Where does morality come from?

[VirOptimus]

And once again we have someone who is quibbling about wordplay rather than actually have a discussion.

When you've decided you're done wasting everyone's time, let me know, okay?

That will happen when he decides to actually learn about the subject.

I.e. never.

 

[stevevw]

What incredibly bad quotes.

How can a clear logical fallacy be a bad quote. It is self-supporting. To show how simple and self-supporting this is if applied to the material world it would go like this. Just because there are several views on an objective fact about the physical world like the earth is flat rather than a sphere or that there are several views quantum physics such as The Many-Worlds Interpretation, The Copenhagen Interpretation ect doesn't mean that the earth or the quantum world doesn't exist.

That is the fallacy of your thinking in that just because there are several views on morality then this proves there can be no objective morality ever. To even insist that this is not the case is unintelligible.

Also, I’m not a moral relativist. I’m a value nihilist. Try to keep up. You using strawmen is quite tiresome.

Then why argue about subjective/relative as opposed to objective morality in the first place. It follows that your participation in the debate about relative and objective morals means that you are willing to engage in a debate on this. You cannot choose to engage and then pull out halfway by deciding you want to change the goalposts. You have a habit of doing this. I see you are happy enough to argue about subjective and objective morality on many occasions.

My points stand.

Based on what, objectivity lol. The fact that you say "My point" means it's your opinion. So what, I don't believe your opinion is sufficient without some independent support.

You need to reason why what you claim stands with some independent measure. You are big on insisting that reasoned arguments are what support morality but never give reasoned arguments for what you claim but rather only assertions like "What incredibly bad quotes". Tell us why they are incredibly bad quotes. I have just argued they are not with logic. Do you have a reason why the quotes are "incredibly bad".

And furthermore; if your belief where true that god(s) determine morality. By which authority do your god(s) determine how I live my life?

God is "good" by nature. He doesn't demand anyone to be good by his commands. Good naturally flows from him to us and it follows that we have an obligation to be good. We have a free will to decide whether or not we follow that good that we all know of.

 

[VirOptimus]

How can a clear logical fallacy be a bad quote. It is self-supporting. To show how simple and self-supporting this is if applied to the material world it would go like this. Just because there are several views on an objective fact about the physical world like the earth is flat rather than a sphere or that there are several views quantum physics such as The Many-Worlds Interpretation, The Copenhagen Interpretation ect doesn't mean that the earth or the quantum world doesn't exist.

That is the fallacy of your thinking in that just because there are several views on morality then this proves there can be no objective morality ever. To even insist that this is not the case is unintelligible.

Then why argue about subjective/relative as opposed to objective morality in the first place. It follows that your participation in the debate about relative and objective morals means that you are willing to engage in a debate on this. You cannot choose to engage and then pull out halfway by deciding you want to change the goalposts. You have a habit of doing this. I see you are happy enough to argue about subjective and objective morality on many occasions.

Based on what, objectivity lol. The fact that you say "My point" means it's your opinion. So what, I don't believe your opinion is sufficient without some independent support.

You need to reason why what you claim stands with some independent measure. You are big on insisting that reasoned arguments are what support morality but never give reasoned arguments for what you claim but rather only assertions like "What incredibly bad quotes". Tell us why they are incredibly bad quotes. I have just argued they are not with logic. Do you have a reason why the quotes are "incredibly bad".

God is "good" by nature. He doesn't demand anyone to be good by his commands. Good naturally flows from him to us and it follows that we have an obligation to be good. We have a free will to decide whether or not we follow that good that we all know of.

I have only argued against ”objective morality”. I have not argued for anything else than value nihilism. I reject subjective/objective as meaningful enteties.

Its you who make a assertion that ”objective morality” exist, so the burden of proof is on you. You have severly failed in supporting the existance of ”objective morality” or even to support why it would matter.

As for your tirade about your god, that did not answer my question.

 

[stevevw]

We cannot measure wellbeing, pleasure or pain.

