Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

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

Not really. We can know about objective morality by the way we act/react just like we can for other things in life and how we act/react like they are real. We can make logical propositions just like we do for other non-physical aspects of life. Support for moral realism can be made from the argument for epistemic realism by Terrence Cuneo for example. IE

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.

How can a moral skeptic prescribe epistemic ‘ought’s’ while rejecting moral ‘ought’s’?

For example, when a moral skeptic engages in an argument with someone about moral realism they will assume certain epistemic duties must be made during the debate. They will assume that their opponent ought to not misrepresent their argument and pretend to refute them. They shouldn't use logical fallacies, they ought, to be honest, and not lie. Any person who disputes moral realism assumes these oughts to be there and abided by in any philosophical debate.

But why should anyone uphold these epistemic duties if everything is relative? Someone could object and say everyone should abide by these epistemic truths because it is the pragmatic thing to do and if a person doesn't follow them they are not valuing reason and truth. But an opponent can say why should we be pragmatic, why is this particular duty being prescribed. Why should we value reason and truth? We are still assuming epistemic truths that are objectively binding.

So if you are a moral non-realist and you have ever claimed someone has done something objectively wrong in misrepresenting your argument then you have assumed epistemic virtues and duties while arguing such duties are either subjective or not real.

You are prescribing that honesty should be objectively binding in philosophical or scientific discussions.
However, this epistemic virtue of honesty is tied to our moral virtue of honesty so you cannot reject moral realism either. If you reject honesty as being objectively binding then you cannot appeal to honesty in any real-world debate.

Since in real-life situations we agree there are epistemic duties and values used in discussions we, therefore, agree moral duties and facts are objective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjkgD4w9w1k
The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism
https://philpapers.org/rec/[bless a...s and do not curse][bless and do not curse]NW

This is similar to the logical argument for objective morality I have also linked based on our lived moral experience. People assume and believe in objective morality in the way they act/react and live morally. You cannot expect others to act morally objective and support a relative and subjective moral position act the same time.

 

[stevevw]

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

This relates to how people believe in objective morals based on naturalism (human wellbeing, evolution, or some other natural law). There are two points to this. First leaving aside whether or not naturalism is a justifiable cause for objective morality it still lends support for objective morality being believed as real by people.

Second, there are arguments that show that naturalism is not a justifiable cause of objective morality. IE wellbeing (pain and pleasure) cannot be equated to objective right and wrong as the idea of wellbeing is also subjective. The same with other natural ideas of objective morality.

 

[stevevw]

I said ”support” just as the quote shows.

Isn't that just another way of saying there is "no objective morality. Considering we can only make claims based on support this seems like the logical conclusion. Otherwise, you would have said it seems unlikely that there is "no objective morality" or that there seems to be no objective morality but this cannot be completely counted out.

Try to keep up and stop lying.

Isn't lying a value judgment. I wasn't lying but taking what you said literally. Besides your use of logical fallacies to "support" your claims is a bit dubious. As I said even assuming you are right that there is more moral variance throughout the world and history this does not support the claim that there is "no objective morality".

 

[stevevw]

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

So wouldn't all arguments be relevant then against value nihilists? It makes it hard to even have a debate with you. I guess I will have to redefine my argument with you.

 

[VirOptimus]

So wouldn't all arguments be relevant then against value nihilists? It makes it hard to even have a debate with you. I guess I will have to redefine my argument with you.

No they arent.

 

[VirOptimus]

Isn't that just another way of saying there is "no objective morality. Considering we can only make claims based on support this seems like the logical conclusion. Otherwise, you would have said it seems unlikely that there is "no objective morality" or that there seems to be no objective morality but this cannot be completely counted out.

Isn't lying a value judgment. I wasn't lying but taking what you said literally. Besides your use of logical fallacies to "support" your claims is a bit dubious. As I said even assuming you are right that there is more moral variance throughout the world and history this does not support the claim that there is "no objective morality".

No its not.

And yes it does.

 

[VirOptimus]

Not really. We can know about objective morality by the way we act/react just like we can for other things in life and how we act/react like they are real. We can make logical propositions just like we do for other non-physical aspects of life. Support for moral realism can be made from the argument for epistemic realism by Terrence Cuneo for example. IE

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.

How can a moral skeptic prescribe epistemic ‘ought’s’ while rejecting moral ‘ought’s’?

For example, when a moral skeptic engages in an argument with someone about moral realism they will assume certain epistemic duties must be made during the debate. They will assume that their opponent ought to not misrepresent their argument and pretend to refute them. They shouldn't use logical fallacies, they ought, to be honest, and not lie. Any person who disputes moral realism assumes these oughts to be there and abided by in any philosophical debate.

