Where does morality come from?

[ToddNotTodd]

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.

Actually, you just proved my point to anyone who understands the subject.

Thanks

 

[Kylie]

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.

You don't seem to understand that from the point of view of the people who lose their lives, it makes no difference.

Mass murder is always worse.

What if they were prisoners on their way to be executed? Would you let a five year old die to save the lives of people who are about to die anyway?

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.

Yeah, what if?

How does your objective standards of morality handle all these infinite variables?

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.

I'm not arguing that.

I'm saying that there are many Christians out there who do not follow them, and yet believe that they are correct. This seems to contradict your idea of objective morality.

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.

Ah, so you get to decide if they are REAL Christians (t) or not. Gotcha.

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.

You do not seem to properly understand the difference between objective and subjective.

Why is killing wrong.

Don't you know?

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

And the way the car is programmed determines what it will do.

How you do not see the chain of responsibility is beyond me.

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.

You do realise that there's such a thing as reaction time, right? Why do you have the idea that all these things work instantly? They don't.

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.

Once again you ifgnore the issue and instead resort to placing blame.

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.

Whether it's a programmer making a decision about how he will program a car to respond or a train signaller making a decision as to what track the trolley will take, the intention is always to save as many lives as possible. Why do you not understand that it is possible to have a situation where zero casualties is not an option?

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.

So in the trolley problem, if you switch the track, you should be charged with the person's murder? After all, you intentionally threw the switch knowing it would result in the person's death.

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.

Prove it.

How do you know the signaller didn't decide to intentionally kill one person to save five?

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.

We don't always have the option to take action like that. Sometimes we're just stuck with a really bad situation.

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.

Again, sometimes we just can't do anything. You don't seem to realise this. You seem to think we are always able to do SOMETHING to make the problem okay. We can't.

No lead expert ethicists who are far more knowledgable about this than you or I to criticize it. 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.

Once again, the only reason you claim it isn't realistic is because you don't like the idea of a situation where you don't have enough agency to make things all better.

 

[Kylie]

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.

Always trying to change the issue...

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.

But as you said, the law still says you stole, the toyshop owner still lost a product. The only person it's different to is yourself.

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.

And doesn't the programmer have the obligation to take that into account?

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.

This doesn't explain why you apparently changed your tune.

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.

If you were playing this game, you would have answered. So no, you are not playing this game. You are spouting excuses why the game shouldn't be played, and your excuses are that you don't like the rules. You don't realise that life is not obligated to give you rules that you like.

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.

More excuses.

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.

You haven't shown this.

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.

So in the originally trolley problem, switching the track is wrong because you are intentionally killing someone?

Okay, since you don't seem to get it with the trolley problem, how about a different scenario.

At night, a thug attacks an old lady, repeatedly hitting her, and she cries out for help. Two people respond, both are armed with guns. One person yells out to the mugger to get off the old lady. The other person draws his gun and fires, killing the mugger.

Who is morally right? Person 1 or person 2?

Since you claim that morality is objective, you need to prove your answer. SO just making a claim isn't going to cut it.

 

[Kylie]

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.

They are also intentionally killing one person, which you said was objectively bad, so they shouldn't do it.

OK then in the automatic car scenario no one is responding.

S nothing the programmer has done makes any difference?

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.

And yet you have said that objective morality applies to all moral situations.

So get to work.

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 literally just said that a person's experiences are subjective.

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?

I would say it is always wrong and unjustifiable, but that statement would be a subjective statement from my own subjective morality.

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.

You make a claim, but you do not back it up.

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.

No, adding logical fallacies to your case does not make your case stronger.

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.

Once again, that doesn't make it objective.

If you keep using this logical fallacy, I'm going to keep calling you out on it.

Agreed. Agreed.

But what if Steve only claims that "Objective morality exists". Then he only has to show that objective morality exists once.

But Steve has also claimed that objective morality exists for all moral situations. So he must show that objective morality exists for all possible moral situations.

 

[Kylie]

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

Let me make it simple.

You are faced with a choice where five people are going to die, but you can do something to save them. However, by saving them, one other person will die instead.

Should you take the action that will save the original five people, even if it means the death of another?