Many would disagree. As Kylie says if we touch a hot plate we can surely objectively know it causes pain. We see the burn mark and feel the pain. We can even go to a medical expert who will do a medical report to show how the act of touching a hot plate causes damage to the skin, nerves, etc, and makes the handless usable which can cause more problems. Surely that is an objective measure according to those who support wellbeing as the measure for morality.

And they surely aren't ”objective” as they are from subjective agents.

I agree. Who says pain equates to moral wrong and pleasure equates to moral right. Who says it's not the other way around.

There is no way to measure morality.

Most people would intuitively disagree. They appeal to an objective measure every day in their lived experience of morality. And what is more most people agree with the same moral values and duties? So under your logic, because most people agree on certain morals objectively this must mean objective morality is real.

 

[VirOptimus]

Many would disagree. As Kylie says if we touch a hot plate we can surely objectively know it causes pain. We see the burn mark and feel the pain. We can even go to a medical expert who will do a medical report to show how the act of touching a hot plate causes damage to the skin, nerves, etc, and makes the handless usable which can cause more problems. Surely that is an objective measure according to those who support wellbeing as the measure for morality. I agree. Who says pain equates to moral wrong and pleasure equates to moral right. Who says it's not the other way around.

Most people would intuitively disagree. They appeal to an objective measure every day in their lived experience of morality. And what is more most people agree with the same moral values and duties? So under your logic, because most people agree on certain morals objectively this must mean objective morality is real.

Your post is just faulty logic.

You keep asserting the same arguments again and again although they have been shown to be crap.

No we cannot measure pain or pleasure, we can know that things may cause pain (touching a hot plate if the nerves work) but we cannot measure it. Again, as its a subject, a person, experiencing something its not objective.

People have very shifting morals so your assertion we all share ”morals and duties” is false.

 

[stevevw]

And once again we have someone who is quibbling about wordplay rather than actually have a discussion.

It's easy for you to dismiss things to semantics. But you're the one not being called a troll. That is a pretty serious accusation so I would hope that you understand the proper meaning.

When you've decided you're done wasting everyone's time, let me know, okay?

I don't think accusations like this are a waste of anyone's time. That's if you want to dismiss things and not allow someone to reply to such accusations. Once again I find it interesting that the more the debate goes on the more some start attacking the person rather than respond to the content.

 

[stevevw]

Your post is just faulty logic.

You keep asserting the same arguments again and again although they have been shown to be crap.

You know what I find ironic. I am the only one who has supplied independent support to even try to supply some objective support. Everyone else has been insisting that their personal view on this is objectively right. I find this funny considering that the same people insist on objective evidence for what is being said. Once again what evidence do you have to show that what I have said has been shown to be crap? Nothing, zero, zilch. Please give me some evidence so I can at least know what your argument is.

The only support that has been presented is that the only way morality can be determined is by subjectivity and the only support for this is subjectively determined. That is a circular argument.

No we cannot measure pain or pleasure, we can know that things may cause pain (touching a hot plate if the nerves work) but we cannot measure it. Again, as its a subject, a person, experiencing something it's not objective.

So you're saying that we cannot objectively measure physical medical problems or mental illness.

People have very shifting morals so your assertion we all share ”morals and duties” is false.

How can reasonable people really have shifting morals on sexually of physically abusing children, assaulting women, stealing people's possessions, discriminating against others? I don't think anyone no matter what their background could justify any of these acts as being morally good. Show me an example of how sexually abusing a child for fun is morally good.

 

[VirOptimus]

You know what I find ironic. I am the only one who has supplied independent support to even try to supply some objective support. Everyone else has been insisting that their personal view on this is objectively right. I find this funny considering that the same people insist on objective evidence for what is being said. Once again what evidence do you have to show that what I have said has been shown to be crap? Nothing, zero, zilch. Please give me some evidence so I can at least know what your argument is.

