Where does morality come from?

[Ken-1122]

Whatever, man. I'm not going to keep sifting through these non-answer dodges. I think you're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. The only distinction you've drawn is the requirement of other people being involved, which being nice requires so..

.
To be nice does not require other people to be involved. The example I gave about the deserted Island; I could be nice or mean to the animals living on the island, but that would not be a moral issue. It would be nice for me it gather food, or build a shelter for bad whether, but to do so or not is not a moral issue IMO

You can't give me a reason why, and it's perfectly normal to think that being nice is morally good.

Tough love does not involve being nice, but it does involve doing what morally right.

So feel however you feel, if you actually feel that way, it's weird.

I consider your idea of ice cream flavor as a moral issue to be weird, and I think most people would agree with me

The question didn't require my answer to apply to either of us. I don't need to believe "I shouldn't kill myself" to acknowledge that it is a moral I could "possibly" adhere to.

If you don't see it as a moral issue, it isn’t a moral you could possibly adhere to.

 

[Moral Orel]

To be nice does not require other people to be involved. The example I gave about the deserted Island; I could be nice or mean to the animals living on the island, but that would not be a moral issue. It would be nice for me it gather food, or build a shelter for bad whether, but to do so or not is not a moral issue IMO

How about this, should you be nice (generally)? Should you be nice to the animals, should you gather food or build a shelter, should you be nice to other people?

Tough love does not involve being nice, but it does involve doing what morally right.

Sure, like I said, there are exceptions. You're not saying anything I didn't already say. You're just being more specific about it.

I consider your idea of ice cream flavor as a moral issue to be weird, and I think most people would agree with me

How many people have you asked? I'm going to guess just one (me) and I said "yes".

If you don't see it as a moral issue, it isn’t a moral you could possibly adhere to.

If I don't currently adhere to it, then it is impossible for me to ever adhere to it. That's your argument?

 

[Ken-1122]

How about this, should you be nice (generally)?

To who? I’m the only one on the island remember?

Should you be nice to the animals,

Only if nice includes killing, cooking, and eating their flesh!

Sure, like I said, there are exceptions. You're not saying anything I didn't already say. You're just being more specific about it.

Oh so you’re changing it now? Before you said I can’t give you a reason, then after I give you an example, now you are saying there are always exceptions involved?

If I don't currently adhere to it, then it is impossible for me to ever adhere to it. That's your argument?

No. If you don’t think killing yourself is a moral issue, then regardless of if you kill yourself or not, you are not engaging in a moral issue.

 

[Moral Orel]

To who? I’m the only one on the island remember?

Here in the real world, should you generally be nice?

Only if nice includes killing, cooking, and eating their flesh!

And the rest of the things? Should you do them?

Oh so you’re changing it now? Before you said I can’t give you a reason, then after I give you an example, now you are saying there are always exceptions involved?

I already said there are exceptions, that isn't a change. Since you aren't generally engaging in tough love with most people, your exception doesn't say anything about the general moral of "you should be nice to other people". You still haven't given me a reason that "you should be nice" is not generally morally good. You've cited one narrow exception.

See, now this is why I think you're full of bologna. First I said that making people happy is morally good, and you said happiness doesn't have anything to do with morality. So I said I think being nice is good, and you went, "Oh no! You didn't say anything about 'nice'!" as if I changed the topic to something that was morally good. Now that you can see making people happy is nice, you're saying nice isn't morally good either. You could have just said "I don't think being nice is morally good" in the first place. It would have been simpler. It would have been the honest reaction. Who in the world thinks that "be nice" is a controversial stance in morality?! I don't believe you.

No, I think that you know that once you agree that making people feel happy is morally good (generally) then I'm going to run with that down a logical path you can't fight to prove that eating chocolate ice cream is morally good, so you want to put a stop to it early and fight me at every turn. It's all well and good to debate for the sake of debating, that's why I'm here and it's clear that's why you're here. But you ought to take credible stances to defend instead of just disagreeing for disagreeing's sake if you want any credibility.

No. If you don’t think killing yourself is a moral issue, then regardless of if you kill yourself or not, you are not engaging in a moral issue.

That doesn't have anything to do with what I said. I won't engage your straw man is what I won't ever do.

 

[stevevw]

I'm not insisting anything. My position is that the existence of objective morality is an unfalsifiable proposition; I cannot logically insist that it does not exist.

enough.

That is a highly offensive comment. Just because you routinely argue dishonestly does not mean that you are justified in accusing others of it. Morality is a social phenomenon whether it is objective or not.

lol You say I am being offensive and then you go and do the same thing to me in calling me a liar. You have misunderstood what I said and if it did come across as offensive I am sorry. I was saying that the use of group consensus, social norms as a way to support subjective morality and give some weight to morality is a logical fallacy.