 

[stevevw]

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

It doesn't matter really. Call it natural law, nature, God, an inner voice, conscience it is there. We can observe it and see it in action so we know it is there. But objectively proving what it is will be fruitless as it is not material.

You gave no real answer to why it would matter.[/QUOTE] I would have thought that 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 was enough.

 

[stevevw]

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.

That doesn't make sense. Why would anyone tolerate and respect something that cannot be verified as true? That's actually a dangerous position to take because someone could say my relative position is that raping women is ok as they are mens property. Are we to tolerate and respect this position because some culture or religion thinks this is permissible.

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.

So you can tell someone else that their moral view is objectively wrong.

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.

No you don't, you just have to claim that you have the right moral and the other person has the wrong moral despite personal opinions. When someone claims that an act is always evil no matter what and there is no justification for it they are taking an objective position.

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?

First morality is personal and duty to someone can only be applied to a person. You cannot have a moral obligation to a non-human entity like a rock. Objective morality is a moral value that is based on something beyond humans (subjects). So objective moral values need to be based in an entity beyond humans who can have a relationship with humans. So call it mother nature, God, or Vishnu it needs to be all good and worthy of being the measure of good.

So we can make a case that if there are objective moral values and duties there has to be some sort of entity outside humans that does not have a subjective mind because they are good by nature and cannot be outside good or arbitrary determine good.

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”.

Any God that is subjective is a God that humans have made up and projected themselves into. As mentioned above an entity that is good by nature, that good things naturally pour from them without having to subjectively determine then they are themselves the objective measure of good. Their commands for us will naturally flow from their good nature to us.

 

[stevevw]

Let me make it simple.

You are faced with a choice where five people are going to die, but you can do something to save them. However, by saving them, one other person will die instead.

Should you take the action that will save the original five people, even if it means the death of another?

Didn't you watch the video where the expert ethicist explained how this is different. He asked how many people would pull the switch to divert the Trolley towards one person and 98% of people put their hand up. He then explained the transplant scenario and asked how many would kill the one to get the organs to save the 5 and 98% kept their hands down the complete opposite response. It is not the same otherwise 98% would have put their hands up and this is consistent for everyone.

 

[the iconoclast]

Not quite. I maintained morality was based on judgment.

Hey Ken

What do you mean when you suggest "morality is based on judgement"?

Cheers

 

[stevevw]

They are also intentionally killing one person, which you said was objectively bad, so they shouldn't do it.

I said that there is always an objectively right thing to do in each situation. That may vary depending of the situation. In the Trolley situation where there are only 2 options the objectively morally right thing to do is to send the Trolley down the track with the 1 person. Objective morality doesn't mean you can never kill if that is the best option.

S nothing the programmer has done makes any difference?

Not as far as anticipating what will happen. He has programmed a machine to do certain things. That's all it can do. It cannot think like a human. The programmer is only doing what the company has requested. It is a complex relationship. Automated cars are created to save lives, create a safer situation. No one involved is intending to kill anyone.

If they find that something doesn't pan out as they thought in a real-life application then they will have to revise things. But no one person is responsible and no one is intending to kill. The Trolley problem has someone intentionally choosing to kill either 1 person or 5. It is not the same. The person in the automated car and the programmer are not flicking a switch and making an intentional choice to run someone down. It's an accident if it happens.

And yet you have said that objective morality applies to all moral situations.
So get to work.

That's what we are doing as far as you are concerned. You have been throwing moral dilemma's at me left, right, and center. But here's the thing. It is irrelevant as far as proving if objective morals exist and that is an important difference. If you happen to stump me on a particular moral scenario that means nothing as far as whether objective morality exists. You would also have to stump me on every single moral situation that exists. So likewise you better get cracking lol.

I literally just said that a person's experiences are subjective.

What do you mean by experiences?

I would say it is always wrong and unjustifiable, but that statement would be a subjective statement from my own subjective morality.

Yes, that's right, it is only your opinion. You cannot really say it as a claim that applies to others because you don't know if its really a true statement that people ought to have. Yet people do all the time.

You make a claim, but you do not back it up.