The only support that has been presented is that the only way morality can be determined is by subjectivity and the only support for this is subjectively determined. That is a circular argument.
View attachment 278795
So you're saying that we cannot objectively measure physical medical problems or mental illness.

How can reasonable people really have shifting morals on sexually of physically abusing children, assaulting women, stealing people's possessions, discriminating against others? I don't think anyone no matter what their background could justify any of these acts as being morally good. Show me an example of how sexually abusing a child for fun is morally good.

The burden of proof is on you. I have already shown that you cant find objective morality.

And I have supported my arguments, read the authors I have referenced. And again, I reject objective/subjective as meaningful, why do you keep doing the same errors again and again regarding my position. Its starting to look like goading.

The fact that you serioudly think you have supported anything is hilarious. You must never have attended higher education.

 

[stevevw]

That will happen when he decides to actually learn about the subject.

I.e. never.

[/quote] So you are assuming that everyone who agrees with you knows more about morality than anyone who disagrees with you even if you don't know if these people that agree with you have any qualified knowledge of morals. You just assume they know what they are talking about because they are agreeing with you.

Another circular argument that is based on a logical fallacy. When are you going to produce a reasoned argument like you claim people should do.

 

[VirOptimus]

So you are assuming that everyone who agrees with you knows more about morality than anyone who disagrees with you even if you don't know if these people that agree with you have any qualified knowledge of morals. You just assume they know what they are talking about because they are agreeing with you.

Another circular argument that is based on a logical fallacy. When are you going to produce a reasoned argument like you claim people should do.

No, I know you know next to nothing as you use basic, faulty arguments and misuse terminology. If you had studied the subject and read Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger etc you would use other, better arguments.

Its like a person knowing basic addition trying to argue calculus.

 

[stevevw]

The burden of proof is on you. I have already shown that you cant find objective morality.

But not that I would concede that there is no evidence for objective morality and that I haven't supplied any it is still another logical fallacy to say that you have already shown that we cannot find objective morality as "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,". So you haven't proven anything apart from not being able to find objective morality "yet".

But I disagree that I haven't shown evidence or argued a case that it is at least more likely that there are objective moral values and duties than there isn't. I have given a number of arguments and links that come from moral and ethical experts and they agree with what I have said. Here is that evidence once again Here #2698
Primarily these supports are what I have proposed earlier that we can be justified to believe objective morality exists based on our lived experience. The argument from Epistemic realism is one way to show this.
Premise 1: If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
Premise 2: Epistemic facts do exist
Conclusion 1: Moral facts do exist.
Premise 3: If moral facts do exist, then realism is true.
Conclusion 2: Moral realism is true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjkgD4w9w1k

Here #2619
Experts say that our lived experience shows there are objective morals. IE
Are there good arguments for objective morality? What do philosophers think about moral realism?
A 2009 PhilPapers survey shows that 56.4% of philosophers were moral realists, 27.7% weren’t, and 15.9% held some other position. For every philosopher who thinks there aren’t any objective moral facts, two philosophers think there are.

But even philosophers who are committed to moral anti-realism think that there are some good reasons to be a moral realist. They don’t think that proponents of objective morality are just confused, rhetorically sneaky, or crypto-theists.

But if the question was not “is moral realism true” but “is there a good case to be made for moral realism”, I suspect the percentage would jump from 56.4% to somewhere in the high nineties.
Are there good arguments for objective morality? What do philosophers think about moral realism? : AskPhilosophyFAQ

