Where does morality come from?

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yes, it would be the objectively right thing to do in the situation you have created.

Then you have no problem with killing an organ donor so their organs can be used to save five other people? (Actually, an organ donor can save eight people, so that's three extra people!)
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No it's not. The Trolley problem specifically says you see a trolley coming along a track and it's going to run down 5 people. Do you change the track so that it misses those 5 people and hits 1 person instead? So not changing the track you are saying you will allow the trolley to hit the 5 people. That is the idea of the Trolley thought experiment to see if someone will take action to avoid something worse happening.


But if you don't change the track, the outcome is the same as if there was no one there at all.

Therefore in the Trolly problem there are only 2 choices. What I am saying is that as you and I have indicated that choosing to avoid mass murder and more misery, loss is the right option. That's because it is always the right option. Any other option is objectively wrong regardless of what a person's subjective opinion is.

So it is objectively right to kill a five year old to save the lives of 5 ninety year olds?

First the trolley problem does not specify that. You are adding further criteria to the equation. Then you open the door to add other stuff when you were insistent that I could not change anything in the trolley problem like there were brakes on the trolley or I could beep the trolley horn to warn the people. Otherwise, I could say what if the 5-year old was had a severe disability or was a diagnosed psycho maniac.

But the other factor about why it is right to kill 1 rather than 5 is that you are multiplying the killing and doing mass murder (more of a bad thing) is always seen as a greater wrong regardless of the circumstances of the age and background.

So you assign equal value to all lives? A ninety year old's life has the same value as a five year old?


I think we have misunderstood each other. I was stating that two people who both support objective morality IE two Christians will come to the same objective moral position. I wasn't trying to prove objective morality but to show how people who support objective morality will have the same morals.

Except many Christians have very different views.

Your claims don't seem to apply to reality.

Actually I think you are not understanding the true implications of subjective views when it comes to morality. If subjective morality is similar to a persons "likes and dislikes" for food for example (choc icecream v vanilla) then how is there a distinction.

Applied to morality it doesn't matter if one chooses choc as opposed to vanilla (moral view A or B) as "likes and dislikes" don't say anything about what is correct or right. You cannot say that your moral option (personal like) is more correct than someone else no more than you can say you're like for Vanilla icecream is correct as opposed to someone else's like for choc. So whether applied to like or dislikes or morality the subjective choices are equal in the overall scheme of things IE ultimately.

Still doesn't make any difference.

I like chocolate cake. I do not like custard tarts. If someone offers me a choice between chocolate cake or custard tarts for desert, the two choices are not equal to me.

Why is it scary.

That you would kill so readily.

Therefore it is not the same as the Trolley Problem. The Trolley problem only allows for the person operating the trolley to make the decision to switch tracks not some detached person who cannot see what is happening.

So what? Some person still has to make the decision as to what will happen.

Yes, the same person who designed the brakes which will stop the car and avoid knocking down the pedestrian faster than any human reaction.

Once again you seem to think that a car's brakes wills top the car instantly. They do not work that way.

But if you read the article I linked it states that machines are not human and cannot think like humans as far as how other drivers and pedestrians act no matter how you program them. That is what the experts are saying is why it is a wrong comparison to the Trolley problem because the Trolley problem is about the person at the scene (a human) seeing what is happening and changing the tracks accordingly. IE

The Trolley Dilemma has also been applied to autonomous vehicles, since in the face of a potential accident, the software may be required to decide between several courses of action. That’s despite the fact that it’s considered an extremely flawed way to think about a complicated problem by prominent ethicists and researchers.

Humans are not robots and can anticipate unpredictable situations, do other people's thinking to anticipate something happening. A robot (automated car) can never be programmed to do that, therefore, using it in a trolley thought experiment is as they say a terrible model for the Trolley problem.

So you are saying it's a subjective situation and that's why Humans are better at it?

Now you're adding new additions to the Trolley problem which you said we cant do. You said the people were workers on the Trolley lines. If they are just workers then they would be more aware of looking for something coming. After all, they are working on a trolley line where Trolley comes along.

You know mistakes happen right? Do you honestly think rail workers are never hit by trains?

Though I gave the objective moral position for it my objection was about having to consider such an unreal situation in the first place. Because if all options were available then the objectively right thing to do would be what most people would do and that is to beep the horn and yell to the workers or yell and beep to get someone else to warn and get the workers off the track and avoid killing anyone at all.

And in the real world situation I linked to, these options were not available because there was no one on the train.

