Where does morality come from?

[Kylie]

See, that doesn't make the distinction clear for me either. What do you mean they "think it's wrong"? Like they're guessing? "I think Trump is going to win the election". Like that? (Just a note, I'm not a Trump fan, but I am a pessimist).

Or would it be okay to phrase it that they feel it's wrong? As in, they hate it and find it bad? "I think oysters are yucky". Like that?

Given that they are expressing a subjective opinion, it could be any one of those, depending on the person.

 

[stevevw]

Once again you don't seem to get what I am saying.

Someone can say, "It's wrong to smack a naughty child," and they aren't stating it as an objectively true fact, they are merely saying that they think it's wrong to smack a naughty child.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, that it is an opinion the person is expressing. But you are not understanding what the implication of that is which I am trying to explain to you. If you just express an opinion that an act is morally right or wrong and put that out into the world, you are negating your claim about the moral act being right or wrong.

In other words, you contradict yourself because an opinion doesn't express the truth that an act is right or wrong. So why put it out there, why take a stand and condemn a moral act if you only expressing an opinion. For example, if you said to me I am wrong for saying morals are objective I could say "so what that just your opinion and that holds no fact or truth". If you put a claim out there about morality and move it from your personal views to apply to others then it changes from opinion to stating a fact.

I'm Aussie too.
I was born in Austria though, so perhaps that makes the difference.

I think its the texture that people don't like. But the taste is distinct. I liken it to sheeps brains which has a similar texture which I also like and which may be more European food. It's a psychological thing.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes, I understand what you are saying, that it is an opinion the person is expressing. But you are not understanding what the implication of that is which I am trying to explain to you. If you just express an opinion that an act is morally right or wrong and put that out into the world, you are negating your claim about the moral act being right or wrong.

In other words, you contradict yourself because an opinion doesn't express the truth that an act is right or wrong. So why put it out there, why take a stand and condemn a moral act if you only expressing an opinion. For example, if you said to me I am wrong for saying morals are objective I could say "so what that just your opinion and that holds no fact or truth". If you put a claim out there about morality and move it from your personal views to apply to others then it changes from opinion to stating a fact.

I think its the texture that people don't like. But the taste is distinct. I liken it to sheeps brains which has a similar texture which I also like and which may be more European food. It's a psychological thing.

One certainly can have opinions on how others should act without believing in an ”objective morality”.

Also, you should read Kant, Heidegger and Kirkegaard.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, I understand what you are saying, that it is an opinion the person is expressing. But you are not understanding what the implication of that is which I am trying to explain to you. If you just express an opinion that an act is morally right or wrong and put that out into the world, you are negating your claim about the moral act being right or wrong.

In other words, you contradict yourself because an opinion doesn't express the truth that an act is right or wrong. So why put it out there, why take a stand and condemn a moral act if you only expressing an opinion. For example, if you said to me I am wrong for saying morals are objective I could say "so what that just your opinion and that holds no fact or truth". If you put a claim out there about morality and move it from your personal views to apply to others then it changes from opinion to stating a fact.

Why do you think that a person can't express their opinion unless that opinion is objectively true?

I think its the texture that people don't like. But the taste is distinct. I liken it to sheeps brains which has a similar texture which I also like and which may be more European food. It's a psychological thing.

I wouldn't want to eat sheep's brains either...

 

[stevevw]

Firstly, I’m not sure most do.

Secondly, try to answer the critique instead.[/QUOTE] But I mentioned earlier that we can know what objective morals are and what they entail IE (morals that are right and wrong independent of humans). We also can know objective morals through our intuitions. We can make predictions about our intuitive morality and then seek to find this and measure it to see if it matches. Science uses the same method in making assumptions and then seeking to verify them.