Here #2494 This is just a brief outline and the link includes a detailed explanation of logical argument.
Premise 1: Morality is a rational enterprise.
Premise 2: Moral realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist.
Premise 3: The moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality.
Premise 4: Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source (logically follows from 1, 2, and 3).
Premise 5: This source is what we call God.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Here #2447
We refer to moral facts. And we prove our moral stance is the correct one by appealing to these facts.
The greatest moral challenge of our time? It's how we think about morality itself
The usual assumption is that ordinary people treat moral judgments as getting at something objective
Do People Actually Believe in Objective Moral Truths? « On the Human
Most of us see ourselves as capable of recognizing what is good, bad, valuable, and worthwhile. We think of ourselves as beings whose moral beliefs — about the badness of suffering, for example — are objectively true.
Morals Are Objective
Morality is a paradigm example of something that can be, and usually is, independent from any individual person. Whether a deed is moral or immoral does not depend on the judgment or feeling or whim of any single person.
There is Objective Morality in Nature | Center for Inquiry
Most Americans accept that “murder is wrong” is a moral fact. Therefore, we have no problem imposing that moral law on society and holding all people, regardless of their personal beliefs and opinions, to that moral standard.
Can I name one moral rule that a naturalist can say is objective? Sure: "Torturing innocent people is morally wrong." I could list many more such moral rules. Its validity does not depend on my private whim — I know that it would remain valid even if I became mentally deranged and cruelly violent.
There is Objective Morality in Nature | Center for Inquiry
Most Americans accept that “murder is wrong” is a moral fact. Therefore, we have no problem imposing that moral law on society and holding all people, regardless of their personal beliefs and opinions, to that moral standard.

If opinions are not facts, then they cannot or should not be imposed on others. In other words, “To each his own.” Perhaps I’m against [insert controversial issue], but who am I to impose that personal belief on others?
Moral facts and the Common Core

Here Apr 27, 2020#1313
Here May 6, 2020#1611
We are justified in believing that there are objective moral values on the ground of our moral experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience, just as we are justified in believing that there is a world of physical objects around us on the ground of our sense experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience. Such a defeater would have to show not merely that our moral experience is fallible or defeasible but that it is utterly unreliable, that we may apprehend no objective moral values or duties whatsoever.

Our moral experience is so powerful, however, that such a defeater would have to be incredibly powerful in order to overcome our experience, just as our sense experience is so powerful that a defeater of my belief in the world of physical objects I perceive would have to be incredibly powerful in order for me to believe that I have no good reason to think that I am not a brain in a vat of chemicals or a body lying in the Matrix.

This can be summed up by philosopher and atheist Louise Anthony
Any argument from moral skepticism is going to be based on premises which are going to be less obvious than the reality of objective morals values themselves.
And Here
Go onto any secular debate site, social media, or check out the comments section of any article that is about someone that has done the wrong thing like a politician or celebrity. Isreal Folau is a good example. People lambasted him on social media saying how bad and wrong he was. Rugby Australia said he broke their code of conduct which was based on a moral not to discriminate.
Here are some examples in picture form.
May 4, 2020#1540

The Death of Moral Relativism
Law, virtue and a shame culture have risen to prominence in recent years, signaling that moral relativism may be going the way of the buggy whip.
“Virtue, authority, and law and order are all in fashion
In The New York Times last week, David Brooks argued that while American college campuses were “awash in moral relativism” as late as the 1980s, a “shame culture” has now taken its place. The subjective morality of yesterday has been replaced by an ethical code that, if violated, results in unmerciful moral crusades on social media. A culture of shame cannot be a culture of total relativism. One must have some moral criteria for which to decide if someone is worth shaming.
The Death of Moral Relativism

And I have supported my arguments, read the authors I have referenced.

And I have provided many supports which you claim you won't read. yet you want me to read your support which I have done and am still doing. It hardly seems fair that you can dismiss my argument without even bothering to find out what it is about.

And again, I reject objective/subjective as meaningful, why do you keep doing the same errors again and again regarding my position. It's starting to look like goading.

No you are playing games and changing goalposts all the time. I do hold back from replying to you. But you have continually invited yourself into the debates I have been having about subjective/objective morality with others, the type of morality you then want to claim I should not debate you about with you. If anyone is goading it is you by inviting yourself into my debates and then playing games.

The fact that you serioudly think you have supported anything is hilarious. You must never have attended higher education.