But you have made the trolley problem that way and taken away those real-life options. What the ethical experts were complaining about was how unreal the situation was with all the examples. You are denying human agency which is capable of extraordinary things when trying to save lives in a crisis situation and ironically are making humans robots.

There's no guarantee that those options would be there if it happened in real life.

But then that would not be the Trolley problem as a small amount of damage is different from killing someone. It is different because the Trolley problem only has tow options kill 5 or kill 1 in hitting a switch. A car heading towards a pedestrian who they may kill and swerves away from that into an unknown there is no definite killing for that option thus the moral dilemma is different.

Yeah, because the trolley problem is nice and simple, a fact which has lead you to criticise it. In real life the problem would be a lot more difficult to figure out, and yet you STILL claim there is an objective solution! How can that be when there are a near infinite number of variables?

Most people would probably hit the brakes but this is not allowed or you saying the person must die anyway. So then most people will swerve away thinking that they will avoid killing the pedestrian. But unlike the Trolley problem, they will not know or think they are definitely going to kill someone else as a result.

As I've said before, brakes do not stop the car instantly. Also, as I've also said, this introduces many more variables which make it impossible to form an objective judgement about it.

They cannot be held responsible because they are not driving the car.

Theys till have to live with the fact that they were in a car that ran people down. Do you think that would be traumatic for them?

That may be a lawsuit but for morality it is different. The programmer has not intended to kill anyone, they are not actively involved in killing anyone at the scene. They have programmed the car to do everything they can do to act like a human if not better. At worst they may be indirectly culpable but moral wise they have not committed any intentional act. But applying all this to your situation where a person darts out from between parked cars illegally then the fault will mostly lie with the pedestrian.

Wait, now youa re saying that the car is programmed to act like a HUman? Earlier, weren't you saying that the car couldn't make decisions like a HUman?

Your assuming a lot. The 5-year-old may be a cripple who is suffering every day of their life. They may drown in an accident the next day. The 5 ninety-year-olds may be nuns who are helping thousands of 5-year-olds to have better happier lives thus prolonging their lives. They may be passing their knowledge onto others so that it continues a legacy. They may be grandmothers of 5-year-olds who play an integral part in a larger family unit that thrives with them there.

Your only looking at the quantity and not quality and that's a bad way to determine things. As we will never know all these factors it is a risky general rule to apply. I think killing a number of people as opposed to 1 is wrong and has more risks associated. It is wrong to multiply the act of killing regardless of age. If the crime of murder more wrong whether its an old person or a young person morally. Do they get a longer sentence under the law?

So maybe if I am driving and I see a kid jump out in front of me I shouldn't slow down because that kid could grow up to be an evil serial killer. Do you see how stupid that kind of "what-if" argument is?

We don't know as the trolley problem doesn't allow for any consideration of these factory brakes. You've got to assume that somehow the brakes were not working or there were no brakes. Otherwise, if there were brakes we could perhaps look at someone else not ensuring the brakes were working properly or sabotage from a 3rd party.

That's why it's unreal. It takes away human agency and disallows what any normal human would do which is "Do absolutely everything within their power to avoid killing anyone. When someone is able to do that it diminishes their moral accountability as they at least tried.

You seem determined to show that this kind of situation could never happen in the real world, when in fact it can.

But unlike the trolley problem, it changes the fact that he knows his decision it will not definitely result in the death of someone. Therefore diminished responsibility IE accidental harm or death and not an intentional killing. For morality that's a big difference as it is about intentions.

So if someone dies, it's morally wrong, but if someone dies and the person says, "But I didn't know for sure that it would happen," it's better?
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Morality is about the intention to do wrong and the programmer when designing a program has no intention to kill anyone. In fact, the programmer programs the car so that it saves lives. Therefore their intention is to save lives. No moral wrong has been committed.

So when you switch the trolley to the track with one person, you are doing something morally wrong?

Then if someone cuts your brakes and you end up swerving to miss a pedestrian because you find there are no brakes and kill someone doesn't the fault for that incident lies with the person who cut the brakes.

Stop making it about who is to blame when the situation is about what your response is.

No I'm not moving the goalposts I just misunderstood what you said when you said: "I can have an objective viewpoint that morality is subjective". Because that implies that you truly know that all morality is subjective. You didn't clarify that you were only talking about your view being objective about your subjective morality.

It was obvious to anyone who understood what subjective and objective mean.

But that was not my claim. Once again I claimed that objective morality exists. That is different from saying it exists in all situations. Therefore to show that objective morality exists I only need to show it exists once.

