Where does morality come from?

[VirOptimus]

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.

”Truth” is, again, a complex entity. I have not claimed to have the ”truth” so thats a lie.

 

[VirOptimus]

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

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 consistent 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 which is a hallmark of relative morality.

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

Your claim about ”most” is questionable at best. You have certainly not supported it, and it would anyway be a argument from popularity falacy.

The rest is incredibly ignorant.

 

[stevevw]

But you haven't shown it at all.

Then show me how any reasonable person can say that sexually abusing a child for fun is morally good.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then show me how any reasonable person can say that sexually abusing a child for fun is morally good.

Thats not how ”objective morality” works.

Also, I dont believe in ”good”.

 

[stevevw]

Your claim about ”most” is questionable at best. You have certainly not supported it, and it would anyway be a argument from popularity falacy.

The rest is incredibly ignorant.

You're a slippery character in the way you debate in how you use the same fallacious arguments you then make objections about. Didn't you claim that because most people have different views on morality that this proves there's no objective morality?

 

[stevevw]

Thats not how ”objective morality” works.

Then tell me how it works. How would I show support for objective morality?

Also, I dont believe in ”good”.

Don't you think that someone who doesn't believe in good, bad, right and wrong, or values at all is not the best person to be making judgments on whether or not there are objective good, bad, right and wrong values in the first place. Wouldn't there be a pre-existing position that is going to bias and taint the way you view things so that you cannot give a fair and unbiased assessment.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then tell me how it works. How would I show support for objective morality?

Don't you think that someone who doesn't believe in good, bad, right and wrong, or values at all is not the best person to be making judgments on whether or not there are objective good, bad, right and wrong values in the first place. Wouldn't there be a pre-existing position that is going to bias and taint the way you view things so that you cannot give a fair and unbiased assessment.

No and no.

 

[Moral Orel]

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?

Thats not how burden of proof works.

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

lol Yes, that's exactly how the burden of proof works. The burden of proof isn't just for positive claims, pfft! Basics, man, basics.

 

[VirOptimus]

You're a slippery character in the way you debate in how you use the same fallacious arguments you then make objections about. Didn't you claim that because most people have different views on morality that this proves there's no objective morality?

I have not used the term ”proves”, I have said it strongly supports there being no ”objective morals” because it does.

 

[Kylie]

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 difference is that I respond to your posts, showing why I think they are mistaken, and yet you don't say why my responses are wrong, you just keep cycling back through the same points refuted a thousand times.

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.

I am talking about the way the world actually is, not the way that people ACT like it is. I'm sorry if this was unclear to you.

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.

No, I am pointing out that you are wasting time regarding my use of the word trolling rather than actually addressing my responses to your arguments.

 

[stevevw]

I have not used the term ”proves”, I have said it strongly supports there being no ”objective morals” because it does.

Actually you did make out that there were "no objective morals" like if was a fact and you used faulty reasoning for that. IE

VirOptimus said Today at 1:08 PM#2754

Yes; the fact that morality is different around the world and different through history very much support that there are no” objective morality”.

 

[stevevw]

The difference is that I respond to your posts, showing why I think they are mistaken, and yet you don't say why my responses are wrong, you just keep cycling back through the same points refuted a thousand times.

I do respond to your posts. You just mistakenly perceive that I don't because you reject and ignore what I say. The fact that you say I just keep cycling back through the same points refuted a thousand times shows this. Who said my points have been refuted. If this refutation of what I have said merely comes from you or someone else personal opinion then how is what I have said refuted? Isn't this just a personal opinion.

You are just supporting my argument that people believe and live like there are objective facts including for morality. The fact that you insist that what I have said has been refuted means you really believe that what you are saying to refute me is honest to God truth and should be listened to, respected and I should stop my as you call it recycling of those refuted claims and finally acknowledge your truth lol.

I can use the same logic in you claiming that your position is different when you say that you are: showing me why you think I am mistaken" by saying that I also am responding back to you and "showing how I think you are mistaken". And so it goes on "stalemate". But the difference is that I can see is that I at least provide ample independent support for what I say and don't reply to what "I think" totally.

So who is more likely to perhaps be correct out of these two so-called "truth" claims. The one you say "I think" or the one who at least uses some independent support from experts. So as it may turn out I may not be such a troll after all. I may not be just cycling the same stuff that is claimed to be refuted. It seems that you are proving my claim that people may claim that morals and are subjective and that there is no truth but they actually act like there is.

I am talking about the way the world actually is, not the way that people ACT like it is. I'm sorry if this was unclear to you.

