Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No; nobody makes the flavor of cake a moral issueIt makes about as much sense as a bunch of people judging which flavor of cake has the morally right flavor.
I say the actions are wrong due to the fact that they go against my moral standardsHey hey ken
Why are my actions wrong? What standard will you hold me to?
I would judge your actions wrong due to the fact that they go against my moral standardsOk. As far as one knows or can tell, you assume that I judge my actions as justified.
Let's set some conditions to the scenario.
1. I beat you up for no reason, I could and at that moment I felt like it.
2. I stole your shoes because I wanted to emasculate you.
3. I had no use for your shoes and gave them to the first person I saw without.
Am I immoral? How would you apply subjective morality here?
TrueA. I assume you say I'm wrong for beating you up and taking your property.
I would disagree due to your actions goes against my moral standardsB. I say good and evil I just social constructs. My might was more right than your might. I have not done any evil or thought evil, I just felt like beating you up.
Of course! That’s why we have objective laws! I would use the law to provide justiceWould you require justice?
I would have no choice but to hold you to the legal standards of society (objective laws); just as you would.What standard would you hold me to - now we know my motivation?
The legal systemWho is the authority for such a standard?
Officers of the law and the legal system will judge youWho judges who?
Humm I don't think saying that just because peoples or cultures morals change that this does not mean there is no objective morality is an empty assertion. It is a logical statement and therefore self supporting.
As far as providing evidence for objective morality we only need to show that objectively morality is necessarily true. Being certain of something is only something humans can do, but showing something is necessarily true is based on propositions. IE we could have a complex mathematical formula which is necessarily true, if true but we may be uncertain about it. So the necessity and truth that there are objective morals don't have to be certain but rather be based on a proposition.
So we can make a logical proposition for the existence of objective morality. I have given the proposition earlier in this thread and here it is again.
Just like we can believe in the physical reality of the world around us based on our lived experience of it through our senses, we can use the same logic to believe in the reality of objective morality based on our lived moral experience. Any argument against our moral lived experience a similar argument can be made against our lived experience of our physical world. For example, maybe you are just a brain in a vat that is being fed a signal that has created a virtual world that looks like our physical reality and that you are sitting at your computer typing this post.
So without any reason to show that our lived experience of the physical world is unreal, you are justified to believe in what you experience as being real and true. It is the same for our lived moral experience that without any good reason or a defeater of our moral experience is totally unreal and we cannot realize objective morals at all we are justified to believe what our lived experience shows and tells us.
That moral lived experience tells us that people live like there are objective morals. I have given many examples of this but I shouldn't have to as if anyone just stops and thinks they will realize that we do believe that certain acts are always morally wrong regardless of subjective personal views or opinions. When we protest and condemn evil in the world we are not just expressing this as a personal view but like evil really does exist as a separate thing.
I have presented a logical proposition. We can be justified to believe that objective morality exists based on our lived moral experience. That's not all over the place but rather a simple and straight forward logical proposition.More empty assertions.
study the basics of moral philosophy, you are all over the place with no coherent argument.
Where objective morality exists is about epistemology (how we come to know something exists). The premise in the logical proposition presented is only saying that we know objective morality exists therefore it is about moral ontology (whether objective morality actually exists). So I don't need to show how we know objective morality exists or where it comes from.Again, try to answer my questions;
1. Where is this ”objective morality”?
The logical proposition claims that our lived moral experience shows us objective morality exists. So we can see it and measure it when people act/react morally objective. We know it exists by the way we believe and act like some moral acts are always wrong and can never be right despite subjective personal views and opinions.2. How can we measure it or even find out what it entails?
I don't need to show this to show that objective morality exists, that is about epistemology. The logical proposition only uses a premise that claims objective morals exist. I only need to show objective morals exist once to do that.3. What does it mean? What happens when we go against ”objective morality”?
Then why do most non- religious people believe there is such a thing as evil in the world. Why do they describe certain acts as evil? When people use the word evil to describe an act they are saying that the act is profoundly immoral, wrong to the extreme, and never right regardless of subjective moral views.As an aside, ”evil” is a simplistic, childish, and stupid concept.
I have presented a logical proposition. We can be justified to believe that objective morality exists based on our lived moral experience. That's not all over the place but rather a simple and straight forward logical proposition.
Where objective morality exists is about epistemology (how we come to know something exists). The premise in the logical proposition presented is only saying that we know objective morality exists therefore it is about moral ontology (whether objective morality actually exists). So I don't need to show how we know objective morality exists or where it comes from.