So lemme get this straight.

I asked you if there was an objective morality that applies to every single moral situation.

You said yes.

Now you say that the objective morality that applies to every single moral situation doesn't exist in every single moral situation.

Do you see why I don't take your claims seriously?

Lived experience is how people live, how they act/react in situations. That is objective. How you behave in a given situation is an objective observation. Scientists can observe how something happens and behaves and can draw conclusions from this. If someone says I never get angry but then acts/reacts/behaves angrily then we have objective evidence they do behave angrily. We observe the behavior of someone to determine mental illness.

So if someone says I my view it is OK for someone to steal something to make their life better but then reacts against someone who steals from them we can see that they acted contradictory to their view and really believe it is wrong to steal from others. So we can observe people's moral positions in the way they act/react. People act/react as though morality is objective IE that certain things are always wrong. That is the lived experience we can be justified in believing that there is objective morality.

No, this is the objective claim that people have subjective experiences.

The fact that people have these experiences is objectively true, but the experiences themselves are subjective.

Once again I never said that. I said if I wanted to show there was such a thing as mental illness then I only have to show one case of mental illness.

See my response above...

No, I am saying when you say There are things that I believe are morally wrong and I could never support. But that doesn't mean that they are objectively wrong.
I am saying that subjective morality forbids you from saying that certain things are definitely always wrong no matter what the subjective opinion. That seems counterproductive in that you may believe that evil act can never ever be a good act to do but you are restricted in your subjective position to say that as it goes against subjective morality.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

I wasn't trying to make that connection. I agree that it doesn't show that the moral objective is true. I am more so appealing to a persons intuition and sense of right and wrong. I am asking why people don't acknowledge that certain evil acts are always wrong regardless of how people justify them under subjective morality. It seems a subjective position forbids them from ever admitting this.

There's no evidence that a person's intuition is objective.

I think this is beginning to become a cop-out. Sometimes it is because everyone believes it is always wrong to do something that makes it objectively wrong and they don't have to believe in God to think that. There are a lot of non-religious people who think certain things are always wrong and therefore objectively wrong. They view people who think that things like sexually abusing a kid as ok and can never be seen as always wrong as sick and deranged.

I thought you said that you weren't trying to use the "Lots of people have the same moral, so that means that particular moral is objectively true" argument. You seem quite happy to use it here.

Like I said I think some under subjective morality is forced or programmed to stick to the mantra that something can never be said to be objectively wrong because that will undermine the subjectivist's position. even if that means denying it against all odds and their intuition.

Why do you think I am saying that if something is wrong it must be OBJECTIVELY wrong?

Then you don't understand logical arguments. Are you telling me you cannot see the difference between the following positions?

Positive claim.
Steve says that there is such a thing as objective morality. Therefore Steve only has to show one example to show that there is objective morality.
Negative claim. Kylie claims there is no objective morality. Kylie cannot prove this by just showing one example as there may be another situation with objective morality. So she has to show every single moral situation to show that there is no objective morality to prove her claim.

Not double standards but two completely different claims.

If Steve is claiming that objective morality applies to all situations (which you agreed was the case), then showing that objective morality applies to one situation does not prove his point, because said objective morality may apply to only a small number of moral situations, not all of them. In order for Steve to show that objective morality applies to all moral situations, Steve must show it for all moral situations. Any moral situations Steve does NOT show that objective morality applies to could be the situations to which objective morality does not apply.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,577
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I’ve read the whole thing. Participated in it. And I don’t see any reason to point out again what other people already have tried to get you to see.
Yet you say I am definitely wrong about what I fail to see. How is that not taking an objective position? You just proved that what I was saying was correct.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,577
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But if you don't change the track, the outcome is the same as if there was no one there at all.
Then it's not a Trolley problem anymore, there's no one there to be held accountable for doing anything. It has to have a person there making the choice to make it a dilemma.

So it is objectively right to kill a five year old to save the lives of 5 ninety year olds?
Mass murder is always worse.

So you assign equal value to all lives? A ninety-year-old's life has the same value as a five year old?
Quantity as in age is not the only way to value life. Didn't you understand the logic about how the quality that people's lives have on others and even themselves is important as well? What if the child is severely crippled or has cancer. What if the old people increase the quantity of life for others because they have a qualitative effect on 5-year-olds and their families.