But why should anyone uphold these epistemic duties if everything is relative? Someone could object and say everyone should abide by these epistemic truths because it is the pragmatic thing to do and if a person doesn't follow them they are not valuing reason and truth. But an opponent can say why should we be pragmatic, why is this particular duty being prescribed. Why should we value reason and truth? We are still assuming epistemic truths that are objectively binding.

So if you are a moral non-realist and you have ever claimed someone has done something objectively wrong in misrepresenting your argument then you have assumed epistemic virtues and duties while arguing such duties are either subjective or not real.

You are prescribing that honesty should be objectively binding in philosophical or scientific discussions.
However, this epistemic virtue of honesty is tied to our moral virtue of honesty so you cannot reject moral realism either. If you reject honesty as being objectively binding then you cannot appeal to honesty in any real-world debate.

Since in real-life situations we agree there are epistemic duties and values used in discussions we, therefore, agree moral duties and facts are objective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjkgD4w9w1k
The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism
https://philpapers.org/rec/[bless a...s and do not curse][bless and do not curse]NW

This is similar to the logical argument for objective morality I have also linked based on our lived moral experience. People assume and believe in objective morality in the way they act/react and live morally. You cannot expect others to act morally objective and support a relative and subjective moral position act the same time.

Haha, no.

 

[stevevw]

No they arent.

Would I be correct in saying that a value nihilist believes values and morals are what humans can use but are not real scientifically speaking? Therefore we should not live in any context like they are real. This will put everything in better perspectives and not cause people to get carried away with placing too much value on something but rather keep things confined to what we can support scientifically and maybe epistemically.

 

[stevevw]

Haha, no.

"Haha no" why not. You cannot just make a claim without any reasoning. You are the one who claims reasoned arguments are what we determine is right or wrong. So you need to explain why you say "no Haha".

So you think people do not assume epistemic truths when they engage in an argument. You have assumed that a person should behave properly during debates such as be honest and not misrepresent your arguments.

You show this often when you point out that I am misrepresenting your arguments are about value nihilism and not relative morality. You expect me to represent what you say honestly. In fact, you called me a liar. So you are assuming epistemic truths. Others on this site are always pointing out logical fallacies and how people are not being honest and misrepresenting their arguments.

Therefore you or anyone else cannot then say that these truths and other assumed epistemic values are all relative. That being honest and fair in debates doesn't matter and is not a truth we have agreed should be present in our debates. This is the lived experience (the way people act in living situations like arguments) which shows they really believe or value certain things as truth. You cannot then renege on this and pretend it doesn't matter or exist. A person's behavior gives them away.

 

[VirOptimus]

Would I be correct in saying that a value nihilist believes values and morals are what humans can use but are not real scientifically speaking? Therefore we should not live in any context like they are real. This will put everything in better perspectives and not cause people to get carried away with placing too much value on something but rather keep things confined to what we can support scientifically and maybe epistemically.

No

 

[VirOptimus]

"Haha no" why not. You cannot just make a claim without any reasoning. You are the one who claims reasoned arguments are what we determine is right or wrong. So you need to explain why you say "no Haha".

So you think people do not assume epistemic truths when they engage in an argument. You have assumed that a person should behave properly during debates such as be honest and not misrepresent your arguments.

You show this often when you point out that I am misrepresenting your arguments are about value nihilism and not relative morality. You expect me to represent what you say honestly. In fact, you called me a liar. So you are assuming epistemic truths. Others on this site are always pointing out logical fallacies and how people are not being honest and misrepresenting their arguments.

Therefore you or anyone else cannot then say that these truths and other assumed epistemic values are all relative. That being honest and fair in debates doesn't matter and is not a truth we have agreed should be present in our debates. This is the lived experience (the way people act in living situations like arguments) which shows they really believe or value certain things as truth. You cannot then renege on this and pretend it doesn't matter or exist. A person's behavior gives them away.

-Yawn-

 

[stevevw]

And yes it does.

This is an example of how we are debating moral relativism and you are freely engaging which means we have both agreed it is OK to debate moral relativism. Though you say you are not a moral relativist you are happy to give replies to what moral relativism means when it comes to showing that there is no objective morality. That is why I say it is hard to debate with you because it's like you have a foot in each moral position camp and yet declare you haven't.

So in showing that your logic in using the fact that morals vary that this must mean there is no objective morality I can use a number of examples from a variety of areas to show how your claim doesn't logically lead to the conclusion you are claiming IE there are no objective morals IE

The logical fallacy of a sweeping generalization or begging the question.

