Where does morality come from?

[VirOptimus]

Not really from the track record.

I understand this. I was trying to get some clarification as to what is used to measure the strength of an argument regarding morality. Most people in an argument will back up what they say with some support rather than just a personal opinion as that doesn't carry much weight.

Yes, arguments are more than just opinions.

 

[stevevw]

And when those women who are being abused cry out for help, what do I do? Do I tell them that they should respect the morality of their abusers? Of course not. I step to help them. I stand with them as an ally, and I support them.

Just because morality is subjective doesn't mean I have to treat other people's moral viewpoints as equal to my own, PARTICULARLY if those morals result in people getting hurt.

You didn't answer my question. I am asking do you think those who have a different moral opinion to you even if this may be offensive to you, are their moral views valid under a subjective system. I agree that you personally can feel that the other person's view is horrible, but putting your personal input aside and looking at the subjective moral system as a whole are all views allowed to be presented as valid views at the table of subjective morality. If not why.

You claim it is evidence, but it is not checkable or verifiable in any way. Sounds like opinion to me, and guess what? Opinion is subjective!

A logical proposition is to be self-supporting so the evidence is the logical conclusion of the proposition. One or more propositions are made and a logical conclusion will follow. The propositions presented are not opinions but assumed truths for example.
"All men are mortal" or "Socrates is a man." therefore Socrates is mortal.

It is the same for the moral argument for objective morality. We all accept that objective morality cannot come from the subject (humans). That morals only apply to people and that moral behavior has to be reasons. A person cannot just immediately know what is best without reasoning. But we also know that human reason is fallible. Therefore it logically follows that objective morality needs to come from a rational and transcendent being. This helps define the argument and further support may be needed.

So what? Most people HAVE THE OPINION that what they think is good is good and what they think is bad is bad. It's still a subjective opinion.

I think you're missing the point. If you read the article is it's saying that
moral truths don’t seem to be subjective — that is, made true solely by an individual’s whims and feelings — either.
If someone announces his or her belief that undeserved suffering is morally good, this person is mistaken.

So it is saying that people recognize that there are moral truths despite people's opinions. That if someone proclaims their personal opinion that certain moral acts that we all know are wrong were good according we know that person is objectively wrong.

Again, this is talking about what people prefer to think. Did you even read the article? Did you even read the first four words of the headline?

Yes I have read it but I think you haven't. If you add the rest of that heading which says Morality is subjective preference, but it can be objectively wrong. This puts things into context. That all humans re a subjective vessel for anything even the factual physical world. This is our first filter that perceives the world through our sense so of course, it is going to be subjective in that sense. We are not robots so even if there are objective morals we choose them rather than being forced or programed to only follow one thing.

But if you read the article it is actually saying that there needs to be some external source for our morality so that it can be measured and not based on personal opinion. The article still supports an independent measure of morality. It just tries to place it in non-transcendent sources like caring for others and what they value. But its still sourcing morality in some form of objective independent measure.

Argument from popularity again? Come on, why do you even try that?

You're creating a logical fallacy (false/irrelevant conclusion, strawman, non sequitur) to claim a logical fallacy lol. You are assuming that surveys are only interested in a yes or no response for quantity and factor in questions to determine people's beliefs and attitudes. The linked survey posed a number of questions to determine why and how people believed in their moral positions.

As stated it was not just a simple response of agreeing with objective morality but also defining why they did. So it is a quality survey and not just a quantity one. But I can understand you want to dismiss the survey as it supports what I said that most people know that morals are objective. At least by trying to dismiss it you show that the results are a threat.

The fact that it can work out better if people pretend there are objective morals doesn't mean that there really are objective morals.

You are underestimating what is being said. People are not pretending at all. It is saying that the case for objective morality is strong that even those who may take an anti-realist position cannot deny that there is a case to moral realism. If anything it exposes the anti-realist position as being pretense as they hold their position despite a good case not to.

The only case you made for that was your argument from popularity.
The rest was you arguing that there's a good case to pretend morals are objective. But I for one prefer to deal with reality, not pretend.

In light of my rebuttal, I think it only fair that you explain why you think the survey and support for objective morality being believed by most people is wrong rather than just making an assertion.

No, I said animals have what we could consider morality. I never said there morality MUST be similar to that of Humans. I was showing that when animals are faced with situations we would consider have a strong moral component, they react in ways that show that they have some kind of moral view.

Yet you say to me that appeal to how people react/live in their moral lives is not evidence. If this is the case then how humans react like morals are objective must also stand as support.

Nevertheless, I am not sure what point you are trying to make by using animals and their behavior whether its (moral or instinctual for surviving) show how unreal and impractical subjective morality is as a measure for what is right and wrong.