Except many Christians have very different views.
Christ's teaching show a clear moral code. There is no ambiguity. That's why Christ taught in parables so that it was clear and people understood and could not misinterpret things.
Your claims don't seem to apply to reality.
Yet when I refer to lived experience (reality) you say that doesn't prove anything. Saying that there may be some people who disagree with Christ's teachings prove that God's laws are subjective is a logical fallacy. All it shows is that some people are not practicing Christianity despite claiming they do.

You make the mistake of thinking just because someone says they are a Christian that they are also living as a Christian. As I said Christ's teachings are clear so we have a good reference point to use to see if people are living as Christian or not.

Still doesn't make any difference.
I like chocolate cake. I do not like custard tarts. If someone offers me a choice between chocolate cake or custard tarts for desert, the two choices are not equal to me.
You are not understanding the logic. It is not about what you eat, it is about "likes and dislikes" in tastes of food when applying it to moral right and wrong. So therefore under your example applying it to morality, it would be like saying to someone you are wrong and incorrect in liking custard tarts because Choc cake is the correct and right one for people to like.

There is no difference in "liking or disliking" choc cake/icecream or vanilla icecream, custard tart, or apple pie. So when a person says they like not stealing as opposed to stealing there is no distinction as far as 'likes and dislikes" in tastes are concerned.

That you would kill so readily.
Why is killing wrong.

So what? Some person still has to make the decision as to what will happen.
No, they are programming a machine to make the decision. The machine has been giving a set of instructions to make the decision in that situation. In no way is the programmer making any decision themselves to choose to run down a person or crash into cars. That is what the experts were saying. Do you disagree with what the expert ethicists are saying? IE "That's despite the fact". Facts are objectively right.

That’s despite the fact that it’s considered an extremely flawed way to think about a complicated problem by prominent ethicists and researchers.
Why the Trolley Dilemma is a terrible model for trying to make self-driving cars safer
Once again you seem to think that a car's brakes wills top the car instantly. They do not work that way.
Good at least you are allowing brakes to be included, unlike the Trolley problem. What about beeping a horn. So saying that the brakes won't stop the car in time is implying that there was a very short distance between the car and the pedestrian. That would imply that the pedestrian came out from nowhere (between parked cars) and ran in front of the car. If that's the case then the driver is not at fault. The pedestrian was jaywalking which is against the road rule laws and therefore is responsible for the accident.

So you are saying it's a subjective situation and that's why humans are better at it?
No I am simply saying that the Trolley problem requires a person with intentions for choosing the right or wrong option. A machine cannot do that as it has no intentions. In case you use the programmer as mentioned above the programmer's intentions are to save lives so he has no intention to harm or kill anyone. Therefore the Trolley problem doesn't work here.

You know mistakes happen right? Do you honestly think rail workers are never hit by trains?
But in those situations no one has chosen to kill them. If its a mistake it is usually "I didn't see them", "they ran out in front of me" etc. In that case, there is no intention, therefore, no culpability for intentional killing. But acknowledging mistakes happen also means that mistakes can be avoided and that the killing can be avoided. So in you introducing extra criteria to the Trolley problem you are opening the door for other alternatives. That's good because that is what real life is about.

And in the real world situation I linked to, these options were not available because there was no one on the train.
But unlike the Trolley problem the person changing the track has no intention of killing anyone. There is no one on the track that he knows will most certainly be killed by sending the carriage in that direction. Therefore no culpability.

There's no guarantee that those options would be there if it happened in real life.
That's not the point. It is taking all that away and denying human agency to even try (succeed or fail) in the first place that is unreal.

In fact, as the ethical experts said it is damaging to the human psyche as it forces people into unreal traumatic situations where they cannot do anything. When they are in a real situation it can cause people to take the trolley options rather than try everything to save people.

Yeah, because the trolley problem is nice and simple, a fact which has lead you to criticize it.
No lead expert ethicists who are far more knowledgable about this than you or I to criticize it.
In real life, the problem would be a lot more difficult to figure out, and yet you STILL claim there is an objective solution! How can that be when there are a near-infinite number of variables?
At least its real-life and allowing human agency. You don't seem to understand the difference. It doesn't matter even if a person tries and fails to save the people. It is the fact that they are allowed to try that is important. It allows agency and this is what reduces the persons culpability because they never intended for anyone to be killed. But the Trolley problem denies all that and forces the person to be a robot suppressing all their natural tendencies to try and save the person. That's why it's unreal.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,577
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
As I've said before, brakes do not stop the car instantly. Also, as I've also said, this introduces many more variables that make it impossible to form an objective judgment about it.
You don't seem to realize the importance of intension when it comes to morality. If you have brakes or try to avoid killing someone and still fail, you are showing you had no intention of killing someone. Its called an accident and accidents don't usually mean someone has intentionally killed anyone therefore their culpability is reduced.