You just confirmed it when you said you think certain acts are always evil regardless of what other people subjectively think. We all have it and do it. Some just deny it. But the fact that people who claim a subjective position also admit an objective position even to themselves shows that they know there are objective morals.

No, adding logical fallacies to your case does not make your case stronger.

Tha's why I don't just rely on popularity but also other supports. You cut out the important part of my reply IE
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.

Once again, that doesn't make it objective.
If you keep using this logical fallacy, I'm going to keep calling you out on it.

But as pointed out with the logical argument I used that we can be justified to believe our lived moral experience points to their being objective morals just as we are justified to believe that our lived experience of our physical world points to our world is real and not some matrix.

To defeat this you would have to show that our experience with objective morality is totally unreliable and that we cannot realize objective morality at all. Just like to defeat our experience about our physical world would have to show that it is totally unreliable and we cannot realize our world at all. That we are actually living in some matrix.

But Steve has also claimed that objective morality exists for all moral situations. So he must show that objective morality exists for all possible moral situations.

I agree but that is not needed. That hard effort and hassle do not to be done when just showing one example of objective morality will prove that there is objective morality. The thing is if one example of objective morality is proven then we can confidently predict that there are other examples as objective morality does not exist in isolation.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Yes, so the person shows a picture or model of the earth as a globe. But the person can be confident in making the claim because they have seen the support. They are not just making some claim off the top of their head or because they feel or like the idea.

But sometimes you can say that something is objective like Einstein's theory of Relativity. But you can never demonstrate that yourself as to its a complex mathematical equation and you cannot show someone how this is worked out. But you know it is objective.

Independent measure? Independent of what? A person’s personal opinion can constitute an independent measure ya know.

No its independent of humans. So a person's personal opinion is dependent on humans so its subjective.

No they are not. Unless they claim to have an independent measure, they are not saying they have an independent measure.

So what measure does the person use to say that the other person's moral position is wrong?

What would prevent them? (please be specific)

Ah because it is only an opinion and personal opinions cannot determine if something is really wrong.

That is textbook 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

Yes subjective and relative morality is sometimes interchanged. They are similar yet different. There is no ultimate right or wrong for both the relativist or the subjectivist. So they cannot make any ultimate claims that something is right or wrong personal or culturally or relative to time periods. They cannot impose their relative or subjective position on others as others will have their own cultural or personal outlook.

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.

I don't know where you got that from. Morality can only be expressed by people. A non-human object or material cannot have objective morality. I think you mean that measuring objective morality cannot be done by people so the objectivity of something is in the object or moral act itself. IE

The earth is round not because you or I say its round but because it is round in and of itself. Rape is not wrong because you or I say so. It is wrong in and of the act of rape itself.

 

[stevevw]

Actually, you just proved my point to anyone who understands the subject.

Thanks

How is that.

 

[stevevw]

You don't seem to understand that from the point of view of the people who lose their lives, it makes no difference.

I don't understand what you mean. If the Trolley ethical/moral dilemma is only about the person who dies perspective then they wont know how they die. Their death could have been the result of anything including a non-human caused death.

I thought the idea of the Trolley problem was to put a person in a position to make a choice about a difficult ethical/moral dilemma and it was based on their choice as to what was the right or wrong thing to do. How can there be any moral wrong if there is no person there to choose the wrong action?

What if they were prisoners on their way to be executed? Would you let a five year old die to save the lives of people who are about to die anyway?

No, because it is not mine or your right or position to be executioners. That's a form of vigilante justice that we know can get out of hand and end up causing all sorts of problems. Once again you don't know the full circumstances of the lives of others. What if one or two prisoners were innocent.

Yeah, what if?
How does your objective standards of morality handle all these infinite variables?

Like I said there is an objectively right and wrong thing to do for each situation. It will depend on the variable as to what the objectively right or wrong thing to do is. This is different from absolute morality that will say that it is never right to kill someone no matter what situation.

I'm not arguing that.

I'm saying that there are many Christians out there who do not follow them, and yet believe that they are correct. This seems to contradict your idea of objective morality.

No, it contradicts their claim to being a Christian. Look at the IRA not much different from ISIS. They claimed to be Christians and were blowing up people. Anyone can make a claim. It is the lived morals that count.

