Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I will answer this one separately as it seems to be something I may have missed. Though please remember that some of these points are repeated or similar questions or objections and may have been addressed in other posts.
In relation to the appropriate action for your daughter taking $20 out of your purse. Isn't that about a penalty for a morally wrong act rather than the moral act itself? I guess most people would say taking money without asking is stealing and therefore morally wrong. The penalty for doing that is another situation.
Then I have to go back to the logical argument I posted for how we are justified to believe based on our moral lived experience that there are objective moral values IE.
My claim is that we are justified in believing (2) 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.
So what is the defeater that will prove that our moral experience is fallible and does not show there is objective morality but is totally unreliable that we cannot realize any objective morals whatsoever?
I used the example that objective morals have degrees of bad. IE telling a lie to the Nazi's at your door save the Jews is still morally wrong but not as big a wrong as giving them up to be taken away and killed in the gas chambers. So telling a lie in this situation doesn't make lying OK or good it is still bad. It is wrong but justified in relative situations. Remember relativity does not exclude there are objective morals.
So telling a little "white lie" as some call it to not hurt someone and cause them more harm is still wrong but not as wrong as a lie that causes someone harm or is motivated by greed etc. So the little lie though still wrong is justified in that relative situation. At no point does this change the fact that lying is objectively wrong.
The parts where you are appealing to qualities like hurt and empathy. Notice how you said I don't like and other people probably don't like it. Subjective likes and dislikes could mean anything. When you use "hurt and empathy" you have gone from "likes and dislikes" to qualifying a moral value and therefore not a "like or dislike".
Under subjective morality "hurt and empathy" have no moral value and meaning as there is no way to measure their worth apart from personal views. You have attempted to give your morals value through "likes and dislikes" but these do not have any moral value either just as saying someone "likes or dislikes" chocolate cake. You may not like being hurt but you cannot say that is objectively true for others. Some people like hurting others and some show no empathy as they like having everything for themselves as this makes them happy.
They only have meaning for the subject (the person). So they have no meaning beyond that otherwise they would be objective (have the same meaning for all).
I never said that. I said people that claim subjective morals tell other people with subjective morals that their moral view is wrong and that theirs is right. When they do that they are saying my view applies to everyone else thus taking an objective moral position.
I never said you cannot view morals through your own lens under subjective morals. I said the moment you go from viewing to applying them to others you are now taking a position that your moral position is correct for others.
So really you should be saying "the way I see things your moral position is wrong but you also have the right to have that moral position and it is not wrong to you. So neither of us is ultimately in the right position. You can hold your views and I can hold mine so lone as we don't impose them on each other.
You don't have to have mathematical evidence for morals. You simply have to show that rape is wrong in itself and not because you or I say its wrong. I have already shown this. The fact that moral lived experience shows us that people know that rape is always wrong shows this.
So what if there are objective morals and the person changes their mind against an objective moral by being morally bad. Just because there are objective morals doesn't mean people are forced to always follow objective morals. They have free will. You are committing an "either and or" fallacy where if there are objective morals that people either have to stick or else.
Again this is mixing up objective and absolute moral values. To say morals are absolute is to say that they apply regardless of the situation you are in. So don't kill regardless of a crazed killer coming to wipe out your family or don't kill using the death penalty regardless of whether the crime demands that penalty to uphold justice.
Objective morality means in any given situation there is a moral choice that is really right and really wrong independent of human opinion. But that can vary depending on the circumstances. In some situations, it may morally OK to kill but in other situations, it may not be morally OK to kill. But that is different from absolute morality that doesn't take any circumstances into consideration and it is always wrong to kill in all circumstances.
And I think that is what you are confusing with objective morality. An absolute morality does not deny objective morality.
No that supports an objective morality to show the existence of God. God Himself allowed killing in some situations when was regarded as justified. So God could not have supported absolute morality where it is never justified to kill in certain relative situations. Remembering that God is all good and there is no evil in Him.
But what I keep saying is maybe not you but most others who support subjective morality do "IMPOSE" their version of empathy and other morals onto others.
As you have agreed by not doing so is a subjective position then you must also agree that actually "IMPOSING" a person's moral position onto others is, therefore, taking an objective moral position. Why because when the person "IMPOSES" their morals onto others they are saying their morals are correct for others as well and they know they are correct for all. That's an objective position.
But you only know an angle is crooked when measuring it when you compare it to a straight line. If there are no straight lines then it would just be on its own like some strangely shaped thing. Say there was no water then the state of being dry would not be called dry but rather just a state of being that is always the same, whatever you want to call it. But when we add water to the equation and people can get wet we can now come up with the idea of dryness when compared to being wet and visa versa. There is now a state of dryness only because we have wetness.