The consensus of many doesn't mean the morals they choose actually equate to what is really right and wrong. Different societies can have contradicting moral positions even if abhorrent to each other and each has to be ultimately regarded as a valid position and neither can really say the other is wrong under a subjective system.

The problem is this position doesn't ultimately equate to what is right and wrong because there is no independent measure. Yet people within that subjective system know deep within them (intuitively) that certain acts are always wrong despite subjective positions. So they look for ways of giving morality that truth through things like consensus, wellbeing, and empathy. Yet they still condemn each other like they hold the truth to morality.

That's not the question I am asking. What moral laws can a person permanently marooned alone possibly break?

Alone!, how does that disprove objective morality and show that subjective morality is valid when it comes to moral truth. Morality only really comes into play between people so even if we couldn't find any moral wrongs it doesn't disprove objective morality.

But I guess you could draw out some morals such as unnecessarily killing wildlife, destroying nature. For Christian, there are some others like cursing and not honoring God. Christ says even if you Lust over a person you are committing sin.

The idea that somehow people getting together and working out moral values between them and that those morals somehow become moral truths is a fallacy. There are a number of influences that can cause societies to make what we would say were morally wrong like female genital mutilation or Eskimos practice of leaving a baby out to die when resources are few and Genocide.

Here are some western behaviors that even westerners let alone other foreign societies think immoral yet are still considered justified. Attacking innocent people in the name of the war on terror, Western corporations exploiting 3rd world countries, western nations responsible for the majority of climate change which destroys native people's lives.

Yet western societies will stand up and condemn the behavior of other societies who live morally differently to themselves like they are the holders of moral truth.

 

[Ken-1122]

Here in the real world, should you generally be nice?


And the rest of the things? Should you do them?


I already said there are exceptions, that isn't a change. Since you aren't generally engaging in tough love with most people, your exception doesn't say anything about the general moral of "you should be nice to other people". You still haven't given me a reason that "you should be nice" is not generally morally good. You've cited one narrow exception.

See, now this is why I think you're full of bologna. First I said that making people happy is morally good, and you said happiness doesn't have anything to do with morality. So I said I think being nice is good, and you went, "Oh no! You didn't say anything about 'nice'!" as if I changed the topic to something that was morally good. Now that you can see making people happy is nice, you're saying nice isn't morally good either. You could have just said "I don't think being nice is morally good" in the first place. It would have been simpler. It would have been the honest reaction. Who in the world thinks that "be nice" is a controversial stance in morality?! I don't believe you.

No, I think that you know that once you agree that making people feel happy is morally good (generally) then I'm going to run with that down a logical path you can't fight to prove that eating chocolate ice cream is morally good, so you want to put a stop to it early and fight me at every turn. It's all well and good to debate for the sake of debating, that's why I'm here and it's clear that's why you're here. But you ought to take credible stances to defend instead of just disagreeing for disagreeing's sake if you want any credibility.

I think to be kind to people is a morally good thing generally speaking, but I don't know if I would go as far as to say making people happy is morally good; I personally wouldn't attach morality judgments to making people happy.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think to be kind to people is a morally good thing generally speaking, but I don't know if I would go as far as to say making people happy is morally good; I personally wouldn't attach morality judgments to making people happy.

Doesn't being kind make people happy? Isn't making people happy a kind thing to do? (Generally)

Why be kind instead of treating people with cold indifference? It's because it makes them happy and that's a good thing to do, ya?

 

[Moral Orel]

Yet people within that subjective system know deep within them (intuitively) that morality is and should be objective.

I'm thinking of a number as I write this post between 1 and 1000000000. What is it?

 

[stevevw]

"I shouldn't kill myself".

Yes that's another one. I guess you could make a case for some of the 7 deadly sins like gluttony, envy, lust, sloth ect.

 

[stevevw]

I'm thinking of a number as I write this post between 1 and 1000000000. What is it?

There is no guessing that people intuitively know what is right and wrong. This comes from their own behaviour which we can observe and measure scientifically in how they act objectively IE say that certain acts are always morally wrong despite subjective morality. Take a certain stand against wrongful acts that makes them always wrong and doesn't allow any alternative views. Through science that shows how even babies know right from wrong, not just any subjective view but specific and consistent responses of right and wrong that are not taught.

 

[Kylie]

There is no guessing that people intuitively know what is right and wrong. This comes from their own behaviour which we can observe and measure scientifically in how they act objectively IE say that certain acts are always morally wrong despite subjective morality. Take a certain stand against wrongful acts that makes them always wrong and doesn't allow any alternative views. Through science that shows how even babies know right from wrong, not just any subjective view but specific and consistent responses of right and wrong that are not taught.

Again, you don't seem to realise that if someone says Action X is always wrong, they do not mean it objectively. It is still consistent with subjective morality.

