Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

It's almost like it's SUBJECTIVE!

It is nowhere near a subjective position. How can you even say that? Did you read what I wrote IE
stating facts and truths especially with morality. Truth dictates that it can only be right or wrong one way or the other.
How is that subjective

People can present their opinion just fine without it being an objective fact. I honestly can't understand why you don't get this.

I do get it. Didn't I say I got what you were saying in the last post? You seem to think that what I am saying somehow means I don't get what you are saying.
Let me spell it out for you. You are saying that "people can express/present their moral opinions without making stating an objective fact or truth. Is that correct?

OK but what I am saying is that in expressing/stating their opinion they are not saying anything factual or truthful about the act they are saying is wrong. So someone can come along and say prove to me that the act is morally wrong like you say. But you have no objective reference to support that what you say is factually correct or moral truth.

So in taking a stand and protesting against a moral wrong or trying to convince someone that what they did was wrong you have nothing to stand on except your opinion. It ultimately means nothing as far as moral truth and any stand has no weight. It doesn't make any sense to be taking a stand, condemning and protesting based on opinion (I think but am not sure) where you have no independent backup. You can certainly go through the process but what do you really achieve apart from spreading your opinion around.

 

[stevevw]

Hahaha, no, just no.

Why, tell me why this is wrong, show me. Otherwise I don't believe you, it's just your opinion, and it has no basis in fact or truth.

 

[VirOptimus]

Why tell me why this is wrong. I don't believe you, it's just your opinion, and it has no basis in fact or truth.

Its pointless, no matter what anyone writes you keep saying the same assertions with no understanding of philopsophy.

You are not here to learn, you are here to preach and thats just uninteresting.

 

[stevevw]

You are truly unable to separate what you think morality should be (your religion) to what can be supported.

Brw, having to argue for ones position is a strength, not a weakness.

And objective moralists use reason as well. But what do you use to measure your reasoning? How do you tell that you are not using some

Really? I don't believe you.

You're entitled to your opinion. The thing is I notice when debates go on there comes a point where some people in not being able to deal with the content begin to attack the person, try to undermine their credibility or the credibility of the content. It is a sign that they have nothing else to give and its time to finish.

 

[VirOptimus]

And objective moralists use reason as well. But what do you use to measure your reasoning? How do you tell that you are not using some

You're entitled to your opinion. The thing is I notice when debates go on there comes a point where some people in not being able to deal with the content begin to attack the person, try to undermine their credibility or the credibility of the content. It is a sign that they have nothing else to give and its time to finish.

Bye bye

 

[stevevw]

Its pointless, no matter what anyone writes you keep saying the same assertions with no understanding of philosophy.

You are not here to learn, you are here to preach and that's just uninteresting.

Isn't it funny. That somehow I am the one that doesn't know philosophy and that everyone who agrees with you on this thread regardless of you even knowing their status are philosophical experts why is that. This in itself shows your bias in that you are quick to judge without all the information.

 

[VirOptimus]

Isn't it funny. That somehow I am the one that doesn't know philosophy and that everyone who agrees with you on this thread regardless of you even knowing their status are philosophical experts why is that. This in itself shows your bias in that you are quick to judge without all the information.

I can only judge you by what you post and the arguments and misuse of terminology can only be explained by ignorance on the subject.

 

[stevevw]

Bye bye

Anyway thanks for your debating. Despite you saying I am not willing to learn, I am learning a lot. Your links on nihilism were interesting and I have also research morality in general to gather further information to understand the topic better. That is why I take time in replying as I read a lot. But you have to remember people can disagree and that is OK.

In not disagreeing that doesn't mean the other person is wrong. The very idea of subjectiveness supports this and I would think that those who support this would understand the most. Anyway, I enjoyed our debate.

 

[stevevw]

I can only judge you by what you post and the arguments and misuse of terminology can only be explained by ignorance on the subject.

Fair enough, I can cop that. But I think its unfair and a logical fallacy (ad Hominum) to say I do not know the philosophy and anyone on your side are all experts just because we disagree.

 

[VirOptimus]

Fair enough, I can cop that. But I think its unfair and a logical fallacy (ad Hominum) to say I do not know the philosophy and anyone on your side are all experts just because we disagree.

I havent said that anyone in this thread is an expert, not even me. I also dont think that there are your or mine ”side”, a debate should be about exchanging rational, supported arguments, not about winning.

 

[stevevw]

I havent said that anyone in this thread is an expert, not even me. I also dont think that there are your or mine ”side”, a debate should be about exchanging rational, supported arguments, not about winning.

You stated
Its pointless, no matter what anyone writes you keep saying the same assertions with no understanding of philosophy.

You said, "no matter what anyone writes". So that implies everyone else maybe not an expert but knows more than I do on philosophy and I am getting it wrong. Yet you don't know the status of others. Plus it shows you are forming your judgments not on content but just because it opposes what others are saying.

Besides you come from a value nihilist position so this is even different from those supporting subjective morality who would like to think that they hold moral values even if they are subjective. So this also shows that so long as an argument is different from mine no matter what it is it is more right than mine.

 

[VirOptimus]

You stated
Its pointless, no matter what anyone writes you keep saying the same assertions with no understanding of philosophy.

You said, "no matter what anyone writes". So that implies everyone else maybe not an expert but knows more than I do on philosophy and I am getting it wrong. Yet you don't know the status of others. Plus it shows you are forming your judgments not on content but just because it opposes what others are saying.