But what do you base this on? You still don't back up what you say. That in itself shows a lack of reason and intelligent debate. At the same time, you think you have provided support with one or two links on what you believe is right and even the experts disagree but you ignore them. It seems I am not the only one who thinks you are wrong or haven't supplied any support.

To claim that none of the support I have supplied is relevant without any support for this is just empty assertions. The fact that you don't supply any support and continue to debate with me only shows that you are only interested in bringing opposing arguments down and not constructively engaging. The fact is the majority of experts agree with my position and I have supplied the evidence for this.

 

[stevevw]

No, I know you know next to nothing as you use basic, faulty arguments and misuse terminology. If you had studied the subject and read Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger etc you would use other, better arguments.

Its like a person knowing basic addition trying to argue calculus.

Yet no one opposing my arguments have used those ethicists either. They have basically presented simple fallacies as a counter debate. So it seems no matter what is used for evidence you have made your mind up that I am wrong. I distrust your ability to be neutral and unbiased. You have taken one moral position (value nihilism). This position is not only disputed by me but by other subjectivists. So I cannot see what grounds you can claim that you are right and all others are wrong. Even many of the experts disagree with moral nihilism.

According to VirOptimus, the only true logic is VirOptimus logic. What is the support for this VirOptimus logic? It's VirOptimus "truth". Its all circular and you provide no support apart from claiming you know better. That you know the truth which is making an objective claim anyway. You undermine your own position and I don't have to do anything.

 

[Kylie]

It's easy for you to dismiss things to semantics. But you're the one not being called a troll. That is a pretty serious accusation so I would hope that you understand the proper meaning.

You keep posting the same arguments again and again. It's clear to anyone following this thread that you either don't read my responses to you or you just ignore them.

By the way, the internet slang for that is PRATT - Points Refuted A Thousand Times. Would you prefer I use that term instead?

I don't think accusations like this are a waste of anyone's time. That's if you want to dismiss things and not allow someone to reply to such accusations. Once again I find it interesting that the more the debate goes on the more some start attacking the person rather than respond to the content.

So rather than actually address the issues I raised, you decide that you're going to waffle on about the terminology I used to describe what you are doing?

How is that NOT a waste of time?

 

[stevevw]

It's you who make a assertion that ”objective morality” exist, so the burden of proof is on you. You have severly failed in supporting the existance of ”objective morality”

And I have provided more than ample support for the very least of showing that it is more likely that objective morality exists than it doesn't. I cannot see how you would say I have severely failed as these are not my arguments. You are actually saying that the experts have failed and I would rather trust them than you. Have you ever looked at the evidence?

The point about the positive claim for objective morality I just have to show once that objective morality exists. This can be done easily by showing that certain moral acts like sexually abusing a child for fun are always wrong to do for all reasonable people and thus is a universal moral wrong. That anyone who claims it to be morally right to do is a sick and unsound person who cannot determine morality. All reasonable people agree with this.

But here's the thing. If you make a negative claim and say that there is no objective morality you could not possibly prove that anyway because you would have to know everything thing there is to know in every moral situation throughout the universe. So there is no way you can support your claim. So what do you even make it?

or even to support why it would matter.

I already supported why objective morality matters. I think it is clear that having a clear set of criteria to measure morality helps people know what is the right and best thing to do. Let's pretend that there is an objective morality that is all good, there is no badness or wrongness in it. It is all-knowing and knows of every situation involved to ensure what is best for us.

So if this was the case wouldn't you think that using this objective measure would be a wise and right thing to use to ensure we are doing what is right and best. Rather than a fallible measure that makes mistakes, gets what is right and best wrong all the time, and cannot be relied on or trusted to have our best interest. Doesn't this just make sense? So that is the reason why having an objective moral grounding matter.

 

[Kylie]

The only support that has been presented is that the only way morality can be determined is by subjectivity and the only support for this is subjectively determined. That is a circular argument.
View attachment 278795

I can make pictures too.

