Where does morality come from?

[Moral Orel]

I'm not aware of any method we can use to verify a moral position.

Verify that a moral position is the correct position to hold, or verify that someone holds the moral position that they claim to have? If you're speaking of the former, me neither. You're not assuming I've taken the side of moral objectivity just because I disagree with Ken are you?

 

[Kylie]

Verify that a moral position is the correct position to hold, or verify that someone holds the moral position that they claim to have? If you're speaking of the former, me neither. You're not assuming I've taken the side of moral objectivity just because I disagree with Ken are you?

I do not believe there is any way to objectively say that a particular moral position is correct and a different moral position is incorrect.

Technically, I'd have to say that we can't even objectively say that a person holds the moral position they claim to hold, since they could be doing everything they can to fake it, but that's neither here nor there in this discussion. Asa far as I am concerned, if a person claims to hold a moral position and acts in accordance with that moral position, I'd be happy to accept it.

 

[stevevw]

See how you're saying that we "shouldn't" force our views onto others? "Should" and "ought" are moral words. Under subjective morality, why shouldn't we?

Because subjective morality doesn't have "shouldn't, should and ought and ought not" that apply to others. They can only apply to yourself. When you say to someone you shouldn't do something or you ought to do something then you are taking an objective moral position. You are saying that you know objectively that the other person's moral position is wrong. But you are also implying that you know better as to what is the right thing for them to do in that situation and they ought to do that which is also an objective position.

You are not supposed to say anything that denies the other person their right to have and express their moral position because it is just as right as yours or anyone else's. No one has any reference point to objectively measure any moral values under subjective morality.

 

[Moral Orel]

Because subjective morality doesn't have "shouldn't and ought not" that to apply to others. They can only apply to yourself. When you say to someone you shouldn't do something or you ought to do something then you are taking an objective moral position. You are saying that you know objectively that the other person's morals wrong. But you are also implying that you know better as to what is the right thing for them to do in that situation which is also an objective position.

You are not supposed to say anything that denies the other person their right to have and express their moral position because it is just as right as yours or anyone else's. No one has any reference point to objectively measure any moral values under subjective morality.

"I'm not supposed to"??? Under subjective morality, there is no "should" and "should not", remember? I can tell people "do" and "don't" all I please. If I have the means to force them to behave in a manner I like, why shouldn't I? If I can coerce or persuade them to believe they want to behave in a manner I like, why shouldn't I? There is no answer to those questions because under subjective morality, there is no "should not". Neither the other person or I am "correct" because there is no "correct", why should I care about that?

I know, I know, that makes me sound like a monster. But that really depends on what I'm forcing/coercing/persuading people to do. If I'm getting people to kill each other, you'll say I'm abominable. If I get people to stop killing each other, you'll say I'm heroic. See where this is going?

 

[Moral Orel]

I do not believe there is any way to objectively say that a particular moral position is correct and a different moral position is incorrect.

Saying a moral position is correct or incorrect is like saying a color is correct or a flavor is incorrect. It's a category error. I'm arguing with Ken because even though he says that correct/incorrect are inappropriate, he still seems to think right/wrong are appropriate. I thought it was a mere semantic distinction at first, but now...

 

[stevevw]

But they still only have two choices. Throw the switch or not. Your complaining about it doesn't change that.

No, you are forcing them to only have two choices which are not how real situations pan out. Unless in some situations where a person just freaks out and freezes up, they are screaming and yelling to get out of the way. The workers here the screams and look up and see a trolley heading their way. You saying they are not even allowed to scream thus contributing to ensuring the workers don't have any chance of the trolley sneaking upon them. Anyway, I've answered your scenario.

Cars don't stop instantly, you know. They take time to stop. If a car is driving at 60kmh and someone steps out from behind a parked car five meters in front, do you think the car is going to be able to stop in time?

But now your just admitting that the driver can in no way be responsible for the accident anyway so that defeats the purpose of your example in trying to lay blame on a driver of an autonomous or manual car. The pedestrian is at fault for stepping out so close to a fast-moving car and from in between parked cars rather than at a crossing. Pedestrians are not meant to be on the road and when they are they need to use the proper places to cross.

But nevertheless, driverless cars have automatic braking systems based on a radar that can pick up an object in front of the car faster than a human can. So they are actually a lifesaving device rather than a hazard in that situation. But either way, the person will be in trouble as that is an unavoidable accident.

You think they didn't already know about the houses?

Ok so why didn't they send a warning to evacuate the people in those houses.

Please answer the question.

I already have. I said it would be more morally right to send the trolley down the track with the one person as there is less risk of killing more people. Either way, in your scenario someone is going to be killed. So better to kill one person that 5. Multiple killing is worse than a single killing.