I can say that oysters are always disgusting, but that doesn't make it an objective fact, does it? My dislike of oysters is still my subjective opinion, even though I phrased it as something objective.

 

[Moral Orel]

There is no guessing that people intuitively know what is right and wrong. This comes from their own behaviour which we can observe and measure scientifically in how they act objectively IE say that certain acts are always morally wrong despite subjective morality. Take a certain stand against wrongful acts that makes them always wrong and doesn't allow any alternative views.

You and I have been over this. There are no correct or incorrect behaviors, just people acting out how they like. You can disagree with me, but it ain't cool to tell me you can read my mind.

Through science that shows how even babies know right from wrong, not just any subjective view but specific and consistent responses of right and wrong that are not taught.

I saw your link to that study, and it doesn't establish that. All the infants did was select the helpful puppet. Well, so what? Everyone likes helpful people. That doesn't mean that being helpful is the correct way to be, it just means that people like not having to do things on their own or by themselves. Being helpful isn't intrinsically good or right. For instance, when I was a kid I used to shoplift, and my friends helped me by distracting the store owners. I liked my helpful friends for immoral ends.

And I would be remiss to mention that those infants are not blank slates. Six months is young, sure, but that's six months of crying for help with things they can't do for themselves, receiving help, and reinforcing the feeling that people who help are good. So not only is the thing they're shown to like not intrinsically good, but it isn't established that their feeling is innate either.

 

[Ken-1122]

Doesn't being kind make people happy? Isn't making people happy a kind thing to do? (Generally)

Why be kind instead of treating people with cold indifference? It's because it makes them happy and that's a good thing to do, ya?

I agree! I agree it is good to make people feel good, and to be kind to them. I agree it is bad to make people feel bad and to be mean to them. But I think morality goes a bit further than that. I believe morality is more about what’s right and what you should do, and immorality is more about what’s wrong and what you should not do.
Do you believe Chocolate Ice cream is something you should eat? Are there flavors that you should not eat?

 

[VirOptimus]

There is no guessing that people intuitively know what is right and wrong. This comes from their own behaviour which we can observe and measure scientifically in how they act objectively IE say that certain acts are always morally wrong despite subjective morality. Take a certain stand against wrongful acts that makes them always wrong and doesn't allow any alternative views. Through science that shows how even babies know right from wrong, not just any subjective view but specific and consistent responses of right and wrong that are not taught.

Again, where is this moral sence located?

You said ”that god places it in our hearts”. And when called out on that as the heart is just a muscle you said it was a figure of speech.

So, is it in our brains? Where? Did it evolve? Can we measure it? Or is it located somewhere else?

 

[stevevw]

Again, you don't seem to realize that if someone says Action X is always wrong, they do not mean it objectively. It is still consistent with subjective morality.

So when someone condemns and objects to a wrong and may even take action in making a protest about it, such as with signs saying DV is wrong and perpetrators should be convicted you are saying they don't really mean what they are saying and making a stand for. It really isn't wrong but just something the person personally thinks is wrong so they may not be really right in making their stand and its not the truth.

I can say that oysters are always disgusting, but that doesn't make it an objective fact, does it? My dislike of oysters is still my subjective opinion, even though I phrased it as something objective.

But your taste for oysters is not like how we talk about morality. As mentioned a moral right and wrong is equated to "likes and dislikes" under subjective morality. So if you claim that "eating Oysters is wrong" or "you should not eat Oysters" you are making an objective statement.

In saying oysters are always disgusting you are subjectively describing something. You are saying they are disgusting. Words like disgusting are adjectives (describing words) which makes it subjective. Whereas saying oysters are right or wrong you are putting a factual statement out there that (fact/truth) oysters are wrong.

Anything objective sticks to the facts, but anything subjective has feelings.
Objective and subjective are opposites.
Objective: It is raining. (Oysters are wrong)
Subjective: I love the rain! (oysters are always disgusting)
objective vs. subjective on Vocabulary.com

Therefore disgusting is a feeling word in which the subject is describing the taste of an Oyster to them regardless of how you want to structure the sentence.

Whereas "Oysters are wrong" or 'you should not eat oysters" or "you are right in eating oysters" are fact/truth statements. There is no subject in the statement, just a statement of fact.

 

[VirOptimus]

But your taste for oysters is not like how we talk about morality. As mentioned a moral right and wrong is equated to "likes and dislikes" under subjective morality. So if you claim that "eating Oysters is wrong" or "you should not eat Oysters" you are making an objective statement.

In saying oysters are always disgusting you are subjectively describing something. You are saying they are disgusting. Words like disgusting are adjectives (describing words) which makes it subjective. Whereas saying oysters are right or wrong you are putting a factual statement out there that (fact/truth) oysters are wrong.