For example, stealing a toy from a shop is wrong. You intentionally took the toy. But if your toddler picked the toy up and put it in your handbag while you were looking at other stuff and then you got caught though the law may say you stole, morally you have not don't anything wrong. It was an accident.

Theys till have to live with the fact that they were in a car that ran people down. Do you think that would be traumatic for them?
Of course it would be. But does that make them guilty of committing a moral wrong to kill someone? They didn't make the choice to run the person down. Feeling traumatic is not a measure of doing morally wrong. A passenger can feel traumatized by the same event.

Wait, now you're saying that the car is programmed to act like a HUman? Earlier, weren't you saying that the car couldn't make decisions like a HUman?
There's a big difference in acting and thinking like a human. An automatic vacuum is supposed to act like a human vacuuming the floor. But it cannot think or make a decision if, for example, wants to avoid knocking over a glass of water left on the floor which someone later slips on and injures themselves.

So maybe if I am driving and I see a kid jump out in front of me I shouldn't slow down because that kid could grow up to be an evil serial killer. Do you see how stupid that kind of "what-if" argument is?
But you began the what-if scenario by adding in what if its a 5-year-old kid and 5 old people. All I am doing is playing your game.

You seem determined to show that this kind of situation could never happen in the real world, when in fact it can.
The only real-life example you showed with the runaway carriage was not the same as the Trolley situation. I showed this logically. Nor is the automatic car applicable which I have shown logically but I am also supported by experts in ethics. Who am I to believe you who have no expert knowledge in this area and are biased towards wanting it to apply or logic and the experts who are independent.

But all that doesn't matter because I went along with your thought experiment anyway pretending that there was no choice and humans couldn't act like humans and gave you what was the objectively right thing to do. Objective morality can apply to all situations.

So if someone dies, it's morally wrong, but if someone dies and the person says, "But I didn't know for sure that it would happen," it's better?
Of course. In one scenario someone knows there is someone on the track and therefore are intentionally killing them. In the other scenario, there is no intention to kill. At the very least its an accident and not culpable homicide. How has the track controller intentionally killed anyone? He didn't know what would happen but the person in the Trolley dilemma did, it was either kill 1 or kill5. For the track controller, anything was possible.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,577
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Why is that not a subjective position?
Because if it was a subjective position then no one can say anyone is really wrong. What should have been said is "in my opinion, you are wrong but you have a right to your opinion which you also believe is right". But neither of us can say that either is really wrong because we just don't know apart from our personal opinions. So we cannot really enforce our views about being wrong on each other without qualifying that its just a personal view.

The best way to see this clearly is to go through what the outcome would be. So person A says person B is wrong. Person B says how do you know I am wrong. Person A says because it is my personal opinion you are wrong. Person B says but that doesn't mean I am really wrong. Stalemate no one can say the other is really wrong. Saying someone is wrong in their personal opinion means nothing to the other person nor in the overall scheme of things.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,577
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So when you switch the trolley to the track with one person, you are doing something morally wrong?
Or you are doing what is the objectively right thing to do in that situation. Isn't saving 5 lives also good morally. Remember the person only has two choices. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Stop making it about who is to blame when the situation is about what your response is.
OK then in the automatic car scenario no one is responding.

So lemme get this straight.

I asked you if there was an objective morality that applies to every single moral situation.

You said yes.

Now you say that the objective morality that applies to every single moral situation doesn't exist in every single moral situation.

Do you see why I don't take your claims seriously?
Your getting confused about what we were talking about. I only made the claim that I only have to show objective morality exists once to show that objective morality exists. I didn't make the claim that I only have to show objective morality exists to show it exists in all situations. I repeated that several times but for some reason, you have confused the two different situations.

And just to be clear I agree that I would have to show objective morality in all situations if I did make the claim that objective morality exists in all situations. That would be a big task and take forever.

The fact that people have these experiences is objectively true, but the experiences themselves are subjective.
Don't you mean what they thought about the experience or situation was subjective. The actual acting out, the observed behavior is objective. It can be measured. IE in a bank robbery despite the witnesses having subjective views it can be objectively shown that the robbers did have a gun, they did point it at the teller, they did take money.

From the witnesses, we can determine objectives in the consistencies of their statements. They all said there were 2 robbers, one robber was aggressive and making demands shouting to give the money, etc. This can also be verified by CCTV footage.