No.

You are making an argument of the form "All X is Y."

No I'm not. I am not saying all moral acts are objective. I am saying there are objective morals. People can still have subjective morals if there are objective morals. If someone says killing in a particular situation is objectively wrong. A person can still say I subjectively think it is OK to kill in that situation. It doesn't mean they are right but they can still hold that subjective position.

Specifically, you are saying X is morality, and Y is objective.

I don't even know what this means. Do you means X is subjective morality and Y is the objective? If so you can still show Y at the same time X is held. Remember subjective morals don't say anything objective so people can hold them anywhere and everywhere. But in among that, I can still show a particular act is always wrong in that situation even if someone says I think it is subjective (in my personal opinion).

My example is the same. All X is Y, I'm just using "sheep" for X and "black" for Y.

But all X isn't Y.

In both cases, a single example of X that is NOT Y will disprove the claim.

OK, let's make it real. Are you saying that sexually abusing a child for fun can never be objectively wrong because you can show a situation where there are subjective morals? So though we know its always wrong and cannot come up with any reason why it is ever right, it is still not an example of objective morality.

Of course, as an atheist, I do not believe that there is a God, so that argument isn't going to convince me.

But I don't have to convince you about how I know God is the moral lawgiver for objective morality or how I know that objective morals exist to show that there are objective morals. That is more of a question about epistemology, the study of how we know things. Establishing if there are objective morals themselves is more about moral ontology, whether objective morals exist or not.

That's not relevant to what we were discussing.

I'm pointing out that your idea of science is wrong. You claimed that science makes an assumption and then tries to find evidence to support that assumption. This is wrong. Science is not scientists saying, "I think this is how things are, so let's go and find evidence to support that conclusion."

Yes it is. Scientists cannot fully verify that there is no immaterial aspects of existence. So they have to assume that everything is material and then base their predictions and testing on this. This fundamentally how it works. Scientists cannot see macroevolution at work. So they have to make assumptions that based on the micro examples they see that this can be used for how species evolve. I just posted the link for Berley one of the top Universities for the teaching of science and that is what they are saying. Did you look at the link? IE

Science relies on the basic assumption that the reason an object falls to the ground is caused by a natural process called gravity. But scientists can only describe gravity. They don't know what gravity is in the greater scheme of things. So they assume it is caused by a natural process. It could be some strange invisible force put there by God for all we know or some immaterial force we are yet to realize.

No they don't. The evidence comes from the attempts to disprove the idea.

You really don't know how science works, do you?

So why do scientists talk about the evidence for something and not the lack of evidence for something? Like evolution, they talk about the fossil record, microevolution, transitional forms, etc. They don't go looking at all this evidence that shows evolution didn't happen. You cannot prove something through a negative (a lack of evidence). That is not science.

But it seems that you got your sheep example around the wrong way.

The statement that "you can't prove a negative" applies to exclusionary inductive arguments, i.e., arguments that posit the nonexistence of some condition in a sufficiently intractable universe of possibilities. For example,

I have never been to Ashtabula, Ohio.
To prove this, I would have to provide evidence that for every moment of my life, I wasn't in Ashtabula. The inverse argument

I have been to Ashtabula, Ohio
on the other hand, it is relatively easy to demonstrate. I only need evidence of one moment in my life, the one in Ashtabula. If the universe of the claim is sufficiently limited, then it is possible to prove a negative:

Replace the above with

There are no objective moral values
To prove this, you would have to provide evidence for every moral lived experience ever in the world that there wasn't or isn't a situation where there was an objective moral value. The inverse argument

There are objective moral values
On the other hand, it is relatively easy to demonstrate. I only need evidence of one example of objective moral values. If the universe of the claim is sufficiently limited, then it is possible to prove a negative:
Argumentation fallacies: Impossible to prove the non-existing

And yet, morality being subjective explains it very nicely.
Subjective morality explains people's moral behaviour much better than objective morality.

You think so. So let's apply both to the situation. An objective moral position would establish that there is only one moral position to take in that situation. Though sometimes hard to establish it still upholds there is only one best moral position which is based on a morally right value.

But the subjective moral position cannot determine what is the best moral position to take as there are no moral values. What is right and best is a matter of opinion, a "like or dislike" a preference. So someone may run the single person down, another may run the 5 people down, someone else may run the five people down while taking a shot at the single person to try and wipe them all out, another may just jump off the trolley because it's all too hard. It doesn't matter because each action is just as likable or unlikeable as the other because there are no really really right or wrong actions to do.

who would you want driving the trolley someone who is guaranteed to do what is morally right and best or someone who you cannot have confidence in that will do the right thing.

Yes it does. And no you haven't.

Please refer to the above.