Anything objective sticks to the facts, but anything subjective has feelings.
Objective and subjective are opposites.
Objective: It is raining. (Oysters are wrong)
Subjective: I love the rain! (oysters are always disgusting)
objective vs. subjective on Vocabulary.com

Therefore disgusting is a feeling word in which the subject is describing the taste of an Oyster to them regardless of how you want to structure the sentence.

Whereas "Oysters are wrong" or 'you should not eat oysters" or "you are right in eating oysters" are fact/truth statements. There is no subject in the statement, just a statement of fact.

Do you have any real arguments besides weak semantics?

 

[stevevw]

Again, where is this moral sense located?

We could say the same for where is love or a maternal instinct located. Just because I cannot tell you where exactly it is located doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's a logical fallacy. That would imply that because we don't know where love or maternal bond is they must not be real.

You said ”that god places it in our hearts”. And when called out on that as the heart is just a muscle you said it was a figure of speech.

I don't get you, you previously said my answer was simplistic and wrong and I asked why and you said study philosophy 101. Then I breakdown things to show it had nothing to do with philosophy and ask if you can be more engaging. You then said no I give answers to your post that they deserve so I said fair enough and left it at that. Now you want to engage in the same post again.

Nevertheless I am glad you are engaging. I was quoting the Bible verse where it tells us God places his laws in our hearts. This verse says exactly that but goes on to say that it is our conscience that determines right from wrong. I don't know why the Bible verse says God's laws are in our hearts. I presumed it was a figure of speech but maybe it is true. People use the heart as though it has some ability to think when they say things like " Don't let your heart rule your head" for example. Maybe there is something to this.

So, is it in our brains? Where? Did it evolve? Can we measure it? Or is it located somewhere else?

Moral subjectivists use evolution as one reason for how morals came about. But this is known as a "genetic fallacy". This only explains how we got morals and not why something is ultimately right or wrong. Our sense of right and wrong is in our conscience. When we do something wrong if we are of a sound mind we will feel accused. if we have not done anything wrong and we are accused we can be justified in feeling excused.

The Bible says our knowledge of right and wrong is determined by our conscience and that is how we appear to know morality. We are born with a knowledge of right and wrong. The foundation of right and wrong isn't created by society or culture. Society and culture will only build on what is already there and refine it to the different views they may have of the world. But when we look closely we will find that basically all societies and cultures have similar basic beliefs about morality.

 

[stevevw]

Do you have any real arguments besides weak semantics?

These aren't weak semantics but proper ways of determining the difference between objectivity and subjectivity used by the experts. But as I said earlier we also have their actions that go along with what people say and actions speak louder than words.

 

[VirOptimus]

We could say the same for where is love or a maternal instinct located. Just because I cannot tell you where exactly it is located doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's a logical fallacy. That would imply that because we don't know where love or maternal bond is they must not be real.

I don't get you, you previously said my answer was simplistic and wrong and I asked why and you said study philosophy 101. Then I breakdown things to show it had nothing to do with philosophy and ask if you can be more engaging. You then said no I give answers to your post that they deserve so I said fair enough and left it at that. Now you want to engage in the same post again.

Nevertheless I am glad you are engaging. I was quoting the Bible verse where it tells us God places his laws in our hearts. This verse says exactly that but goes on to say that it is our conscience that determines right from wrong. I don't know why the Bible verse says God's laws are in our hearts. I presumed it was a figure of speech but maybe it is true. People use the heart as though it has some ability to think when they say things like " Don't let your heart rule your head" for example. Maybe there is something to this.

Moral subjectivists use evolution as one reason for how morals came about. But this is known as a "genetic fallacy". This only explains how we got morals and not why something is ultimately right or wrong. Our sense of right and wrong is in our conscience. When we do something wrong if we are of a sound mind we will feel accused. if we have not done anything wrong and we are accused we can be justified in feeling excused.

The Bible says our knowledge of right and wrong is determined by our conscience and that is how we appear to know morality. We are born with a knowledge of right and wrong. The foundation of right and wrong isn't created by society or culture. Society and culture will only build on what is already there and refine it to the different views they may have of the world. But when we look closely we will find that basically all societies and cultures have similar basic beliefs about morality.

So, answer the question, where is these morals placed? Are they physical or not?

Besides, we can see the brainfunctions of feelings like love. No real mystery there.

 

[VirOptimus]

These aren't weak semantics but proper ways of determining the difference between objectivity and subjectivity used by the experts. But as I said earlier we also have their actions that go along with what people say and actions speak louder than words.

No, its just semantics.

And I dont think you really understand the consequences of a objective morality. You understand that all the world fanatics like ISIS or NeoNazis or very conservative christians all say they have the answer to what constitues ”objective morals” but they all have different morals. How do you prove which is correct? How do you reason with someone who believes they have the ”correct” morals without room for change or error?