So when applied to morality despite a person's subjective moral view about something we can observe and measure their moral behavior. Despite saying stealing is wrong they stole, despite saying stealing is OK they condemned people who steal, despite saying there is no ultimate right and wrong they acted and behaved like some things are always right and wrong. That's the moral lived experience. We can see it and measure it and if it was recorded we would have CCTV evidence of it. So we have objective evidence that people act like morals are objective.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.
OK, I will put it another way. If someone molested a 2-year-old and brutally bashed them would you say that is act is always evil and wrong and that no one could ever justify it as being OK to do?

There's no evidence that a person's intuition is objective.
That is not what I am talking about. Intuition call it "inner knowledge", a "gut feeling" which could be acquired by a range of influences, be it natural laws, an inner sense of what is right and wrong. It is a good indicator of determining when something just doesn't sit right. What I am saying is that we all have this and it tells us that certain things are always evil no matter what people say. When someone is trying to rationalise or justify something good when you know it is bad it just doesn't sit right.

I thought you said that you weren't trying to use the "Lots of people have the same moral, so that means that particular moral is objectively true" argument. You seem quite happy to use it here.
I only said that as you were getting upset that I kept referring to it. But as I said that is part of the support for objective morality. Yes, it can be a (logical fallacy of popularity) that just because many do it doesn't mean its right or is. But at the same time, it can be used as indirect support along with other supports that add up to a strong case.

As I said with the logical argument based on moral lived experience and comparing it to our lived experience with the physical world. It is not just that many people may do something but it is also the way they do it. When they act against their own subjective moral position this is showing that some inner intuition is causing them to contradict themselves and act truthfully.

Why do you think I am saying that if something is wrong it must be OBJECTIVELY wrong?
I am not sure. Because you're having a dig at me perhaps.

If Steve is claiming that objective morality applies to all situations (which you agreed was the case), then showing that objective morality applies to one situation does not prove his point, because said objective morality may apply to only a small number of moral situations, not all of them
Agreed.
In order for Steve to show that objective morality applies to all moral situations, Steve must show it for all moral situations. Any moral situations Steve does NOT show that objective morality applies to could be the situations to which objective morality does not apply.
Agreed.

But what if Steve only claims that "Objective morality exists". Then he only has to show that objective morality exists once.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,577
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Then you have no problem with killing an organ donor so their organs can be used to save five other people? (Actually, an organ donor can save eight people, so that's three extra people!)
No you cannot kill someone for their organs unless they have given permission to do so when they were in a situation where they were dying. It is one thing to have an imaginary thought experiment where we make a choice to switch the Trolley down the track with one person on it as opposed to 5 where we are detached from physically interacting with that person. But it is another to actively kill an innocent person who is not involved by doing the physical act yourself.

Here is a good little video that explains this quite well. The 1st video though it doesn't use the organ transplant example does use a different situation of pushing someone in front of the trolly thus physically involving and innocent. The 2nd video though longer covers the organ transplant situation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guyBWVPw6Bs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Because if it was a subjective position then no one can say anyone is really wrong. What should have been said is "in my opinion, you are wrong but you have a right to your opinion which you also believe is right". But neither of us can say that either is really wrong because we just don't know apart from our personal opinions. So we cannot really enforce our views about being wrong on each other without qualifying that its just a personal view.
I disagree! What you are describing moral relativism
Moral relativism - Wikipedia

To believe someone is wrong based on subjectivity does not mean you believe others have a right to a different opinion. As you can see from the link below, that which is objective is always verifiable; that which is subjective is based on beliefs, perspectives, and opinions and do not need to be verifiable.
Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms

The best way to see this clearly is to go through what the outcome would be. So person A says person B is wrong. Person B says how do you know I am wrong. Person A says because it is my personal opinion you are wrong. Person B says but that doesn't mean I am really wrong. Stalemate no one can say the other is really wrong. Saying someone is wrong in their personal opinion means nothing to the other person nor in the overall scheme of things.
Consider this outcome:
Person A says person B is wrong. Person B says how do you know I am wrong. Person A says because person “X” (person “X” could be his God of choice, the guy down the street who wrote a book on morals, or even person “A”) says it is wrong. Person B says; I believe your person “X” is wrong, I do not accept person “X” as always right.
Stalemate; no one can say the other is really wrong. Saying someone is wrong based on what someone else said means nothing to the other person nor in the overall scheme of things.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Because if it was a subjective position then no one can say anyone is really wrong. What should have been said is "in my opinion, you are wrong but you have a right to your opinion which you also believe is right". But neither of us can say that either is really wrong because we just don't know apart from our personal opinions. So we cannot really enforce our views about being wrong on each other without qualifying that its just a personal view.