 

[stevevw]

"I'm not supposed to"??? Under subjective morality, there is no "should" and "should not", remember?

That's what I said in my first sentence Because subjective morality doesn't have "shouldn't and ought not" that to apply to others.

I can tell people "do" and "don't" all I please.

No that's just another way of saying "should and should not do" or "ought and ought not to do". You are insisting the other person doesn't do something "obviously because it is wrong". That is saying that you know it is objectively wrong. Likewise, if you telling someone to do something as opposed to not do something then you are dictating what the other person should do. Therefore insisting that you know what is best objectively.

If I have the means to force them to behave in a manner I like, why shouldn't I? If I can coerce or persuade them to believe they want to behave in a manner I like, why shouldn't I?

First you are implying force like the other person has no choice. That what they are doing is not just wrong to you but wrong objectively because you are saying their behaviour which is the result of their subjective moral beliefs is objectively wrong. But then you switch to coerce which is more about cooperating and not forcing others to behave in a certain way you think is wrong but they may think is OK.

That is different but that is not what people usually do. They tend to say people shouldn't do that, they ought to do this, they are wrong for doing that and why don't they act more like normal people (me).

There is no answer to those questions because, under subjective morality, there is no "should not". Neither the other person or I am "correct" because there is no "correct", why should I care about that?

That is what I have been saying all along. So taking this to the next point which I have been trying to say is that what we see with individuals, groups, organizations and even societies is that they live out their morality like there are objective moral values. They claim they are morally correct and others are wrong and that others "should and should not" do certain moral acts. I have already given examples.

I know, I know, that makes me sound like a monster. But that really depends on what I'm forcing/coercing/persuading people to do. If I'm getting people to kill each other, you'll say I'm abominable. If I get people to stop killing each other, you'll say I'm heroic. See where this is going?

It doesn't really matter, forcing people to kill or to be kind to each other. You are imposing your subjective moral position onto others who have their own subjective moral position. You are more or less saying my position is ultimately the correct one because you and everyone else I encounter should be doing what I do or say with morality.

 

[stevevw]

Only if you think the Bible is repeating itself. That's not apparent from reading it.

Yes not apparent to you and therefore you are not in a position to make these judgments. I would rather trust a scholar who understands the original language, times, and context to get the right application. The Bible does repeat itself and knowing and understanding the surrounding text and how that fits in with the whole book is important.

You think there are no inconsistencies in the Bible?

There are some inconsistencies but these are not to do with God's divine word but more about how humans are describing something through their eyes associated with times, peoples, and places.

What? I'm saying that people can believe that their moral views are objective even if those views are really just subjective.

Yes, I agree just like ISIS or a Dictatorship. But usually, people who believe this are usually being immoral such as killing innocents, forcing people to do things they don't want.

I've already dealt with the teacher example.

Ah, you asked me how do you or others impose their subjective morality onto others. The list I linked were examples. Are you saying these aren't examples of people pushing their subjective morals onto others?

The second example is just a case of people with a shared subjective opinion. You can't claim that lots of people having that opinion makes it objective, just as the fact that you can get a room full of Star Trek fans saying Trek is better than Star Wars makes that an objective fact.

That is not why I am claiming they are taking an objective moral position. I am claiming that people who support subjective moral positions are taking an objective moral position because they are pushing their moral position onto others. Protesting there is no excuse for viewing and acting in a certain moral way, demanding that certain morals be pushed in society and on others, saying you should not have taken something. These are objective claims.

They are saying that everyone should agree and do what they are claiming and protesting about. Saying that we objectively no what is right and wrong and that everyone should agree and do it. That is an objective position because they have moved from a personal view to pushing that view onto others and saying all other personal views are wrong and not allowed.

So if we applied this to Star Trek fans it would be like them walking down the street protesting and claiming that "Star Wars is morally wrong and people shouldn't watch Star Wars. We objectively know that Star Trek is correct and Star Wars is wrong. We demand Star Trek and there is no excuses for people watching Star Wars. People should watch Star Trek and not Star Wars.

In the third example, the existence of laws that cover moral issues again does not make those morals objective.

It does when it is imposed on others. Whoever has posted that "Don't Steal" is saying you should not steal. You out to not steal. They are objective statements.

Guidelines imposed by companies does not equate to forcing morality on others. It is simply a case of companies not wishing people to use their companies as a billboard for certain views.

Its not certain views but certain morals which are denying peoples the right to their subjective moral position. In other words, they are dictating what morals are OK or not. That's an objective position.

I will come back to the rest of your post soon
Regards
Steve

 

[stevevw]

I see the argument you are trying to make. It just isn't valid.

Thank you. It is good when someone can at least acknowledge the argument being made as it can get to a point where you run out of ways to explain things. But I don't know your reasoning for saying its invalid.