Yes, but haven't I kept trying to explain that people don't react like that. When they impose their moral view onto others they act objectively. I think you are not differentiating when people impose morality onto others that it has moved from a subjective position and that is causing the confusion. You are attributing objective behaviour to a subjective moral position without any substantiation.
What you are missing or perhaps it is my explaining is that when I describe how subjective morality works in that it has no way of measuring things like empathy and hurt and I am doing this to show how people contradict themselves because with their morally lived experience. They impose their subjective moral values and meaning onto others. Or they attribute meaning and value to their subjective morals beyond their personal views.
This is the morally lived experience I am talking about that supports there being objective morals. People claim subjective morality but act/react like there are objective morals and I have given ample examples.
Where going in circles again. Surely you haven't forgotten the support I have already given. IE Morally lived experience points to there being objective morals (I have given ample examples). Observable reacts and actions of how individuals, organisations and even societies impose certain moral values on others.
I have already explained and you have agreed that under a subjective moral system the meaning and value of morals even when agreed on by groups of people are just personal opinions and has no justification for being imposed on others and denying others their different subjective moral positions.
Therefore people, organisations and societies are reacting and acting like there are objective morals.
The evidence is in their observed behaviour towards others and acknowledging that some things are always good or evil, right or wrong. Behaviours whether agreed or not cannot explain why something is morally right or wrong through sociobiological processes including likes and dislikes which are also subjective and say nothing about why something is right or wrong.
Therefore if subjective morality cannot determine right and wrong objectively yet people live like there are objective morals there must be some independent measure of morality. So all that has to be shown is that there must be some independent grounding for morality beyond humans at this stage. Like I said that doesn't have to be a particular God and as Sam Harris says could be done with science and he's an atheist. So even atheist support objective morality.
I will finish off the rest in another post
thanks steve.
But there would be no such thing as 180 degrees if there were no crooked or bent lines. 180 degrees implies other degrees such as 45, 33 or 102 degrees which would be crooked to give 180 degrees its relevance. But remember there are no bent lines to compare with so, therefore, there is no such thing as 180 degrees.
That's strange logic. It is objectively true that a cockroach will never be as tall as a human. You mentioned the average height. What is average. Say its 5' 6" for women and 6' for men. So anyone below these measures would be short and anyone above this would be taller than the average. You cannot subjectively have the view that an average short person is really taller than the average and visa versa. Those measures remain objective.
But you have missed the point. Are you saying there are no examples of how opposites or difference give contexts to each other like tall and short? I don't want to have to come up with more examples.
Why do you guys still say "right" and "wrong"? Those are objective terms synonymous with "correct" and "incorrect". If morality is subjective, and I agree with you that it is, shouldn't you use subjective terms?Again you are trying to squirm out of it.
I'm sure we agree that executing her for this crime is morally wrong. Likewise, I'm sure we agree that rewarding her is also morally wrong. So what can I do to punish her that is NOT morally wrong?
Why do you guys still say "right" and "wrong"? Those are objective terms synonymous with "correct" and "incorrect". If morality is subjective, and I agree with you that it is, shouldn't you use subjective terms?
I think folks are conflating two different uses of the word "opinion". Morals are like the opinion that chocolate ice cream is good. But when you use "right" and "wrong" it sounds like you're making a guess, such as, "In my opinion, Trump is going to win the next presidential election". But see, in the second scenario, I would be making a guess about what will be an objective fact. Since morals are really akin to things like ice cream preference, isn't saying "good and bad" or "like and dislike" more appropriate? You certainly wouldn't say, "Chocolate ice cream is the right flavor of ice cream"; you would say, "Chocolate ice cream is a good flavor of ice cream".
It may sound like mere semantics, but I think clinging to objective terminology gives a mixed message, and I think it definitely adds to the difficulty in Steve seeing your point.
OK so let's pretend you or I are the trolley driver so we can make it more realistic. You want us to not try anything and just choose to run over say the 1 person as that would be the best option. So we know we could try something else, our intuitions are nagging at us to try something else like pull the breaks, yell for the person to get off the track, tell someone to put a car on the track to stop the trolly, derail the trolley. But we ignore all that and just drive over the person. This is unreal as it just would not happen.Stop trying to get out of it.
Can you give an example. I cannot believe that no person in that situation would not try to avert the situation. From all the incidents I have seen I have never seen such a case. Even if the person driving the trolley didn't try something someone else would and use the examples above. If the trolley driver did nothing it is usually because they are in shock and have frozen up which is completely different from purposely driving into a person. They would be devasted and unconsolable which shows they knew they did something wrong.How is it a logical fallacy? Situations very much like this have actually happened.