Besides you come from a value nihilist position so this is even different from those supporting subjective morality who would like to think that they hold moral values even if they are subjective. So this also shows that so long as an argument is different from mine no matter what it is it is more right than mine.

My posts do not contradict. Read them again, slowly.

 

[stevevw]

I forgot to post the survey on philosophers about whether they support moral subjective/relative or objective/realism. The vast majority across different questions supported objective and moral realism. IE

The 2009 PhilPapers survey asked just under a thousand philosophers and philosophy graduate students about moral realism, and discovered that 56.4% were moral realists, 27.7% weren’t, and 15.9% held some other position.
Are there good arguments for objective morality? What do philosophers think about moral realism? : AskPhilosophyFAQ

Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?
Accept or lean toward: moral realism 525 / 931 (56.4%)
Accept or lean toward: moral anti-realism 258 / 931 (27.7%)
Other 148 / 931 (15.9%)
Preliminary Survey results | PhilPapers Surveys

 

[stevevw]

My posts do not contradict. Read them again, slowly.

I don't understand what you mean by contradicting. I never said anything about you contradicting anything.

 

[stevevw]

I can only judge you by what you post and the arguments and misuse of terminology can only be explained by ignorance on the subject.

Such as, give a reasoned argument as you say people should do instead of making unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

But passion, (feelings) don't change the fact that your position is an opinion. It' ain't necessarily right or wrong. Sort of takes the wind out of the sails. A moral stand has much more punch and credibility when someone can say " X is wrong" period, its a truth and fact and there are no two ways about it.

Not necessarily. An atheist can have objective morals. If we decide what the goal of morality should be then we can objectively assess our actions against that goal. So I can say something is morally wrong and give reasons for my assessment. The goal may be subjective but so are Gods morals. God can decide what is right or wrong so that makes it subjective as well.

 

[stevevw]

Not necessarily. An atheist can have objective morals. If we decide what the goal of morality should be then we can objectively assess our actions against that goal. So I can say something is morally wrong and give reasons for my assessment.

But what are the goals, are they still based on subjective assessments. Objective morality is determined from outside any person based assessments or goals no matter how they may be created.

The goal may be subjective but so are God's morals. God can decide what is right or wrong so that makes it subjective as well.

No God is good and does not decide to be good. His existence is morally good by nature. God can't be subjective about something he is just all good, the locus and source of moral value. It is just that way and therefore God by nature is just, loving, kind, generous, etc.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

But what are the goals, are they still based on subjective assessments. Objective morality is determined from outside any person based assessments or goals no matter how they may be created.

No, you are talking about absolute morality. If I have a goal for morality to maximize well being for all then I can objectively compare my actions to this goal and see if it furthers the goal or not. The goal is subjective.

No God is good and does not decide to be good. His existence is morally good by nature. God can't be subjective about something he is just all good, the locus and source of moral value. It is just that way and therefore God by nature is just, loving, kind, generous, etc.

Then God does not decide what is moral and He is not the author of morals. Gods morals are not right or wrong they just are. You are deciding to follow them as your goal.

Christians are just saying the same thing I am just with a different goal. They are claiming following Gods moral system is their goal. So they can assess their actions based on that goal. So whether your moral goal or my moral goal is better is a good discussion.

 

[Speedwell]

No God is good and does not decide to be good. His existence is morally good by nature. God can't be subjective about something he is just all good, the locus and source of moral value. It is just that way and therefore God by nature is just, loving, kind, generous, etc.

A statement with no objective basis in fact. It is an entirely subjective opinion on your part.

 

[stevevw]

No, you are talking about absolute morality.

No moral absolutism is the belief that the morality or immorality of action can be judged according to fixed standards of right and wrong which can never be changed by circumstances. IE you cannot kill even in self-defense. You cannot lie even if that means sending the Jews to their death at the hands of the Nazis. Kantian ethics is like this where rules or duties should always come first regardless of the consequences.

But objective morality is different and people get this confused with absolute morality. Objective morality means there is a right and wrong act for each and every situation that holds true and has ground outside humans (regardless of human opinion). So if the Nazis came to your door and asked if you were hiding any Jews saying that there were no Jews would be the objectively right thing to do in that situation. Not lying would send the Jews to their death which is a far greater wrong than lying. Objective morality allows for degrees of moral right and wrong.

If I have a goal for morality to maximize well being for all then I can objectively compare my actions to this goal and see if it furthers the goal or not. The goal is subjective.

The goal may be subjective but the measure is also subjective. This is a method used by some atheists like Sam Harris in his moral landscape. By determining what human wellbeing and happiness is morality can be measured against this.

The problem is the determination of wellbeing is really a subjective determination as people will have different ideas of what wellbeing means. Moral right and wrong cannot equate to human suffering and happiness.

Then God does not decide what is moral and He is not the author of morals. God's morals are not right or wrong they just are. You are deciding to follow them as your goal.

Yes you are right God does not decide to follow anything. God is the creator of all things. Because God is good by nature there is no evil in him. So only goodness flows from him which becomes the standard of what is good. It follows that moral wrongs are measured against God's nature as evil (moral wrong) is just the lack of good or fall short of what is good.

Christians are just saying the same thing I am just with a different goal. They are claiming following Gods moral system is their goal. So they can assess their actions based on that goal. So whether your moral goal or my moral goal is better is a good discussion.

The difference is though that human-created goal are subjective. Gods good nature is an objective measure itself. It is like a law of nature and laws of nature just are what they are. So God's moral laws flow naturally from his nature and Christians can use that as an objective measure. It isn't human-made or determined by anyone or anything, it just is like nature just is.[/quote]