You can't show objectively that we aren't brains in a jar, and you can't show the existence of objective morality.

Exactly, but to defeat the logical arguments you have to show these things. If you cant then we can be justified to go with what we experience being that our physical world is what it is and our moral lived experience is what it is IE it shows that people know that certain things are always wrong regardless of subjective morality. This is observed and supported by the way they react and act morally as with all the examples I am showing where people claim, demand, and impose certain moral values when under subjective morality they cannot do that.

You know the circumference is not a straight line, right?

Yes, but what does the circumference represent. Take away the circumference measurement that can determine an angle and you're only left with a straight line. Remember we are in a world where there are no crooked/angled lines. Just straight lines, any notion of crooked lines will never be discovered or invented.

What question?

Don't worry you have already addressed this above already.

Why do you think we need objective morality to give empathy meaning? Why can't subjective morality give it meaning?

Because subjective views say nothing about moral values remember. They are personal opinions similar to "likes and dislikes", "fashionable and unfashionable" behaviors. Only something that grounds moral values outside humans can be used to measure moral values. Subjectivity is too unreliable and untrustworthy to measure moral values.

So if I see someone who is badly hurt but I do not help them because I lack empathy towards them, I'm not being morally wrong?

Under objective morality, you are being morally wrong. But not under subjective morality. Because of theres no distinction (no way to objective measure) whether someone stopping to help (Empathising) or someone taking advantage and robbing them while their hurt or someone kicking them for being in the way and killing them. All these different positions are just different views of what the person thinks is right, and OK to do.

Someone may think the hurt person is a burden on society and a waste of time and money and put them out of their misery while doing society a favor. That position is not morally wrong under subjective morality. No one can say they are objective wrong or really condemn their actions.

Why not? Why can't we say things like, "I think this is the way things should be," if there's no objective morality?

Because you have taken an objective position. A "should" is an objective position. You think a person "should do something, "should not do something' "should be more like you and "should not hold their subjective moral view as they are wrong. You can only say in my opinion I think they are wrong, but they still have the right to hold that moral position if that's their view. I cannot say they are wrong because then I would be imposing what I view onto them.

Yes you are. Your example specifically said that the prof marked the student down because he didn't like blue folders. What is that if not personal taste?

But the scenario is not saying the teacher has taken an objective position. The teacher has taken the same position as the student so he can prove to him a point. The student said there are no rights and wrongs and everything is subjective. So the teacher copied the student's moral position that there were no rights and wrongs by saying I will mark you down because you have a blue folder. The student protested and said that's not fair.

The teacher said I thought you said there were no rights and wrongs and everything is subjective. I subjectively don't like blue so I marked you down for that. If there are no rights and wrongs then how can the student be upset that when the teacher has simply used the student's own moral philosophy that there are no rights and wrongs. So the teacher's actions are not right or wrong as there are no rights and wrongs according to the student's essay.

The teacher was only joking with him and gave him an A. He was just trying to show the student a point about his moral position and how it can backfire on him. The point is getting sort of lost in all this explaining.

Because for the most part we share moral views. That can happen with subjective morality, you know.

No, it cant. I thought I had just spent time going over this again. You cannot impose your morals on another person under subjective morality. You are saying my morals are ultimately the right one for you and everyone else. You are no longer making it your personal view but also making it other people's morals. That is objective morality IE there is only one set of morals and everyone must conform to that.

No, it just shows that some people lack empathy.

How does reacting to someone who steals from you when you previously said it was OK for them to steal showing empathy. It is showing hypocrisy. You have reneged on your own moral position.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, actually, I find it sloppy. For instance, "beliefs" are in the subjective category. I can believe objective facts.

It doesn’t say subjective can never be verifiable, it says doesn’t have to be verified. But objective does have to be verifiable.

Try these, I find them more accurate and precise:

Objective
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
Subjective
characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind

Okay; yours say subjective is based on thought, where as objective based on something non thinking. I can agree with that!

When you mean "correct" please say "correct" instead of "right". Don't use the same word to mean different things interchangeably.

Fair enough.

So you're asking what's the difference between, for instance, feeling happy and feeling correct? I don't "feel" correct. I feel happy because it's a sensation like touch and smell. I believe I'm correct because I have evidence to consult.

So getting back to post #1553 when you said:

I'm saying it's just feelings and preferences, you're saying that you think you might be correct about what is right and wrong. You're an objectivist. Hate to break it to you.

You were saying you believe morality is just about what makes you feel good, whereas I was believing it is about what is correct concerning right and wrong? If correct in this context means what comes from thought rather than what is objectively proven as fact; I would agree with that statement.

Do you believe you are correct that "murder is wrong"?