The logical proposition claims that our lived moral experience shows us objective morality exists. So we can see it and measure it when people act/react morally objective. We know it exists by the way we believe and act like some moral acts are always wrong and can never be right despite subjective personal views and opinions.
I don't need to show this to show that objective morality exists, that is about epistemology. The logical proposition only uses a premise that claims objective morals exist. I only need to show objective morals exist once to do that.
Then why do most non- religious people believe there is such a thing as evil in the world. Why do they describe certain acts as evil? When people use the word evil to describe an act they are saying that the act is profoundly immoral, wrong to the extreme, and never right regardless of subjective moral views.
Demonstrable does not mean it can be explained to the ignorant, it means it can be explained to someone who understands the language you are speaking. Math is demonstrable to those who understand math.They are not demonstratable if you don't understand the equation to explain to someone else. You just have to trust the theory verifies the objectivity of something like gravity or the Big Bang despite you or the other person not being able to work it out yourself. So to a degree, there is some trust and faith involved.
Okay; the link I provided did not specify independent of humans, it just said independent of personal opinions or thoughts. But obviously some links doe specify humans hence the one you provided. The problem I have with the link you provided is if we specify human, that means if my dog or cat says “X” is wrong, that makes it objectively wrong because they are not human. I think that is a poor argument to make.Yes, it does. IE here are a couple of articles that state objective morality is independent of human opinion, views, position or beliefs, etc.
Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
Objectivity (philosophy) - Wikipedia
“To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independently of whether any human believes it to be so.
Philosophical Disquisitions: Craig on Objective Morality (Part Two)
The term “objective” employed here is notoriously difficult to explicate; it means something like “independent of human desires, perceptions, beliefs, and practices”
Moral Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
How does your God do it?(assuming he exist) If your God claims someone is wrong and it is only God’s personal measure based on his opinion, how can he say the person is wrong? It’s just his personal opinion and cannot be verified against an independent measure to see if it is objectively correct.So when someone claims that another person is wrong and it's only their personal measure based on their opinion then how can they say the other person is really wrong. It's just their personal opinion and cannot be verified against an independent measure to see if it is objectively correct.
An independent measure is not required for someone to go around saying they are right and someone else is wrong. There is nothing physically preventing someone from saying that.Personal opinions cannot determine if something is really right because it is only the view of the person saying it. There is no independent measure to prove it is correct.
But there is no independent measure that stands above humans that’s why morality is subjective to human thought.Yes when I say really wrong, I mean not just wrong because you say so but wrong because it has been proven wrong by an independent measure besides you.
Just because you claim something is right/ultimately right for everyone does not make it so.Ultimate right means it is objectively right and not just right because you say so. The same as the ultimate claim. It is just another way of saying objectively right or making an objective claim. There is no greater or correct right than an ultimate right. It is right for everyone.
Okay; I can demonstrate the shape of the Earth round, can you demonstrate that rape is wrong?No objectivity is not in the definition as people may have different definitions. The earth is objectively round because the earth is round. The object being the earth is demonstratory round. So the objectivity of rape in the act of rape itself. We can demonstrate the act of rape and that is what we use to determine what rape is and not what you or I say it is.
Now you're doing what you claimed was irrelevant when I was trying to add mitigating conditions to the Trolley problem. There are not a multitude of reasons for why the audience was against killing a person to take their organs. Like you said there are just 2 options kill one to save 5 or let the 5 people die. The point is 99% of the audience agreed that it was wrong and any reason given did not stand up as it could be factored out in tests.
You obviously didn't watch the videos. The experts said that in the Trolley problem the objectively right thing to do was to go down the track with 1 person and in the organ transplant the objectively right thing to do was to not kill the individual for their organs to save the 5. The experts were saying that these moral choices were not subjective choices but a "truth statement" about morality and they were not religious.
The experts are saying that the difference cannot be completely understood because there is something within people that sees things this way and it is consistent through the tests they have done. You have to watch the video to see what I am talking about but they clearly say it is not because of subjective morality.
Hey hey kylie
In the meanwhile Ken's body lays bruised and bloodied on the ground.
Check out my latest reply to Kenny.
After reading my reply to Ken and you now understand my motivation, Am I immoral?
How do you judge my actions and who am I accountable to?
Who has the right to judge me?
Cheers
But like I said the experts said it wasn't about subjective moral views but rather the situation is different altogether and the agreement was more about an objective truth that we all know applies.You added conditions to try to claim that the situation wasn't relevant to real life.
I'm adding conditions to show that the morality of the situation changes.
As I said the experts already answered it as mentioned in the last post. They stated that the conclusion that it was wrong to kill someone by introducing an innocent bystander to the scenario was a truth statement and not just a personal view. That is was the right thing to do for everyone.You can't answer the question.