The best way to see this clearly is to go through what the outcome would be. So person A says person B is wrong. Person B says how do you know I am wrong. Person A says because it is my personal opinion you are wrong. Person B says but that doesn't mean I am really wrong. Stalemate no one can say the other is really wrong. Saying someone is wrong in their personal opinion means nothing to the other person nor in the overall scheme of things.


Where is this ”objective morality”? How do I find it? Why does it matter?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,577
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Where is this ”objective morality”? How do I find it?
It's in the way people act/react. People react like some things are always right and wrong regardless of their claims to subjective morality.
Why does it matter?
It matters because it matters to people when they act/react like some things are always right and wrong. It matters because if there are no moral values beyond humans that can be independently measured then there is no real right and wrong or ultimate moral duty and accountability.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It's in the way people act/react. People react like some things are always right and wrong regardless of their claims to subjective morality.
That’s the way subjective morality works! Sounds like you’re still confusing subjective morality with moral relativism. There is a difference ya know!
It matters because it matters to people when they act/react like some things are always right and wrong. It matters because if there are no moral values beyond humans that can be independently measured then there is no real right and wrong or ultimate moral duty and accountability.
And how would things be different if this were the case?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,577
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I disagree! What you are describing moral relativism
Moral relativism - Wikipedia
No what I am talking about is not moral relativism. Moral relativism is about how a person sees things from a relative position (in relation to). IE it was OK to have slaves in the US in the 1800s, but it is not OK in 2020. It is relative to the culture or time in history. So, it is OK to do something at that time but not at this time or it is wrong to do something in this culture but not that culture. As your WIKI link says
Moral relativism or ethical relativism is a term used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different peoples and their own particular cultures.
Moral relativism - Wikipedia
and
Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/


Whereas subjective morality is about people's point of view regardless of the relative position. It is the same as "likes and dislikes" such as about tastes for food. One likes choc another like vanilla. So someone telling another person their moral position is wrong is the same as telling them that what they "like" is wrong. It does not say anything about whether something is really really wrong.
To believe someone is wrong based on subjectivity does not mean you believe others have a right to a different opinion.
Yes it does. You cannot say that the other person's subjective moral position is wrong because you are taking your personal opinion and applying it to others while at the same time making an objective statement.
As you can see from the link below, that which is objective is always verifiable; that which is subjective is based on beliefs, perspectives, and opinions and do not need to be verifiable.
Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms
And that description agree with what I said. Subjective morality is only about personal opinion, "likes and dislikes". If that's the case saying someone else is wrong and you are right is claiming you have some objective measure to tell that you are right over the other person.

Consider this outcome:
Person A says person B is wrong. Person B says how do you know I am wrong. Person A says because person “X” (person “X” could be his God of choice, the guy down the street who wrote a book on morals, or even person “A”)
Can't be person A otherwise that's subjective.
says it is wrong. Person B says; I believe your person “X” is wrong, I do not accept person “X” as always right.
Stalemate; no one can say the other is really wrong. Saying someone is wrong based on what someone else said means nothing to the other person nor in the overall scheme of things.
No, you don't have to show who the objective moral lawmaker is to show that someone is taking an objective moral position. All the person has to say is by claiming you are right and I am wrong you are claiming that you are right independent of human opinion.

Therefore you claim that you know that you are really correct and have some independent measure of your moral position. It doesn't matter if you cannot show who or what the measure is. It is taking your subjective position beyond what it can claim that is relevant.

Debating who the moral lawgiver is and how it came to be is a different topic based on epistemology (how we know something). But what I am talking about is being, which is moral ontology, if objective morality really exists.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,577
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That’s the way subjective morality works! Sounds like you’re still confusing subjective morality with moral relativism. There is a difference ya know!
I explained the difference between moral relativism and subjective morality in reply to you. Think about it, if someone says another person is wrong that the earth is flat and they are right that the earth is round they are taking an objective position because they know the earth is round. They are claiming that they have some independent measure that the person claiming abortion is OK beyond any person's personal opinion.

If someone says that a person's moral position that abortion is OK is wrong and that their position is right that abortion is wrong they are doing the same thing. They are taking an objective position that they have some independent measure that abortion is really really wrong beyond any person's personal opinion.