Yes. The claim is unverifiable, but I believe that to be true based on what I consider to be fair.
Again; do you believe there are objective moral truths?

 

[Speedwell]

No, it cant. I thought I had just spent time going over this again.

Yes, it can. And you have not spent any time going over it again, all you have done is repeat your error that the only alternate to objective morality is moral nihilism--over and over and over--without once attempting to justify it.

you cannot impose your morals on another person under subjective morality.

You can try, but it's better if you convince them to volunteer.

You are saying my morals are ultimately the right one for you and everyone else.

No, not ultimately; that's your schtick.

You are no longer making it your personal view but also making it other people's morals. That is objective morality IE there is only one set of morals and everyone must conform to that.

No, that is not "objective morality." At least, it is not the objective morality you have been arguing for. Just because a moral precept is universally shared doesn't make it objective.

 

[stevevw]

Number 1: he continues to trot out the Kalam argument after is has been throughly deconstructed. The Kalam cannot get us to a god, but he ignores the clear logic which is unkind to his claim. No expert, active in the field of philosophy (actively publishing) uses the Kalam or a version of it. If someone can find one community college professor out there doing it, I wouldn't be too surprised.

WLC's version of the Kalam looks like this:
(P1)Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
(P2) The universe began to exist.
(C) Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Clearly P2 is not accepted by everyone. It is often argued that all matter and energy could have always existed based on the First Law of Thermodynamics. This is not my opinion by the way; I bring it up merely to show that WLC did not consider other options for P2. There are other models of how the universe may have occurred in its current presentation. P1 and 2 are highly problematic.

Not really. Craig is relying on science and the well-accepted theories by most scientists namely "The Big Bang Theory and "Inflation Theory. Even the scientists who discovered inflation Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin support the idea of the universe having a material beginning. If you want to dispute this then you are shooting science in the foot and undermining one the best theories at the moment to dispute Dr. Craig.

Even if one grants the Kalam argument; it still does not get us to a god. All it would do is show the universe had a root cause.

I am not concerned with proving God in this thread or any thread as that would be impossible directly. I think it may be reasonable support indirectly but that's for another thread.

Lawrence Krauss shows that the universe could have it cause in negative energy. Maybe, I don't know. But it is plausible giving the scientific work Krause presents--again, not necessarily my position.

I think Lawrence Krauss's "nothing form something idea" has been well refuted. Even he admits that.

There are problems with Premise 1 and 2, and, even if grated, the conclusion does not get us to a god--just a cause. Using occurs razor--that cause is likely natural since we don't have examples of the supernatural.

There are foundational problems with his other arguments also.

But none of this is to do with what I have posted from him which is directly related to this thread about objective and subjective morality. You need to read or view what WLC says on the subject and then address what you think he got wrong. Here are some links to make it easier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvhGsEsVda4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxwjTcPW_78
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ-aqnDHqqA

 

[Speedwell]

Not really. Craig is relying on science and the well-accepted theories by most scientists namely "The Big Bang Theory and "Inflation Theory. Even the scientists who discovered inflation Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin support the idea of the universe having a material beginning. If you want to dispute this then you are shooting science in the foot and undermining one the best theories at the moment to dispute Dr. Craig.

Yes. Craig proceeds by mischaracterizing his opponents position and you fall for it hook, line and sinker, just as you have with his arguments about morality.

 

[Caliban]

Not really. Craig is relying on science and the well-accepted theories by most scientists namely "The Big Bang Theory and "Inflation Theory. Even the scientists who discovered inflation Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin support the idea of the universe having a material beginning. If you want to dispute this then you are shooting science in the foot and undermining one the best theories at the moment to dispute Dr. Craig.

I am not concerned with proving God in this thread or any thread as that would be impossible directly. I think it may be reasonable support indirectly but that's for another thread. I think Lawrence Krauss's "nothing form something idea" has been well refuted. Even he admits that.

But none of this is to do with what I have posted from him which is directly related to this thread about objective and subjective morality. You need to read or view what WLC says on the subject and then address what you think he got wrong. Here are some links to make it easier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvhGsEsVda4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxwjTcPW_78
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ-aqnDHqqA

I told you at the beginning of this it had nothing to do with this thread--you wanted reasons of WLC's bad arguments anyway. I gave them, and now you say this isn't the place to discuss it. Wow.

[/QUOTE]
Craig is relying on science and the well-accepted theories by most scientists namely "The Big Bang
Craig is relying on science and the well-accepted theories by most scientists namely "The Big Bang Theory and "Inflation Theory. Even the scientists who discovered inflation Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin support the idea of the universe having a material beginning.