Your argument is circular too!

How can reasonable people really have shifting morals on sexually of physically abusing children, assaulting women, stealing people's possessions, discriminating against others? I don't think anyone no matter what their background could justify any of these acts as being morally good. Show me an example of how sexually abusing a child for fun is morally good.

Once again you can only prove your point by appealing to extreme cases. If morality was objective the way you claim, you should be able to ask that question with ANY moral hypothetical instead of the child abuse one. And yet you never do, because you know you will fail every single time.

 

[stevevw]

You keep posting the same arguments again and again. It's clear to anyone following this thread that you either don't read my responses to you or you just ignore them.

By the way, the internet slang for that is PRATT - Points Refuted A Thousand Times. Would you prefer I use that term instead?

But here's the thing you are totally overlooking. You are assuming that you are right and that I should somehow concede that and because I am not I am ignoring your argument. Have you ever considered that I dispute your argument so therefore I am continually having to restate my position when you dispute what I say?

Because I could say the same to you. That you keep ignoring what I am saying. You keep posting the same argument again and again. See how it can go both ways. I have made it clear several times that I get your argument but disagree with it, But it is you who keep coming back into the debate. Even another poster pointed this out to you. You choose to come back so it is not me who is being a troll. They even said why do you continue to engage with me when it is unlikely that I would agree with you.

The other point is that it was only about 10 pages ago or so that you acknowledged that most people do thing of morality as being objective but this didn't mean that there truly was objective morality. That must have taken over 120 pages for you to admit this. So it goes to show that sometimes people just don't get it or are willing to admit things straight away. I am also debating with several people so it is not only you that I am engaging with which means I have more reason to be here.

So rather than actually address the issues I raised, you decide that you're going to waffle on about the terminology I used to describe what you are doing?

This doesn't make sense. Are you saying that if you may have got the meaning of what you have accused me of wrong that I should explain myself regarding that wrong meaning? Part of addressing you was to point out that you was to point out that you had accused me of something I wasn't. That is a given.

How is that NOT a waste of time?

Because I would be having to address something you are not right about in the first place. So rather than do that I can just point out that I think you have misunderstood what you are trying to accuse me of. IE I can't address what you are saying because I cannot be what you are accusing me of because a troll means x meaning and you are saying I am something else.

 

[VirOptimus]

And I have provided more than ample support for the very least of showing that it is more likely that objective morality exists than it doesn't. I cannot see how you would say I have severely failed as these are not my arguments. You are actually saying that the experts have failed and I would rather trust them than you. Have you ever looked at the evidence?

The point about the positive claim for objective morality I just have to show once that objective morality exists. This can be done easily by showing that certain moral acts like sexually abusing a child for fun are always wrong to do for all reasonable people and thus is a universal moral wrong. That anyone who claims it to be morally right to do is a sick and unsound person who cannot determine morality. All reasonable people agree with this.

But here's the thing. If you make a negative claim and say that there is no objective morality you could not possibly prove that anyway because you would have to know everything thing there is to know in every moral situation throughout the universe. So there is no way you can support your claim. So what do you even make it?
I already supported why objective morality matters. I think it is clear that having a clear set of criteria to measure morality helps people know what is the right and best thing to do. Let's pretend that there is an objective morality that is all good, there is no badness or wrongness in it. It is all-knowing and knows of every situation involved to ensure what is best for us.

So if this was the case wouldn't you think that using this objective measure would be a wise and right thing to use to ensure we are doing what is right and best. Rather than a fallible measure that makes mistakes, gets what is right and best wrong all the time, and cannot be relied on or trusted to have our best interest. Doesn't this just make sense? So that is the reason why having an objective moral grounding matter.

Thats not how burden of proof works.

Try coming up with evidence supporting that there arent a invisibe unicorn on Saturn.

I find ”objective morality” to be an deplorable idea. Fanatisicm only leads to problems.