And how would things be different if this were the case?
The difference would be no one could really go around condemning others that they are really wrong and claim they are really right. They should be saying, in my opinion, you are wrong but I understand you also have a moral position you think is also right so we have to accept each others moral position. No one is ultimately right or wrong.

But if people did stop and think and realize that they are claiming they are really right in their lived experience all the time then perhaps people would acknowledge that there is something within them that keeps rearing its head and causing them to think that way. That perhaps there is some independent thing outside humans like natural laws or intuition that causes humans to know what is really right or wrong beyond human opinion.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No what I am talking about is not moral relativism. Moral relativism is about how a person sees things from a relative position (in relation to). IE it was OK to have slaves in the US in the 1800s, but it is not OK in 2020. It is relative to the culture or time in history. So, it is OK to do something at that time but not at this time or it is wrong to do something in this culture but not that culture. As your WIKI link says
Moral relativism or ethical relativism is a term used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different peoples and their own particular cultures.
Moral relativism - Wikipedia
and
Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/


Whereas subjective morality is about people's point of view regardless of the relative position. It is the same as "likes and dislikes" such as about tastes for food. One likes choc another like vanilla. So someone telling another person their moral position is wrong is the same as telling them that what they "like" is wrong. It does not say anything about whether something is really really wrong.
Didn’t you read the link I provided? Moral relativism is also the philosophical position that other views should be respected/tolerated because their views cannot be demonstrated as wrong. Subjectively is not like that; subjectivity is not a philosophical position, but is morals based on thought and the inability to verify/demonstrate your view as accurate. It has nothing to do with tolerating views other than your own.
Yes it does. You cannot say that the other person's subjective moral position is wrong because you are taking your personal opinion and applying it to others while at the same time making an objective statement.
There is nothing preventing you from saying the other person’s subjective moral position is wrong. In order to make an objective moral statement, you have to claim to be able to demonstrate you are right and they are wrong.

Can't be person A otherwise that's subjective.
It is subjective if the morals come from his God of choice, or the guy down the street also! If you disagree, how is it different?
No, you don't have to show who the objective moral lawmaker is to show that someone is taking an objective moral position. All the person has to say is by claiming you are right and I am wrong you are claiming that you are right independent of human opinion.
Objective is not defined as independent of human opinion, it is defined as independent of any opinion. Anything capable of opinions, or thought, is subjective; whether it be his God of choice, the guy who wrote the book of morals, or person “A”.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It's in the way people act/react. People react like some things are always right and wrong regardless of their claims to subjective morality. It matters because it matters to people when they act/react like some things are always right and wrong. It matters because if there are no moral values beyond humans that can be independently measured then there is no real right and wrong or ultimate moral duty and accountability.

But where is this morals, inside humans? In another realm? Where can I find it? How do I know what it is?

You gave no real answer to why it would matter.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I explained the difference between moral relativism and subjective morality in reply to you. Think about it, if someone says another person is wrong that the earth is flat and they are right that the earth is round they are taking an objective position because they know the earth is round.
It isn't enough that they know (100% certain) that the earth is round, their claim has to be demonstrable. The ability to demonstrate/verify your claim is what makes it objective, not just belief.
They are claiming that they have some independent measure that the person claiming abortion is OK beyond any person's personal opinion.
Independent measure? Independent of what? A person’s personal opinion can constitute an independent measure ya know.
If someone says that a person's moral position that abortion is OK is wrong and that their position is right that abortion is wrong they are doing the same thing. They are taking an objective position that they have some independent measure that abortion is really really wrong beyond any person's personal opinion.
No they are not. Unless they claim to have an independent measure, they are not saying they have an independent measure.
The difference would be no one could really go around condemning others that they are really wrong and claim they are really right.
What would prevent them? (please be specific)
They should be saying, in my opinion, you are wrong but I understand you also have a moral position you think is also right so we have to accept each others moral position. No one is ultimately right or wrong.
That is text book moral relativism. (from the link I provided earlier)

moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when considerably large disagreements about the morality of particular things exist

Again; you are confusing moral relativism and subjective morality
But if people did stop and think and realize that they are claiming they are really right in their lived experience all the time then perhaps people would acknowledge that there is something within them that keeps rearing its head and causing them to think that way. That perhaps there is some independent thing outside humans like natural laws or intuition that causes humans to know what is really right or wrong beyond human opinion.
Again; the only way morality could be objective is if it originated from something incapable of thought. So that thing outside of humans like natural laws that you speak of? It would have to be an inanimate object.
 
Upvote 0