Take your choice.and So tell me, if it's a logical fallacy, which one is it? Argument from incredulity? Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Which one?
I have now applied it to the situation so what has it proven. It certainly does not show that there are no objective morals. But like I said because you have had to revert to a rare, unreal, and complex example to even get one example and that there are many examples that show certain actions are always morally wrong it is more likely a logical fallacy.You are alleging that there are objective morals. I am asking you to apply them to this situation. And you are doing your best to squirm out of it.
I totally agree. But what we find from those who say they support subjective moral positions including individuals, organizations and even societies is that they label acts as right and wrong. This is what I have been trying to say for some time so I thank you for clearing this up.Why do you guys still say "right" and "wrong"? Those are objective terms synonymous with "correct" and "incorrect". If morality is subjective, and I agree with you that it is, shouldn't you use subjective terms?
I think folks are conflating two different uses of the word "opinion". Morals are like the opinion that chocolate ice cream is good. But when you use "right" and "wrong" it sounds like you're making a guess, such as, "In my opinion, Trump is going to win the next presidential election". But see, in the second scenario, I would be making a guess about what will be an objective fact. Since morals are really akin to things like ice cream preference, isn't saying "good and bad" or "like and dislike" more appropriate? You certainly wouldn't say, "Chocolate ice cream is the right flavor of ice cream"; you would say, "Chocolate ice cream is a good flavor of ice cream".
It may sound like mere semantics, but I think clinging to objective terminology gives a mixed message, and I think it definitely adds to the difficulty in Steve seeing your point.
Oh, my mistake then maybe. I saw you say that you agree something is "wrong" and I didn't see that as hypothetical.In this case, I'm using a technique in which I work from the assumption that the opposing point of view is true and then work through it until I get to a contradiction.
I don't. Maybe it's just habit / social engineering for those that do. Maybe that's the vernacular for talking about morality and it's totally appropriate, and I'm just a rebel, lol.I totally agree. But what we find from those who say they support subjective moral positions including individuals, organizations and even societies is that they label acts as right and wrong. This is what I have been trying to say for some time so I think you for clearing this up.
That a moral precept is widely, or even universally shared is not evidence that it is objective.I totally agree. But what we find from those who say they support subjective moral positions including individuals, organizations and even societies is that they label acts as right and wrong. This is what I have been trying to say for some time so I thank you for clearing this up.
That's not what he's saying. He's saying that people widely talk about morals like they're objective even if they say that they're subjective. I think he does use that fact to promote the idea that we intuit objective morals, and I agree with you that isn't evidence for objective morality, but I agree with him that a lot of subjectivists talk about morals incorrectly for how they apply them.That a moral precept is widely, or even universally shared is not evidence that it is objective.
Right and wrong is usually associated with (subjective) moral issues whereas correct and incorrect is usually associated with objective answers. Nobody would say killing somebody is incorrect, but they would say 1+1=2 is the correct answer.Why do you guys still say "right" and "wrong"? Those are objective terms synonymous with "correct" and "incorrect". If morality is subjective, and I agree with you that it is, shouldn't you use subjective terms?
Can you give an example?That's not what he's saying. He's saying that people widely talk about morals like they're objective even if they say that they're subjective.
OK so let's pretend you or I are the trolley driver so we can make it more realistic. You want us to not try anything and just choose to run over say the 1 person as that would be the best option. So we know we could try something else, our intuitions are nagging at us to try something else like pull the breaks, yell for the person to get off the track, tell someone to put a car on the track to stop the trolly, derail the trolley. But we ignore all that and just drive over the person. This is unreal as it just would not happen.
But hey let's go along with your scenario. As I said the best option would be to run over the 1 person than the five.
Can you give an example. I cannot believe that no person in that situation would not try to avert the situation. From all the incidents I have seen I have never seen such a case. Even if the person driving the trolley didn't try something someone else would and use the examples above. If the trolley driver did nothing it is usually because they are in shock and have frozen up which is completely different from purposely driving into a person. They would be devasted and unconsolable which shows they knew they did something wrong.
The most relevant is "Stacking the Deck" in your favor by ignoring examples that disprove your claim that there are no objective morals and listing only those examples that support your case.
But also Faulty Analogy: Relying only on comparisons to prove a point rather than arguing deductively and inductively. One example that may show it is difficult to support objective morality doesn't prove your case as you still haven't produced a logical argument why there is no objective morality IE a (DEFEATER) of the logical argument I posted. Non Sequitur (literally, "It does not follow"): Just because you may get me to acknowledge on a complex and rare case that may show there are no objective morals doesn't follow there are no objective morals.