Science can point to the Big Bang. But, there is no reason to think that was the beginning of all matter and energy. The present incarnation of our universe is all we can observe; we don't know if a previous universe collapsed and expanded before the Big Bang. There may have been innumerable cycles of matter and energy forming and collapsing. God is not the only other option. That fact makes the Kalam pointless.

 

[Kylie]

Saying a moral position is correct or incorrect is like saying a color is correct or a flavor is incorrect. It's a category error. I'm arguing with Ken because even though he says that correct/incorrect are inappropriate, he still seems to think right/wrong are appropriate. I thought it was a mere semantic distinction at first, but now...

It's correct to say that moral positions are correct or incorrect IF morality is objective. Objective statements are either correct or incorrect.

Since I do NOT believe morality is objective, I agree with you. At best, we can say a moral position is correct or incorrect for ourselves, but we can't say it's correct or incorrect for others.

 

[Moral Orel]

Okay; yours say subjective is based on thought, where as objective based on something non thinking. I can agree with that!

No, not "based on thought"; based on human perception. I perceive this fire to be hot, I perceive this ice cream to be sweet. The sensation you feel when interacting with the outside world is your perception. I feel happy when I watch comedies, I feel sad when I watch dramas. Those are your perceptions. "Based on thought"? We can objectively analyze objective things without perceiving anything in the outside world. I can conceptualize the equation "2+2=4" in my mind without interacting with the outside world, but I bet you'd call that "thinking" and "based on thought".

I'm saying it's just feelings and preferences, you're saying that you think you might be correct about what is right and wrong. You're an objectivist. Hate to break it to you.

You were saying you believe morality is just about what makes you feel good, whereas I was believing it is about what is correct concerning right and wrong? If correct in this context means what comes from thought rather than what is objectively proven as fact; I would agree with that statement.

Yes. The claim is unverifiable, but I believe that to be true based on what I consider to be fair.

If you believe it to be true, then you believe in objective moral truths.

Here's the thing, you believe it to be true because you're following your feelings, and that's never been a good way to arrive at true things. When things are fair, you feel good, when things are unfair you feel bad. So you believe "murder is wrong" because you feel bad when people do it. Since you aren't making any real statements about something that is objectively true, all you're really saying is "I don't like murder because it makes me feel bad".

Again; do you believe there are objective moral truths?

I don't, but you do.

 

[Kylie]

No, you are forcing them to only have two choices which are not how real situations pan out. Unless in some situations where a person just freaks out and freezes up, they are screaming and yelling to get out of the way. The workers here the screams and look up and see a trolley heading their way. You saying they are not even allowed to scream thus contributing to ensuring the workers don't have any chance of the trolley sneaking upon them. Anyway, I've answered your scenario.

No you haven't. You're trying to argue that the trolley problem situation is one that can never happen in the real world, despite the fact I've already given both a real world application of it and a real world example of it.

But now your just admitting that the driver can in no way be responsible for the accident anyway so that defeats the purpose of your example in trying to lay blame on a driver of an autonomous or manual car. The pedestrian is at fault for stepping out so close to a fast-moving car and from in between parked cars rather than at a crossing. Pedestrians are not meant to be on the road and when they are they need to use the proper places to cross.

But nevertheless, driverless cars have automatic braking systems based on a radar that can pick up an object in front of the car faster than a human can. So they are actually a lifesaving device rather than a hazard in that situation. But either way, the person will be in trouble as that is an unavoidable accident.

You are shifting the goalposts. We are not talking about assigning blame, we are talking about the moral choice of action.

Ok so why didn't they send a warning to evacuate the people in those houses.

How should I know? Do you think the event is imaginary or something because they didn't send a warning? What were they supposed to do, call each and every house on the phone? How long would that have taken, even assuming they already had every single telephone number ready to go? Or maybe they should have sent a car to drive around with a guy yelling out the window? How long would that have taken to arrange?

I already have. I said it would be more morally right to send the trolley down the track with the one person as there is less risk of killing more people. Either way, in your scenario someone is going to be killed. So better to kill one person that 5. Multiple killing is worse than a single killing.

No, you did not answer the question.

You stated that killing the one person is objectively right. But that's not what I asked you, is it? I asked you to explain how you came to that decision. Or are you suggesting that killing one is ALWAY more moral than allowing the deaths of five?

No I'm not. I am not saying all moral acts are objective. I am saying there are objective morals. People can still have subjective morals if there are objective morals. If someone says killing in a particular situation is objectively wrong. A person can still say I subjectively think it is OK to kill in that situation. It doesn't mean they are right but they can still hold that subjective position.

Hang on, strawman argument!

I never said moral acts, did I? I said morality.

Don't misrepresent me.

I don't even know what this means. Do you means X is subjective morality and Y is the objective? If so you can still show Y at the same time X is held. Remember subjective morals don't say anything objective so people can hold them anywhere and everywhere. But in among that, I can still show a particular act is always wrong in that situation even if someone says I think it is subjective (in my personal opinion).