Because morality varies there is no objective morality.
or
We know that there is only subjective morality because morality varies.
But how do we know morality varies
Because morality is subjective.

Neither proves there is no objective morality. They limit the scope of possibilities and assume the conclusion in the premise.

Faulty Causal Generalizations:
Faulty (Hasty) Generalization:
Results when we "jump to a conclusion." Evidence can be inadequate in a number of ways: (1) the particulars may be irrelevant; (2) the particulars may be unrepresentative; (3) the particulars may not be numerous enough to warrant the conclusion.
https://www.wsfcs.k12.nc.us/cms/lib...oduleInstance/17593/Fallacies_of_Argument.pdf

begging the question (petitio principii)
Informal Fallacies | Principles of Public Speaking

 

[stevevw]

-Yawn-

So it's getting obviously clear that there is no sense in debating you. All you do is object or give negative or affirmative responses without any reasoning or explanation.

 

[Speedwell]

This relates to how people believe in objective morals based on naturalism (human wellbeing, evolution, or some other natural law). There are two points to this. First leaving aside whether or not naturalism is a justifiable cause for objective morality it still lends support for objective morality being believed as real by people.

Second, there are arguments that show that naturalism is not a justifiable cause of objective morality. IE wellbeing (pain and pleasure) cannot be equated to objective right and wrong as the idea of wellbeing is also subjective. The same with other natural ideas of objective morality.

My mistake, then. I thought that you were defining "objective morality" in such a way that excluded morals based on naturalism (human wellbeing, evolution, or some other natural law.)

 

[stevevw]

My mistake, then. I thought that you were defining "objective morality" in such a way that excluded morals based on naturalism (human wellbeing, evolution, or some other natural law.)

I am excluding naturalism. I clarified that in the second point. I only mentioned it to show that even those who don't support God or some other transcendent still believe that objective morals are real. I have given the argument earlier as to why naturalism cannot be how objective morality exists. In other words, those atheists who support objective morality are actually lending support for a transcendent being.

 

[VirOptimus]

This is an example of how we are debating moral relativism and you are freely engaging which means we have both agreed it is OK to debate moral relativism. Though you say you are not a moral relativist you are happy to give replies to what moral relativism means when it comes to showing that there is no objective morality. That is why I say it is hard to debate with you because it's like you have a foot in each moral position camp and yet declare you haven't.

So in showing that your logic in using the fact that morals vary that this must mean there is no objective morality I can use a number of examples from a variety of areas to show how your claim doesn't logically lead to the conclusion you are claiming IE there are no objective morals IE

The logical fallacy of a sweeping generalization or begging the question.

Because morality varies there is no objective morality.
or
We know that there is only subjective morality because morality varies.
But how do we know morality varies
Because morality is subjective.

Neither proves there is no objective morality. They limit the scope of possibilities and assume the conclusion in the premise.

Faulty Causal Generalizations:
Faulty (Hasty) Generalization:
Results when we "jump to a conclusion." Evidence can be inadequate in a number of ways: (1) the particulars may be irrelevant; (2) the particulars may be unrepresentative; (3) the particulars may not be numerous enough to warrant the conclusion.
https://www.wsfcs.k12.nc.us/cms/lib...oduleInstance/17593/Fallacies_of_Argument.pdf

begging the question (petitio principii)
Informal Fallacies | Principles of Public Speaking

Heh, no. You simply dont understand the basics of philosophy.

 

[VirOptimus]

So it's getting obviously clear that there is no sense in debating you. All you do is object or give negative or affirmative responses without any reasoning or explanation.

I'm not responisible for your education.

I give the answers you posts deserve.

 

[VirOptimus]

My mistake, then. I thought that you were defining "objective morality" in such a way that excluded morals based on naturalism (human wellbeing, evolution, or some other natural law.)

He is all over the place and uses arguments that support a non-objective morality all the time without understanding it.

 

[Kylie]

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.

Yes, the world the world IS is that people ACT like morals are objective.

Acting like something is the case doesn't make it the case.

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.

And once again, acting like there is objective morality doesn't mean there is objective morality.

 

[stevevw]

He is all over the place and uses arguments that support a non-objective morality all the time without understanding it.

That's a common tactic, to try and undermine and discredit the person rather than deal with the content. I have been consistent with what I have said. What you perceive as evidence for non-objective morality is what non-theists use to support objective morality. You are thinking that because they are atheists then they must pushing non-objective morality. But believe it or not, atheists also support objective morality. That's how common the belief is for moral realism.