I have now applied it to the situation so what has it proven.] It certainly does not show that there are no objective morals. But like I said because you have had to revert to a rare, unreal, and complex example to even get one example and that there are many examples that show certain actions are always morally wrong it is more likely a logical fallacy.
Remember I only have to show one example that there are objective morals to prove there are objective morals.
Oh, my mistake then maybe. I saw you say that you agree something is "wrong" and I didn't see that as hypothetical.
When you say something like murder is subjectively wrong.Can you give an example?
I get that people use them that way. Steve, an objectivist, and I, a subjectivist, think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. If it's just an opinion, which it is, call it good or bad. Opinions aren't right or wrong.Right and wrong is usually associated with (subjective) moral issues whereas correct and incorrect is usually associated with objective answers.
You are saying that killing someone is incorrect if you're saying it's "wrong" though. When you say murder is subjectively wrong, you mean that you think I shouldn't. But why shouldn't I? Because you don't like it. So all you really mean is, "I think murder is bad and I wouldn't like it if you did it" and you're cloaking it in objective language of right and wrong. I'm going to cut and paste this next bit that you skipped over:Nobody would say killing somebody is incorrect, but they would say 1+1=2 is the correct answer.
Nobody talks that way. Nobody says murder is subjectively wrong, they say murder is wrong. The statement is subjective because it can’t be demonstrated, not because they used the word subjectively wrong.When you say something like murder is subjectively wrong.
Steve has a flawed idea of what it means for something to be objective. He erroneously believes when you say something is wrong regardless of opinion, that you are making an objective statement. I’ve even provided outside sources over and over that proves this belief wrong, yet he still clings on to it.I get that people use them that way. Steve, an objectivist, and I, a subjectivist, think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. If it's just an opinion, which it is, call it good or bad. Opinions aren't right or wrong.
No; incorrect is a wrong answer. Nobody says killing is incorrect; nobody speaks that way.You are saying that killing someone is incorrect if you're saying it's "wrong" though.
Right and wrong is not limited to objective language.When you say murder is subjectively wrong, you mean that you think I shouldn't. But why shouldn't I? Because you don't like it. So all you really mean is, "I think murder is bad and I wouldn't like it if you did it" and you're cloaking it in objective language of right and wrong.
No. When you say “in my opinion Trump will win” Because you made it clear you were just voicing your opinion, that is not the same as saying “X” is wrong.I'm going to cut and paste this next bit that you skipped over:
I think folks are conflating two different uses of the word "opinion". Morals are like the opinion that chocolate ice cream is good. But when you use "right" and "wrong" it sounds like you're making a guess, such as, "In my opinion, Trump is going to win the next presidential election".
There is a big difference between morals and ice cream preferences. We don’t attach ethical judgments to ice cream flavors, ethical judgments are reserved for moral actions; I find it absurd to try to compare the two. Like/dislike is more appropriate for ice cream flavors, good/bad, right/wrong is appropriate for ethical judgments AKA morality.But see, in the second scenario, I would be making a guess about what will be an objective fact. Since morals are really akin to things like ice cream preference, isn't saying "good and bad" or "like and dislike" more appropriate? You certainly wouldn't say, "Chocolate ice cream is the right flavor of ice cream"; you would say, "Chocolate ice cream is a good flavor of ice cream".
Ahh.... Therein lies the problem. No there isn't. I feel more strongly about hating murder than I do about loving chocolate, but the intensity of my feelings is the only difference. Tell me why I shouldn't murder without ultimately appealing to emotion.There is a big difference between morals and ice cream preferences.
Once again there is a big difference between ideology and lived moral experience. People live, act and react like evil is a real thing in the universe and not some product of sociobiological processes."Evil" is a subjective judgement no matter how many people share it in any particular instance. It is not an ontological entity.
OK, maybe I am not explaining things properly. You say it is possible to believe that one moral precept is superior to another without requiring it to be subjective. I agree with you and if that's all your explaining then I am not disputing this.And we are trying to explain to you--without much success, apparently--why it does not. It is possible to believe that one moral precept is superior to another without requiring that it be objective.
At last, we are halfway. So if someone then takes their subjective moral position and imposes it on others by saying their subjective moral position is wrong and mine is right and you should follow mine isn't that now taking an objective position. Are they not saying my moral position is the only correct one and others should follow what I believe.Apparently I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that we agreed with your argument in the previous paragraph. Of course, subjective morality says nothing about whether a moral precept is "really good or bad" (i.e., objective). It's a tautology.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?