And no, you have not supports any of your assertions.

 

[stevevw]

I can make pictures too.

See this is what I mean. You have continually come into my debates with others and then accuse me of being a troll. I have not engaged with you some periods and not initiated any contact. It is you that have come in by saying stuff like "you have to stop me from getting my points across in case they influence people wrongly". Who is more concerned about trolling and following the posts of an individual. A bit ironic don't you think.

Your argument is circular too!

How is my argument circular? Is it because you say that just because people acknowledge and react like there are objective morals that this doesn't mean there are objective morals.

Once again you can only prove your point by appealing to extreme cases. If morality was objective the way you claim, you should be able to ask that question with ANY moral hypothetical instead of the child abuse one.

No that's where you are wrong. I only have to show 1 example and it doesn't matter if it's extreme. It just means that those examples that are not as extreme may be harder to prove. But objective morality has already been supported by the extreme example so that doesn't really matter.

Remember I only have to show 1 example. If you claim I need to show it with other examples including less extreme ones then I am only repeating something I don't need to do again and again. That is a different claim which is saying that "every moral situation involved objective morality". But that was not my claim. My claim was that there was objective morality (ontological). I only need to do it once. If you want to claim there is no objective morality then you need to show that every possible moral situation has no objective morality.

And yet you never do, because you know you will fail every single
time.

That is not true. We have a debate on other moral situations like stealing, assault, DV, discrimination. These just take more time and effort to discuss how people will always see it is wrong. How can a reasonable person say that unjustly discriminating against someone is good? How can any reasonable person who claims it is good to steal really be happy with someone coming along and taking all their possessions?

Besides just because I may fail on one or two examples doesn't mean it proves that objective morality doesn't exist. You are still claiming a logical fallacy. It may be that we don't know or understand the situation fully to realize how it is objectively wrong and may understand things better in the future. So you cannot claim that I would outright fail every time.

 

[VirOptimus]

See this is what I mean. You have continually come into my debates with others and then accuse me of being a troll. I have not engaged with you some periods and not initiated any contact. It is you that have come in by saying stuff like "you have to stop me from getting my points across in case they influence people wrongly". Who is more concerned about trolling and following the posts of an individual. A bit ironic don't you think.
How is my argument circular? Is it because you say that just because people acknowledge and react like there are objective morals that this doesn't mean there are objective morals.

No that's where you are wrong. I only have to show 1 example and it doesn't matter if it's extreme. It just means that those examples that are not as extreme may be harder to prove. But objective morality has already been supported by the extreme example so that doesn't really matter.

Remember I only have to show 1 example. If you claim I need to show it with other examples including less extreme ones then I am only repeating something I don't need to do again and again. That is a different claim which is saying that "every moral situation involved objective morality". But that was not my claim. My claim was that there was objective morality (ontological). I only need to do it once. If you want to claim there is no objective morality then you need to show that every possible moral situation has no objective morality.

But you havent shown it at all.

 

[stevevw]

Thats not how burden of proof works.

Try coming up with evidence supporting that there arent a invisible unicorn on Saturn.

How is that relevant to something we can see and measure on earth IE (lived moral experience).

I find ”objective morality” to be an deplorable idea. Fanatisicm only leads to problems.

Then why do most well-balanced experts in the field of ethics support objective morality?

Actually I find the belief that there is only relative and subjective morality scary. It means there is no way we can measure or stop crazies from taking control of what is right and wrong. We are seeing this now. The fact that crazy religious maniacs can get a foothold around the world and spread their vile isn't because of objective morality.

It is because of subjective/relative morality. No one can really say with any authority or consistency that these mad people are wrong. We have to allow and encourage the same beliefs of these people under our own roofs and in our societies in the name of tolerance and acceptance of different moral views which is a hallmark of relative morality.

Whereas if we had an all good rational measure independent of us for what morality is we could make a stand on this and tell them they are objectively wrong with some authority and consistency.