I posted the link to show that there are philosophers out there who believe that morality is subjective, not objective.

Yet it seems that you can appeal to articles that show philosophers support subjective morality to support subjective morality but when I post support showing that more actually don't support subjective morality it is somehow an argument from popularity.

By the way, I was using the article you linked and it actually supports what I was saying that most philosophers believe that moral realism/objective morality is more of a realistic position to take despite it saying that some support subjective morality.

And again I will point out that we see this. Different states in the USA have different laws about the death penalty. Some states think it is okay to execute certain criminals, while other states don't. If there really was an objective morality, then we would not see this discrepancy. It could be shown without any doubt using this objective morality whether it is right or wrong to execute certain criminals. Yet we do not see this. It is evidence for subjective morality.

If we are going to use logical fallacies to reject an argument. Using the fact that there are different views about morality is an obvious logical fallacy as it doesn't discount that morals are not objective no more than saying people who have subjective views about objective physical objects don't show that the physical object is objectively real. IE subjective view the earth is flat doesn't negate the objective view the earth is a sphere.

 

[VirOptimus]

You didn't answer my question. I am asking do you think those who have a different moral opinion to you even if this may be offensive to you, are their moral views valid under a subjective system. I agree that you personally can feel that the other person's view is horrible, but putting your personal input aside and looking at the subjective moral system as a whole are all views allowed to be presented as valid views at the table of subjective morality. If not why.

A logical proposition is to be self-supporting so the evidence is the logical conclusion of the proposition. One or more propositions are made and a logical conclusion will follow. The propositions presented are not opinions but assumed truths for example.
"All men are mortal" or "Socrates is a man." therefore Socrates is mortal.

It is the same for the moral argument for objective morality. We all accept that objective morality cannot come from the subject (humans). That morals only apply to people and that moral behavior has to be reasons. A person cannot just immediately know what is best without reasoning. But we also know that human reason is fallible. Therefore it logically follows that objective morality needs to come from a rational and transcendent being. This helps define the argument and further support may be needed.

I think you're missing the point. If you read the article is it's saying that
moral truths don’t seem to be subjective — that is, made true solely by an individual’s whims and feelings — either.
If someone announces his or her belief that undeserved suffering is morally good, this person is mistaken.

So it is saying that people recognize that there are moral truths despite people's opinions. That if someone proclaims their personal opinion that certain moral acts that we all know are wrong were good according we know that person is objectively wrong.

Yes I have read it but I think you haven't. If you add the rest of that heading which says Morality is subjective preference, but it can be objectively wrong. This puts things into context. That all humans re a subjective vessel for anything even the factual physical world. This is our first filter that perceives the world through our sense so of course, it is going to be subjective in that sense. We are not robots so even if there are objective morals we choose them rather than being forced or programed to only follow one thing.

But if you read the article it is actually saying that there needs to be some external source for our morality so that it can be measured and not based on personal opinion. The article still supports an independent measure of morality. It just tries to place it in non-transcendent sources like caring for others and what they value. But its still sourcing morality in some form of objective independent measure.

You're creating a logical fallacy (false/irrelevant conclusion, strawman, non sequitur) to claim a logical fallacy lol. You are assuming that surveys are only interested in a yes or no response for quantity and factor in questions to determine people's beliefs and attitudes. The linked survey posed a number of questions to determine why and how people believed in their moral positions.

As stated it was not just a simple response of agreeing with objective morality but also defining why they did. So it is a quality survey and not just a quantity one. But I can understand you want to dismiss the survey as it supports what I said that most people know that morals are objective. At least by trying to dismiss it you show that the results are a threat.

You are underestimating what is being said. People are not pretending at all. It is saying that the case for objective morality is strong that even those who may take an anti-realist position cannot deny that there is a case to moral realism. If anything it exposes the anti-realist position as being pretense as they hold their position despite a good case not to.

In light of my rebuttal, I think it only fair that you explain why you think the survey and support for objective morality being believed by most people is wrong rather than just making an assertion.

Yet you say to me that appeal to how people react/live in their moral lives is not evidence. If this is the case then how humans react like morals are objective must also stand as support.

Nevertheless, I am not sure what point you are trying to make by using animals and their behavior whether its (moral or instinctual for surviving) show how unreal and impractical subjective morality is as a measure for what is right and wrong.

Yet it seems that you can appeal to articles that show philosophers support subjective morality to support subjective morality but when I post support showing that more actually don't support subjective morality it is somehow an argument from popularity.

By the way, I was using the article you linked and it actually supports what I was saying that most philosophers believe that moral realism/objective morality is more of a realistic position to take despite it saying that some support subjective morality.