 

[stevevw]

Always trying to change the issue...

Not changing the scenario, that's still the same. Just considering all the circumstances. That's what they do in an accident investigation. Afterall I don't want someone to be falsely blamed for a murder.

But as you said, the law still says you stole, the toyshop owner still lost a product. The only person it's different to is yourself.

It is also different for a moral wrong for which we are talking about. The question has to be asked did the mum commit a moral wrong. Did anyone commit a moral wrong?

And doesn't the programmer have the obligation to take that into account?

The only consideration the programmer will have is certain maneuvers that the program is able to do. In the case of the person running out in front of them, it would be some sort of sensor that detects something in front of the car and that will automatically hit the brakes faster than any human can.

This doesn't explain why you apparently changed your tune.

What do you mean change my tune.

If you were playing this game, you would have answered. So no, you are not playing this game. You are spouting excuses why the game shouldn't be played, and your excuses are that you don't like the rules. You don't realize that life is not obligated to give you rules that you like.

I have already answered each scenario as you presented. Then I went on to express how I thought these scenarios were unreal. So I have satisfied your criteria and only think it is fair that I now bring up some objections to it. Otherwise, we can never determine if it's really the right way to assess mortality.

More excuses.

So you're saying the ethical experts were making excuses and didn't know what they were talking about when criticizing the Trolley problem and the use of the automated car as a real-life example.

You haven't shown this.

Did I not say that the best choice was to send the Trolley down the track with one person. Did I not say that I would have done what the track controller did in the runaway train carriage situation.

So in the originally trolley problem, switching the track is wrong because you are intentionally killing someone?

No switching the track to the single person is the best option as it saves 5 lives. That is the objectively best thing to do. Haven't we already discussed this and I have given my answer?

Okay, since you don't seem to get it with the trolley problem, how about a different scenario.

I do get the Trolley Problem. Anyway

At night, a thug attacks an old lady, repeatedly hitting her, and she cries out for help. Two people respond both are armed with guns. One person yells out to the mugger to get off the old lady. The other person draws his gun and fired, killing the mugger.
Who is morally right? Person 1 or person 2?

Person 2 is wrong in that scenario.

Since you claim that morality is objective, you need to prove your answer. SO just making a claim isn't going to cut it.

OK well you didn't give much background info so I assumed a bit. I assumed the robber never had a gun. So yelling at the robber and having two men with guns should be enough to scare him off. Shooting him straight up is a bit extreme and rash.[/quote]

 

[Kylie]

Didn't you what the video where the expert ethicist explained how this is different. He asked how many people would pull the switch to divert the Trolley towards one person and 98% of people put their hand up. He then explained the transplant scenario and asked how many would kill the one to get the organs to save the 5 and 98% kept their hands down the complete opposite response. It is not the same otherwise 98% would have put their hands up and this is consistent for everyone.

No. It's just that people see it as different because it's all subjective.

I explained to you how the two situations are functionally identical. You refuse to accept it because you don't want to look at morality as being anything other than what you want it to be.

 

[VirOptimus]

It doesn't matter really. Call it natural law, nature, God, an inner voice, conscience it is there. We can observe it and see it in action so we know it is there. But objectively proving what it is will be fruitless as it is not material.

No, I contest that we cannot see it "in action", "we" certainly does not know its there.

As an aside, objectivity pre-supposes god(s) and is therefore a religious concept.

I would have thought that 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 was enough.

No, that is certainly not enough. Its also circular reasoning.

Your arguments are very very simplistic. Have you studied any moral philosophy at all? Because you come across as incredibly ignorant about even the basics on the subject.

 

[stevevw]

No. It's just that people see it as different because it's all subjective.

I explained to you how the two situations are functionally identical. You refuse to accept it because you don't want to look at morality as being anything other than what you want it to be.

If they are identical situations then why did the experts say they were different and why did the audience vote like they were different. Under subjective morality, if they were the same situation then those people should have voted the same in each scenario.