No, I am saying that you are using the argument "All X are Y," in which the letter X represents the word "Morality" and the letter Y represents the word "Objective." It's a shorthand way of representing the structure of an argument. I could easily use nonsense words if you like. All Jutts are Splets. In our discussion, Jutts is a word meaning "morals" and Splets is a word meaning "Objective."

But all X isn't Y.

If you understand the concept here, then you understood it just a moment ago when you claimed you didn't know what it meant. On the other hand, if you were being honest when you claimed you didn't know what I meant, then I don't see how you can know what it means now in order to make this claim.

Either way, one of your statements is not true.

OK, let's make it real. Are you saying that sexually abusing a child for fun can never be objectively wrong because you can show a situation where there are subjective morals? So though we know its always wrong and cannot come up with any reason why it is ever right, it is still not an example of objective morality.

I am saying that NOTHING can ever be objectively moral or immoral because there is no such thing as objective morality.

Of course, you once again go to the extreme example to try to prove your point. Remember how I said that people who wanted to argue moral objectivity always go to the extreme examples that most people tend to agree on because they can't prove their point with less extreme examples, even though if there really was an objective morality they should be able to do so easily? This is a perfect example. Thank you for proving my point.

But I don't have to convince you about how I know God is the moral lawgiver for objective morality or how I know that objective morals exist to show that there are objective morals. That is more of a question about epistemology, the study of how we know things. Establishing if there are objective morals themselves is more about moral ontology, whether objective morals exist or not.

Of course, what you claim to know as a subjective fact, I'd say is just your subjective opinion. It is you subjective opinion that God exists, and it is your subjective opinion that God is the moral lawgiver.

Yes it is. Scientists cannot fully verify that there is no immaterial aspects of existence. So they have to assume that everything is material and then base their predictions and testing on this. This fundamentally how it works. Scientists cannot see macroevolution at work. So they have to make assumptions that based on the micro examples they see that this can be used for how species evolve. I just posted the link for Berley one of the top Universities for the teaching of science and that is what they are saying. Did you look at the link? IE

Science relies on the basic assumption that the reason an object falls to the ground is caused by a natural process called gravity. But scientists can only describe gravity. They don't know what gravity is in the greater scheme of things. So they assume it is caused by a natural process. It could be some strange invisible force put there by God for all we know or some immaterial force we are yet to realize.

And your link says that these are recognised as ASSUMPTIONS. They are not being presented as objective fact.

So why do scientists talk about the evidence for something and not the lack of evidence for something? Like evolution, they talk about the fossil record, microevolution, transitional forms, etc. They don't go looking at all this evidence that shows evolution didn't happen. You cannot prove something through a negative (a lack of evidence). That is not science.

But it seems that you got your sheep example around the wrong way.

The statement that "you can't prove a negative" applies to exclusionary inductive arguments, i.e., arguments that posit the nonexistence of some condition in a sufficiently intractable universe of possibilities. For example,

I have never been to Ashtabula, Ohio.
To prove this, I would have to provide evidence that for every moment of my life, I wasn't in Ashtabula. The inverse argument

I have been to Ashtabula, Ohio
on the other hand, it is relatively easy to demonstrate. I only need evidence of one moment in my life, the one in Ashtabula. If the universe of the claim is sufficiently limited, then it is possible to prove a negative:

Replace the above with

There are no objective moral values
To prove this, you would have to provide evidence for every moral lived experience ever in the world that there wasn't or isn't a situation where there was an objective moral value. The inverse argument

There are objective moral values
On the other hand, it is relatively easy to demonstrate. I only need evidence of one example of objective moral values. If the universe of the claim is sufficiently limited, then it is possible to prove a negative:
Argumentation fallacies: Impossible to prove the non-existing

Unfortunately you get this wrong.

You are arguing that ALL morality is objective. I can prove you wrong by posting a single counterexample.

Let's use another example.

You might tell me that all prime numbers must be odd. There can never be an even prime number, you say! I then point out that the number 2 is both even and a prime. I have proved your claim wrong with a single example.

Want another one? Ever heard of Fermat's Last Theorem? It's related to the Pythagorean theorem which states that if you have a right angled triangle, and label the sides A, B, and C where C is the longest side, then A squared plus B squared equals C squared.

Fermat's last Theorem says that if we can never find an example of this if instead of squaring it, we raise it to some number higher than two. For centuries, people looked for a proof of this, but could find nothing, even though they never found any cases where a number higher than two worked. Because they knew that even though every time they tried it, it fit with Fermat's rule, they could never be sure that the next one they tried wouldn't prove it wrong.