If we are going to use logical fallacies to reject an argument. Using the fact that there are different views about morality is an obvious logical fallacy as it doesn't discount that morals are not objective no more than saying people who have subjective views about objective physical objects don't show that the physical object is objectively real. IE subjective view the earth is flat doesn't negate the objective view the earth is a sphere.

So; death penalty, what is "the moral objective truth"?

Child spanking, what is "the moral objective truth"?

Abortion; what is "the moral objective truth"?

Polygami, what is "the moral objective truth"?

Religion; what is "the moral objective truth"?

Age of consent, what is "the moral objective truth"?

Alcohol; what is "the moral objective truth"?

Smoking; what is "the moral objective truth"?

Drugs; what is "the moral objective truth"?

 

[stevevw]

And you are proceeding from a faulty premise - there is no ultimate right and wrong!

Is that an objective claim or just your opinion lol. Subjectivity is unworkable. If what you say is an objective claim then you are supporting what I am saying. If it is just your opinion then "so what" your opinion means nothing about truth and my opinion opposes yours and is just as valid so "stalemate".

How can we determine who is right without an independent measure? You just support my argument as you have shown people live like there are truths that are independent of our personal opinions despite claiming subjectivity.

I don't think they have the right to discriminate against women, no.

That's not what I asked. I asked do you think other countries who have those views on women you disagree with should be able to hold and promote those views within a subjective/relative system of morality. Not your personal opinion but should they be able to sit at the table of subjective moral opinions and present their view as a valid alternative view that has equal status to your view.

And that's exactly what we've seen in reality, isn't it?

Once again it's a logical fallacy to say that just because morality changes doesn't mean there is no objective moral truth that is there for people to find. But then agreeing with me in saying that no moral position throughout time or culture is more right than another even if you think it horrible shows that you realize that a subjective system can never determine what is best for humans.

That you have to allow horrible moral ideas equal status with what you may think are good morals in a subjective system of morality because there is no grounding for morals and you personal opinion has no weight in saying that horrible moral views truly wrong as in objectively wrong.

As I said earlier I think you will find that morals are different throughout time and culture is a bit of fake news because when we look below the surface of different understandings around morals due to time and culture we actually find that morality has remained much the same.

But I can say that I THINK those views are wrong, I can explain why,

But your reason why has no truth to it as far as applying to others. It is only a reason for you. Another person will have their own reason and may see things differently. So you have no basis for making any argument.

and if enough people agree with me then we can work to change the society's views about that issue.

The same as if a group or a society agree on morals. What is the basis for them agreeing? What are they using? If it's just that they agree then as you say argument from popularity. But also just because people agree on something doesn't make it morally right. In the past society agreed that lobotomies were good, taking the rights from indigenous people was good. We thought a lot of things were good when they were bad. I don't trust our society for being moral arbitrators because humans are fallible and cannot know what is best and are influenced by bias and corruption.

You seem to think that value is meaningless unless there is some outside source to assign that value. I, instead, think that the concept of value still has meaning if we are the ones assigning value.

I keep asking what is the reference for measuring that value. If you don't have a reference then it is like a ship lost at sea being tossed by the wind with no compass on how to get home. We've gone through this before. You have to have a set of independent rules, measures that we can use to assess that something is right or wrong otherwise it is ones persons opinion against another, and who knows who is right.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, arguments are more than just opinions.

When two people argue about morality it is about right and wrong. They are arguing that there is a right and wrong moral act and value to a situation they are talking about. This logically means there is an agreed measure that is used which is independent of those involved in the argument. Otherwise, there is claims of bias, personal views because there is no reference point to fall back on. The argument becomes meaning noise with no way of finding the truth.

For example, you could say that X is wrong and be convincing in your argument style. I would say what are you using to show that x is wrong. You say personal opinion and I say but that doesn't mean its true. You could be just believing that fro personal reasons. You could say you believe that human wellbeing is the measure of what is right and wrong. I then say but who has determined what qualifies as human wellbeing. You say it is based on making people happy. I say who says happiness equates to moral right and wrong.

So long as the reference point comes from humans it will never morally right and wrong will never really be determined independently and therefore is not sufficient or untrustworthy.

 

[VirOptimus]

When two people argue about morality it is about right and wrong. They are arguing that there is a right and wrong moral act and value to a situation they are talking about. This logically means there is an agreed measure that is used which is independent of those involved in the argument. Otherwise, there is claims of bias, personal views because there is no reference point to fall back on. The argument becomes meaning noise with no way of finding the truth.

