is an opinion statement.

You are expressing "you think it is right" and not "it is right". An opinion attaches the personal opinion, feelings, or belief to what is being said. In this case "I think" so it is about what "you think" rather than an independent fact that "it is" like that which makes it a personal statement IE "it is a car" as opposed to " I think it is a car".

In this case, the quibbling is important as it differentiates between an opinion and a statement of truth or fact, and when it comes to either subjective or objective moral positions that is very important.

Do you really think that when people make a stand or protest about a moral act being wrong or right they are just expressing an opinion? Wouldnt that just undermine their protest and stand in the first place as an opinion means nothing about whether the act is truly right or wrong.

Your entire argument depends on people being as quibbly over their words as you are. They are not. People use slang, figures of speech, poor sentence construction. When the person says, "You were right to hit the attacker," they mean that they think that he was right to hit him. When people are speaking in general conversation, they aren't going to carefully consider their words like you seem to think they will.

 

[stevevw]

The content is irrelevant to your claim about "most philosophers and ethicists."

I don't care. The article is irreverent to your claim.

But it is relevant for refuting your claim that the content is wrong because of who wrote it rather than the content itself. So you still haven't addressed the content and made any argument that the content is wrong.

I didn't claim it was non-credible, just irrelevant.

No you claimed it was not credible by deferring to a logical fallacy you used to infer it was not credible based on the person who wrote it rather than offering any argument about the content itself being wrong.

But the author does belong to a Calvinist splinter sect; that's not a claim, it's a fact. His opinions aren't representative of "most philosophers and ethicists."

Yes they are. Most support the idea that when people claim an act is wrong they are making a truth or fact statement. That we all intuitively know that certain acts are always wrong to do. People just try to explain how that happens in different ways.

I can't find that reference in the Matt Slick article we have been talking about, but if you had actually read Sam Harris on the subject you would find that he goes on to answer his own question rather convincingly. Whoever fed you that quote is engaging in a dishonest practice known as "quote mining."

The article used Sam Harris's quote to support the idea that there are objective morals that's all and Sam Harris supports the idea of objective morality. Like I said there are different ways people try to explain objective morality but they agree there has to be objective morality as it makes no sense to pretend otherwise as people know that certain things are always right and wrong.

Yes, moral subjectivists are not moral objectivists. But since you don't care what moral subjectivists really think and don't want to find out, let's move on to the next step:

Then tell me what you think subjective morality is about

If morals are objective, how do we find out what they are? Your "lived moral experience" argument holds no water, since moral subjectivists are as likely as moral objectivists to (in the words of that great moral philosopher Jiminy Cricket) "let their conscience be their guide."

Those who claim there are only subjective morality do not say that their conscience is what guides their morality because they live in contradiction to their conscience under a subjective moral position. They claim one moral position and then act and react under a different moral position. One that contradicts they claimed subjective views. It is this force beyond them that dictates their reactions counter to what they view morally that tells us that there are moral values independent of humans.

 

[stevevw]

Your entire argument depends on people being as quibbly over their words as you are. They are not.

People don't have to quibble because they are able to "say what they mean and mean what they say". Your the one who is changing all that by denying that when people say something is wrong they mean it is wrong and not just a personal opinion unless they qualify that with "I think" or "in my opinion".

If they were trying to convince someone that something was a "wrongful act" and they claim "it is wrong" do you think they are really saying but that's only my personal opinion that it's wrong. No because that would undermine their argument. Arguments are based on factual support not opinions. That is not what people are doing when they talk about right and wrong. They are taking a position that the act is either "right" or "wrong" not maybe or I'm not really sure.

People use slang, figures of speech, poor sentence construction. When the person says, "You were right to hit the attacker," they mean that they think that he was right to hit him. When people are speaking in general conversation, they aren't going to carefully consider their words like you seem to think they will.

When it comes to expressing right and wrong morally people don't use slang and figures of speech. They are clear about what is right and wrong. Your logic doesn't make sense on two levels.

1) if they are only giving their personal opinion on a moral act as to whether it is right or wrong then what is the point. Personal opinion doesn't mean anything as to whether the act is really right or wrong. You may as well have mumbled that it was the right thing to do to yourself.

2) how would someone who did want to state that the act was truthfully wrong be able to claim it if what he says is always only seen as an opinion. You have taken away the ability for them to mean what they say and say what they mean. But I guess that's the whole idea of subjectivity.

Tell me if someone wanted to convince another or make a claim that something was morally wrong how could an opinion based on ("I think") support their claim when it doesn't have any facts or truth status of the act being right or wrong. No one argues that way. They stand on facts and truth. They claim it is right or wrong factually.

 

[stevevw]

Try a bit of empathy. How would you feel if someone did that to you? And do you think that Ken would have similar feelings about it?

It has been scientifically shown that empathy doesn't work as a measure for right and wrong morally. It is a feeling that can be arbitrary and influenced by a number of factors that can actually do the opposite of making people feel good and cared for as you would want to be done to you.