That is exactly what I am doing and the way people act, react, and live "is the way the world is". It cannot be any other way and there is no other way to support the way we live. What a person believes is the way they live and they cannot pretend otherwise. So when someone says I am not telling a lie or that there is no such thing as a lie and they then try to cover up lies or are guilty because they have told a lie they are acting and living what they truly believe.

What they believe morally. What I am saying in a world that claims there is no moral truth people sure do act like there is moral truth to the point that they live that lie in trying to deny there is no moral truth.

No, I am pointing out that you are wasting time regarding my use of the word trolling rather than actually addressing my responses to your arguments.

OK fair enough.

 

[stevevw]

Thats not how ”objective morality” works.

So how do we ever make a claim that sexually abusing a child is truthfully the wrong thing to do. You cannot as you say just argue the point or make a reasoned argument because a pedophile can make a reasoned argument that it is right to abuse a child. How do you determine what is the right thing to do.

Also, I don't believe in ”good”.

Then you must use something to say that acting this way is x and that one way is y. So, therefore, it is better to do X.

 

[stevevw]

No and no.

You must be a special and unique human as most people are influenced by their personal experiences and beliefs. Considering you have not given any independent support for what you say I cannot be sure if you are telling the truth. Oh, that's right truth is a difficult concept for you. So what do you use if you are required to swear under oath in a court?

And you didn't answer my question. How would a person show support for an objective morality if there was such a thing?

 

[stevevw]

Your claim about ”most” is questionable at best. You have certainly not supported it, and it would anyway be a argument from popularity falacy.

Just to show that your word cannot be trusted alone as a means to determine what is right or truthful even though you say truth is a difficult concept. Despite your claim that I didn't show support for most philosophers supporting objective morals and that it is a fallacy here is the link where I supplied that evidence.
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. This result isn’t indicative of philosophers being religious, either. The same survey found that just under fifteen percent of philosophers accepted or leaned towards theism. Over seventy percent were atheists, and twelve percent held some other position. So quite a lot of philosophers think that there are moral facts but don’t think that God exists.

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

I have also provided other links if you look that state most philosophers support objective morality and disagree or question the practicable of subjective/relative morality. Imean even Wiki acknowledges this.
Meta-ethical moral relativism is unpopular among philosophers; many are quite critical of it,
Moral relativism - Wikipedia

 

[VirOptimus]

You must be a special and unique human as most people are influenced by their personal experiences and beliefs. Considering you have not given any independent support for what you say I cannot be sure if you are telling the truth. Oh, that's right truth is a difficult concept for you. So what do you use if you are required to swear under oath in a court?

And you didn't answer my question. How would a person show support for an objective morality if there was such a thing?

I dont think support for objective morality is possible to show. Its un unfalsifiable unscientific concept like magic or god(s).

 

[VirOptimus]

So how do we ever make a claim that sexually abusing a child is truthfully the wrong thing to do. You cannot as you say just argue the point or make a reasoned argument because a pedophile can make a reasoned argument that it is right to abuse a child. How do you determine what is the right thing to do.

Then you must use something to say that acting this way is x and that one way is y. So, therefore, it is better to do X.

Why do you keep telling me what I think or have to do.

You really really dont understand value nihilism.

 

[VirOptimus]

Actually you did make out that there were "no objective morals" like if was a fact and you used faulty reasoning for that. IE

VirOptimus said Today at 1:08 PM#2754

Yes; the fact that morality is different around the world and different through history very much support that there are no” objective morality”.

I said ”support” just as the quote shows.

Try to keep up and stop lying.

 

[VirOptimus]

Just to show that your word cannot be trusted alone as a means to determine what is right or truthful even though you say truth is a difficult concept. Despite your claim that I didn't show support for most philosophers supporting objective morals and that it is a fallacy here is the link where I supplied that evidence.
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. This result isn’t indicative of philosophers being religious, either. The same survey found that just under fifteen percent of philosophers accepted or leaned towards theism. Over seventy percent were atheists, and twelve percent held some other position. So quite a lot of philosophers think that there are moral facts but don’t think that God exists.

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

I have also provided other links if you look that state most philosophers support objective morality and disagree or question the practicable of subjective/relative morality. Imean even Wiki acknowledges this.
Meta-ethical moral relativism is unpopular among philosophers; many are quite critical of it,
Moral relativism - Wikipedia

Again, I am a value nihilist. Not a moral relativist.

 

[Speedwell]

For every philosopher who thinks there aren’t any objective moral facts, two philosophers think there are. This result isn’t indicative of philosophers being religious, either. The same survey found that just under fifteen percent of philosophers accepted or leaned towards theism. Over seventy percent were atheists, and twelve percent held some other position. So quite a lot of philosophers think that there are moral facts but don’t think that God exists.

So much for objective morality as proof of the existence of God.