 

[Ken-1122]

That doesn't make sense. Why would anyone tolerate and respect something that cannot be verified as true? That's actually a dangerous position to take because someone could say my relative position is that raping women is ok as they are mens property. Are we to tolerate and respect this position because some culture or religion thinks this is permissible.

That’s what moral relativism is! I don’t agree with it, but this is what you are claiming objective morality to be

So you can tell someone else that their moral view is objectively wrong.

Wow! As much time as I have been telling you there is no such a thing as moral views that are objectively wrong, or objectively right, you come up with a zinger like that huh?

No you don't, you just have to claim that you have the right moral and the other person has the wrong moral despite personal opinions.

Again; there is nothing preventing you from claiming the other person’s subjective moral position is wrong.

When someone claims that an act is always evil no matter what and there is no justification for it they are taking an objective position.

Which is the exact same thing as taking the subjective moral position

First morality is personal and duty to someone can only be applied to a person. You cannot have a moral obligation to a non-human entity like a rock.

True! That’s why morality is subjective

Objective morality is a moral value that is based on something beyond humans (subjects). So objective moral values need to be based in an entity beyond humans who can have a relationship with humans. So call it mother nature, God, or Vishnu it needs to be all good and worthy of being the measure of good.

Here you are presupposing the existence of something you haven’t even proven to exist! Before you can make mother nature, God, or Vishnu, a part of your argument you must first provide proof of their existence (which you have not) then you can make them a part of your argument. Otherwise if we are going to go around making such empty claims as a part of our argument, I could just as easily insert Buggs Bunny as a part of my argument. My grandma used to call that “putting the horse before the cart”

So we can make a case that if there are objective moral values and duties there has to be some sort of entity outside humans that does not have a subjective mind because they are good by nature and cannot be outside good or arbitrary determine good.

By definition; all minds are subjective (except Bugg Bunny’s)

Any God that is subjective is a God that humans have made up and projected themselves into.

Again; unless you can provide proof such a God even exists, there is no reason to assume this God is anything other than something humans have made up and projected themselves into.

 

[Ken-1122]

Hey Ken

What do you mean when you suggest "morality is based on judgement"?

Cheers

When one say this action is right, or that action is wrong, those actions are being judged as right or wrong.

 

[stevevw]

No, I contest that we cannot see it "in action", "we" certainly does not know its there.

See there is another objective claim. IE "We certainly do not know objective morality is there". That is a claim that you really know something is true and that I am wrong. This is what I am saying about how despite people claiming a subjective moral position they act, react, protest, and even demand they know the truth and that certain acts are always morally wrong regardless of a person's subjective moral positions.

They reject and condemn other people's subjective morality claiming there is no such thing and demand that people follow their moral values like they are the exclusive holders of what is morally right. People protest and make the case for evil in the world like it is a real thing and not someones personal view.

We cannot help it and we continually undermine the subjective moral position by appealing to objectiveness. It is something within us that we intuitively know it. That is the evidence for objective morality, our lived moral experience that we can observe and measure.

As an aside, objectivity pre-supposes god(s) and is, therefore, a religious concept.

Many non-religious people support objective morality. They realize it is there but come up with non-religious explanations to account for it. So at least they are being honest. Sam Harris a popular atheist is one who supports objective morality with his Moral landscape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqM_NE4Zk2s

This is an article from Psychology Today which is not religious but taking a psychological approach to morality and they support objective morality based on the fact that we all intuitive know certain things are always wrong regardless of personal opinion.
Morality Is Objective
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective

Here another non-religious account of an objective morality based on a common understanding of intuition.
About intuitionism
Intuitionism teaches three main things:
· There are real objective moral truths that are independent of human beings.
· These are fundamental truths that can't be broken down into parts or defined by reference to anything except other moral truths.
· Human beings can discover these truths by using their minds in a particular, intuitive way.
BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Intuitionism

No, that is certainly not enough. Its also circular reasoning.
Your arguments are very very simplistic. Have you studied any moral philosophy at all? Because you come across as incredibly ignorant about even the basics on the subject.

Yes studied at Uni IE teleological (consequentialism, utilitarianism) and deontological ethics (duty/ruled based) and all the other variations. My degree covered a lot of areas associated with humanities, psychology so morality and ethics were big parts of it.