That cannot be true as I posted several links on supports of atheists' objective morality. Are you disputing what they are saying? If so you need to show why they are wrong.You have failed to show that there is an objective morality, you have failed to show objective morality applies.
That's all I need to do and am doing so by "proposing a proposition that objective morality exists.All you have ever done is claim that there is an objective morality
I don't have to show you how we arrive at the conclusion that objective morality exists because the proposition I have presented is not about epistemology (how we come to know something exists). The epistemological question is irrelevant to the moral argument presented about objective morality existing. It is only about moral ontology (whether objective morality actually exists). Can't you see the difference?and stated things you claim are objectively morally true, but you have NEVER been able to show us how you arrived at those conclusions.
I have not based the proposition on this. I have said that people know and agree that certain moral acts are always wrong regardless of their subjective morality. That contradiction is strong support for objective morality because it goes against their own views they claim. Something is within them causing them to do this, something they cannot help know and do.All you ever do is spout logical fallacies like claiming that if lots of people share the same moral position then it must be morally true. You have not supported your claim of objective morality.
Isn't that calling the kettle black? Here I post a reply and you don't answer it at all. Just fob it off. You presented several questions and I answered each and everyone you presented. I even broke them down. Yet you don't reply to any of it. You don't even engage which is kind of rude and dismissive.Heh, well, you couldnt answer anything.
Under subjective morality right and wrong is the same as "likes and dislikes" because it is the same as personal preferences and opinions. So when someone makes a judgment that another person is morally wrong about something and they are right they are saying I like that moral action and the other person is wrong to dislike it.No; nobody makes the flavor of cake a moral issue
But they give some good logical arguments for objective morality. For example, rape is wrong because it can be scientifically shown that rape harms human wellbeing. Anyone who claims that rape is good can be shown to be objectively wrong through the scientific evidence that shows how rape harms people. Therefore under this position, we can show that rape is objectively wrong.I am quite aware that there are atheists who think there are an objective morality, that does not mean that they are correct.
I see, no relevant background.
Isn't that calling the kettle black? Here I post a reply and you don't answer it at all. Just fob it off. You presented several questions and I answered each and everyone you presented. I even broke them down. Yet you don't reply to any of it. You don't even engage which is kind of rude and dismissive.
I can almost predict your reply.
But they give some good logical arguments for objective morality. For example, rape is wrong because it can be scientifically shown that rape harms human wellbeing. Anyone who claims that rape is good can be shown to be objectively wrong through the scientific evidence that shows how rape harms people. Therefore under this position, we can show that rape is objectively wrong.
It is relevant to the argument because it is one way to dispute the claim of subjective morality. If objective morality can be shown to exist then it exists and it doesn't matter how or which way you show it exists.
I'm sorry to see that after all this time you are still pushing the notion that subjective morality is the same as moral nihilism. Why is that? So you can continue to make the baseless claim that "lived moral experience" is an argument for objective morality?Yet people know that morality has more meaning than just their personal opinions and they act that way.
So wait a minute you made an assertion without any support so I guess that is also an empty assertion.But you havent answered my questions. You just keep posting assertions without any support. You are clearly out of you depth.
Wait a minute you post a quote from me that says,I'm sorry to see that after all this time you are still pushing the notion that subjective morality is the same as moral nihilism. Why is that? So you can continue to make the baseless claim that "lived moral experience" is an argument for objective morality?
No, because you use it as an argument that objective morality exists. It is possible for morality to have "more meaning than just their personal opinions" and still be subjective.Wait a minute you post a quote from me that says,
Steve said
Yet people know that morality has more meaning than just their personal opinions and they act that way.
which as far as I can see is acknowledging that people know and act morally. Isn't that a contradiction of what you just claimed.
See I could say that you keep making empty assertions by claiming that what I keep posting is not how it works without providing any evidence and without providing any support for how it should work.Nope, that's not how it works.
Try answering my questions.
If that were true I would never be tempted to do wrong. There are times I prefer to do wrong because it works to my advantage, even though I know I should do right.Under subjective morality right and wrong is the same as "likes and dislikes" because it is the same as personal preferences and opinions. So when someone makes a judgment that another person is morally wrong about something and they are right they are saying I like that moral action and the other person is wrong to dislike it.
A thief prefers stealing because it works to his advantage, even though he knows it is wrong to steal. Your argument failed.For example, they are really saying I don't like stealing as opposed to someone else saying they like stealing. It has nothing to to with ultimately true moral right and wrong because subjective opinions cannot determine this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?