So a single example is all I need, and the trolley problem is just such an example.

Besides, you still haven't actually proved that morality is objective. All you've done is say that morals are objective because lots of people have similar morals. And then tried to make excuses for whenever people have different morals.

You think so. So let's apply both to the situation. An objective moral position would establish that there is only one moral position to take in that situation. Though sometimes hard to establish it still upholds there is only one best moral position which is based on a morally right value.

But the subjective moral position cannot determine what is the best moral position to take as there are no moral values. What is right and best is a matter of opinion, a "like or dislike" a preference. So someone may run the single person down, another may run the 5 people down, someone else may run the five people down while taking a shot at the single person to try and wipe them all out, another may just jump off the trolley because it's all too hard. It doesn't matter because each action is just as likable or unlikeable as the other because there are no really really right or wrong actions to do.

who would you want driving the trolley someone who is guaranteed to do what is morally right and best or someone who you cannot have confidence in that will do the right thing.

No. Subjective morality doesn't imply that different choices are equivalent.

And you have not shown that there is one demosntrably correct choice to make in this situation.

Please refer to the above.

Please do the same.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's correct to say that moral positions are correct or incorrect IF morality is objective. Objective statements are either correct or incorrect.

Since I do NOT believe morality is objective, I agree with you. At best, we can say a moral position is correct or incorrect for ourselves, but we can't say it's correct or incorrect for others.

They aren't even correct/incorrect for us. "I should do this because it makes me feel good" and "I should not do this because it makes me feel bad" is all we're ultimately saying.

 

[Moral Orel]

No that's just another way of saying "should and should not do" or "ought and ought not to do".

No, it's not. If a bank robber says, "Give me all the money out of your register or I'll shoot you" he isn't telling the teller that giving him the money is the objectively correct thing to do. He's telling her to do something, and threatening force if her behavior doesn't comply with what he wants.

 

[Kylie]

Yes not apparent to you and therefore you are not in a position to make these judgments. I would rather trust a scholar who understands the original language, times, and context to get the right application. The Bible does repeat itself and knowing and understanding the surrounding text and how that fits in with the whole book is important.

I love this. I'm not allowed to comment on the Bible because I don't agree with your interpretation of it?

Anyway, if you want the opinion of a Bible scholar, how about Dr Hugh Houghton, who says the Bible should not be taken literally? 'Don't take the Bible literally' says scholar who brought to light earliest Latin analysis of the Gospels

There are some inconsistencies but these are not to do with God's divine word but more about how humans are describing something through their eyes associated with times, peoples, and places.

Excuses, excuses.

Yes, I agree just like ISIS or a Dictatorship. But usually, people who believe this are usually being immoral such as killing innocents, forcing people to do things they don't want.

Wait...

Are you suggesting that people who think morality is objective are generally being immoral?

Ah, you asked me how do you or others impose their subjective morality onto others. The list I linked were examples. Are you saying these aren't examples of people pushing their subjective morals onto others?

Are you suggesting that the teacher not liking the colour blue was a moral issue?

That is not why I am claiming they are taking an objective moral position. I am claiming that people who support subjective moral positions are taking an objective moral position because they are pushing their moral position onto others. Protesting there is no excuse for viewing and acting in a certain moral way, demanding that certain morals be pushed in society and on others, saying you should not have taken something. These are objective claims.

They are saying that everyone should agree and do what they are claiming and protesting about. Saying that we objectively no what is right and wrong and that everyone should agree and do it. That is an objective position because they have moved from a personal view to pushing that view onto others and saying all other personal views are wrong and not allowed.

So if we applied this to Star Trek fans it would be like them walking down the street protesting and claiming that "Star Wars is morally wrong and people shouldn't watch Star Wars. We objectively know that Star Trek is correct and Star Wars is wrong. We demand Star Trek and there is no excuses for people watching Star Wars. People should watch Star Trek and not Star Wars.

Wow.

Subjective morality does NOT require people to go around demanding that others share the same views.

If anything, it's the people who claim there is an objective morality who would seem to be more likely to do that.

It does when it is imposed on others. Whoever has posted that "Don't Steal" is saying you should not steal. You out to not steal. They are objective statements.

So what? I know plenty of people who ask me to remove my shoes when I visit their homes. It's just another example of subjective morality. The only difference is that the "stealing is wrong" is a moral view shared by many people, while the removing shoes one is shared by fewer people.

Its not certain views but certain morals which are denying peoples the right to their subjective moral position. In other words, they are dictating what morals are OK or not. That's an objective position.

No it's not.

The companies are not saying, "You are not allowed to hold those views." The companies are saying, "You can hold those views, but if you do, we don't want to be associated with you, and we don't want you to use our company to express those views."