For example, you could say that X is wrong and be convincing in your argument style. I would say what are you using to show that x is wrong. You say personal opinion and I say but that doesn't mean its true. You could be just believing that fro personal reasons. You could say you believe that human wellbeing is the measure of what is right and wrong. I then say but who has determined what qualifies as human wellbeing. You say it is based on making people happy. I say who says happiness equates to moral right and wrong.

So long as the reference point comes from humans it will never morally right and wrong will never really be determined independently and therefore is not sufficient or untrustworthy.

No, this is in error.

You dont understand moral philosophy.

-edit-

Actually, yes, you are pretty close. All moral agents have different views on morality as all agents have different views on what is important or not.

 

[Moral Orel]

All moral agents have different views on morality as all agents have different views on what is important or not.

So like I thought, you're arguing with premises that aren't true. No thing is truly important.

 

[VirOptimus]

So like I thought, you're arguing with premises that aren't true. No thing is truly important.

”True” is a difficult concept.

 

[Speedwell]

Hey hey Saint

When i typed it into google it came up with "a person who has seen something happen and can give a first-hand description of it."

A percipient witness (or eyewitness) is one with knowledge obtained through his or her own senses (e.g., visual perception, hearing, smell, touch).

Check this out my dear.

1. An eye witness has his first hand description of an event written down by a writer. Why is this written statement not eye witnessed?

Because there is another link in the chain of communication. "I saw..." becomes "he told me he saw..."

God bless Anglicans. They are good ppl, I extend an olive branch to you. You are my brother, please be my friend.

You and I are on the same side.

So you are no protestant, does that mean you do not protest against the sale of indulgences, you insist that the Pope has authority over purgatory and that the Treasury of Merit has foundation in the Bible?

Why should I? I don't care of Catholics believe those things.

Do you accept transubstantiation?

I accept the Real Presence, which is not quite identical to Transubstantiation.

Ps I have no issues with Catholics. They are family, considering how things are, We all need to team up.



Trapped by scripture?!?!

My dear... I don't quite know what to say about that.

Christian scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. I mean the Holy Spirit is included but.... you have officially perplexed me.

Is the Holy Spirit included or not? How? You have to make up your mind whether you believe in Sola Scriptura or not. Sola Scriptura provides no role for the Holy Spirit and makes Pentecost just a fancy light show.

Yet here you are trying to justify it to me.

My dear it worries you.

You know what, go for it and Congrats on this freedom you believe you have.



My dear you get fussed. All we have to do is go back to the subject of evolution to see passion from you.

Because I don't believe that the book of Genesis is 100% accurate literal history. I believe that God intended it to be a different kind of narrative; I hate to see the literal inerrancy of Genesis insisted on merely in support of an unsavory right-wing political agenda. I hate to see the history of the Church and biblical exegesis lied about to support it and hate to see the hatred and sometimes even violence meted out to Christians who don't agree.

One thing known about me is by disrespect for the theory of evolution and my passion to debate atheists who disrespect our Lord with impunity.

That's just the kind of thing I'm talking about. The theory of evolution does not disrespect the Lord. What's your real agenda?

One thing I know about you. You have an issue with protestant and creationists.

I'm a pentecostal protestant creationist.
I believe the Bible is infallible.
I believe the only way to God is through Jesus.
I believe the earth was void before the fiats which were done in 7 days.

Why do you dislike us so? What happened for you to have this passion against the old guard protestant?

Isn't the Trump administration, which they wholeheartedly support, reason enough? That, and I lived in the Bible Belt as an Anglican (A "Bible-hating, Christ-denying commie) long before Trump was elected.

 

[Moral Orel]

”True” is a difficult concept.

Importance doesn't exist; it's imaginary. Things do not have the quality of "importance". So it is not true that any thing is important.

 

[VirOptimus]

Importance doesn't exist; it's imaginary. Things do not have the quality of "importance". So it is not true that any thing is important.

Again, ”true” is complex.

But maybe you are only looking for a fight again.

 

[Speedwell]

Importance doesn't exist; it's imaginary. Things do not have the quality of "importance". So it is not true that any thing is important.

It seems that you have taken the same position as Steve; we have no right to value anything, we have no right to hold any moral principles unless we subscribe to the notion that they are dictated to us by the Protestant Bible God. Otherwise there can be no source of moral precepts except immediate individual whim and even so they have no validity or utility as social constructs. I'm not going to argue with either of you about the names of these various positions although I suspect you both of playing rhetorical games with the definitions ("Is this nihilism, or is it error theory...etc.?"). The dichotomy is BS by any name.

 

[stevevw]

I’d say that anyone with any critical thinking skills would find his arguments unconvincing...

Yet I use the arguments of critical thinkers. I am not that smart and original to come up with what I have said about objective morality. But I can understand and know when something makes logical sense.

 

[stevevw]

It seems that you have taken the same position as Steve; we have no right to value anything, we have no right to hold any moral principles unless we subscribe to the notion that they are dictated to us by the Protestant Bible God.

You are misrepresenting my argument. I never said people have no right to hold moral values or that they don't hold any moral values. I said there is no way to determine the morals people hold are objectively right or wrong which also means there is no objective way to claim individual views (including perceived wrong or abhorrent ones) as being objectively wrong.

I also never said that people have to take on a particular God's moral laws. All I have said is that morality needs an independent measure apart from personal opinions as far as the moral argument goes for objective morality.

Otherwise there can be no source of moral precepts except immediate individual whim and even so they have no validity or utility as social constructs. I'm not going to argue with either of you about the names of these various positions although I suspect you both of playing rhetorical games with the definitions ("Is this nihilism, or is it error theory...etc.?"). The dichotomy is BS by any name.

I am not playing rhetorical games. It isn't about the names of these alternative measures for morality but rather what they consist of and how they can be justified as a reliable, rational, and independent reference point for what is morally right and wrong.

I want to know how any social norms or any other measure of morality can really determine what is morally right and wrong. No one has really argued this to even address this issue. They have made assertions but not explained why any measure made by humans should be a justified measure of morality.

 

[stevevw]

Now, he's concluded that if there is no transcendent being, then there is no objective morality, then morality is subjective, which is faulty (because it would still be subjective even with a god). But the description of what subjective morality states is accurate.

I agree that I have argued that if there is no transcendent being there can be no objective moral values and duties. That would logically follow that morality is only subjective. But can you explain what you mean by that even if there is a transcendent being morality would still be subjective? Are you saying that if there was a transcendent being morality would be both subjective and objective or that morality would only be subjective and if so why?

 

[stevevw]

You can argue morals without just using "good", "evil" or "bad".

In fact, all do. You argue the consequences, or how you want society to function.

But don't consequences imply a good or bad, right or wrong consequence. If so wouldn't that need some reference point to measure what is good or bad, right or wrong? Also, what do you mean when you say "how you want society to function". Do you mean "how society ought to function"? Want seems to imply some sort of standard or criteria that a person wants society to function as. Is this based on any measure such as human happiness, avoiding suffering, a person's "likes or dislikes", empathy, etc.

 

[stevevw]

Neither of which is, strictly speaking, a humanities major.

Well, my Degree covered subjects like social justice, ethical issues and human rights, communication, international relations, community development, advocacy, indigenous studies, and social science. All topics that involve an understanding of ethics.

 

[Speedwell]

You are misrepresenting my argument. I never said people have no right to hold moral values or that they don't hold any moral values. I said there is no way to determine the morals people hold are objectively right or wrong which also means there is no objective way to claim individual views (including perceived wrong or abhorrent ones) as being objectively wrong.

Which is a tautology. If morals are subjective then they are not objective.

I also never said that people have to take on a particular God's moral laws. All I have said is that morality needs an independent measure apart from personal opinions as far as the moral argument goes for objective morality. I am not playing rhetorical games. It isn't about the names of these alternative measures for morality but rather what they consist of and how they can be justified as a reliable, rational, and independent reference point for what is morally right and wrong.

Again, if morals are objective.

I want to know how any social norms or any other measure of morality can really determine what is morally right and wrong. No one has really argued this to even address this issue. They have made assertions but not explained why any measure made by humans should be a justified measure of morality.

You mean, justified as objective morality?

 

[Moral Orel]

Again, ”true” is complex.

But maybe you are only looking for a fight again.

It's not complex, it's simple logic. You've claimed that ~X is true, now you want X to be true.

 

[Moral Orel]

It seems that you have taken the same position as Steve; we have no right to value anything, we have no right to hold any moral principles unless we subscribe to the notion that they are dictated to us by the Protestant Bible God. Otherwise there can be no source of moral precepts except immediate individual whim and even so they have no validity or utility as social constructs.

I never said all that. Some of it I've explicitly said the opposite. Don't get all snippy with me because you're not paying attention.

I'm not going to argue with either of you about the names of these various positions although I suspect you both of playing rhetorical games with the definitions ("Is this nihilism, or is it error theory...etc.?").

Then don't tell us what to call it. You're the one who wanted to argue about conflating nihilism and subjectivism. We didn't introduce extra labels, you did.

The dichotomy is BS by any name.

Okay, I say there either are moral facts, or there are not moral facts. If that dichotomy is BS, then what's the third option?