But also there are other ways people can know objective morality such as through human wellbeing and hurting people. Many who support objective morality use this method. In fact because we know that there have to be certain moral truths because humans know and live this way there is a movement to come up with ways to support objective morality that doesn't involve using a transcendent moral lawgiver. IE

How Morality Has The Objectivity That Matters—Without God
The thesis of this essay is that morality is not objective in the same the way that statements of empirically verifiable facts are objective, yet morality is objective in the ways that matter: moral judgments are not arbitrary; we can have genuine disagreements about moral issues; people can be mistaken in their moral beliefs, and facts about the world are relevant to and inform our moral judgments.
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God | Free Inquiry
The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqM_NE4Zk2s
The greatest moral challenge of our time? It’s how we think about morality itself
Murder is wrong. This is not just a matter of subjective personal preference, it’s an objective fact.
The greatest moral challenge of our time? It's how we think about morality itself

But even if we disregard all these questions about how we know objective morality is true are irrelevant just the same as how we know God is real. They don't disprove that objective morals are not true. You can never disprove there are no objective morals. But I only have to show that there is one objective moral to support there are objective morals.

Its just like god(s), its a belief without data or evidence to back it up.

But this does not stop people from providing indirect evidence and logical arguments for God and objective morals. In fact, one argument for God is that there are objective morals and with God, there is no moral right and wrong. There are other arguments for God such as the fine-tuning and cosmological argument.

This is the same for objective morals such as the one based on our lived moral experience. Just like we can be justified in believing that our physical world is real based on our lived experience of it we can also be justified to believe that there are objective morals based on our lived experience that people live and act live there are objective morals.

Until a defeater is given that will completely show that our experience of objective morals is completely unreliable we can be justified in our belief about there being objective moral values and duties.

 

[Moral Orel]

Given that they are expressing a subjective opinion, it could be any one of those, depending on the person.

Okay, so how about you personally? Which of those lines up closest to what you mean when you say "X is wrong"? Feel free to elaborate on my examples, I'm not trying to pigeonhole you with a false dichotomy.

 

[VirOptimus]

But I mentioned earlier that we can know what objective morals are and what they entail IE (morals that are right and wrong independent of humans). We also can know objective morals through our intuitions. We can make predictions about our intuitive morality and then seek to find this and measure it to see if it matches. Science uses the same method in making assumptions and then seeking to verify them.

But also there are other ways people can know objective morality such as through human wellbeing and hurting people. Many who support objective morality use this method. In fact because we know that there have to be certain moral truths because humans know and live this way there is a movement to come up with ways to support objective morality that doesn't involve using a transcendent moral lawgiver. IE

How Morality Has The Objectivity That Matters—Without God
The thesis of this essay is that morality is not objective in the same the way that statements of empirically verifiable facts are objective, yet morality is objective in the ways that matter: moral judgments are not arbitrary; we can have genuine disagreements about moral issues; people can be mistaken in their moral beliefs, and facts about the world are relevant to and inform our moral judgments.
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God | Free Inquiry
The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqM_NE4Zk2s
The greatest moral challenge of our time? It’s how we think about morality itself
Murder is wrong. This is not just a matter of subjective personal preference, it’s an objective fact.
The greatest moral challenge of our time? It's how we think about morality itself

But even if we disregard all these questions about how we know objective morality is true are irrelevant just the same as how we know God is real. They don't disprove that objective morals are not true. You can never disprove there are no objective morals. But I only have to show that there is one objective moral to support there are objective morals.

But this does not stop people from providing indirect evidence and logical arguments for God and objective morals. In fact, one argument for God is that there are objective morals and with God, there is no moral right and wrong. There are other arguments for God such as the fine-tuning and cosmological argument.

This is the same for objective morals such as the one based on our lived moral experience. Just like we can be justified in believing that our physical world is real based on our lived experience of it we can also be justified to believe that there are objective morals based on our lived experience that people live and act live there are objective morals.

Until a defeater is given that will completely show that our experience of objective morals is completely unreliable we can be justified in our belief about there being objective moral values and duties.

Tl, dr.

make your point more succintly.

 

[stevevw]

Why do you think that a person can't express their opinion unless that opinion is objectively true?

Because when a person takes a stand, they are standing for something. They are not just expressing an opinion as that negates their stand. That's because an opinion is not speaking the truth to the world, it says to people that " I think", I am not sure and I could be wrong.

When you're taking a stand, protesting, and trying to convince others you don't want to project that lack of certainty. They want to be clear and assured of what they are standing for and stating facts and truths especially with morality. Because you are saying there is only two positions on this matter and I am stating that it's wrong. Truth dictates that it can only be right or wrong one way or the other.

I wouldn't want to eat sheep's brains either...

yummo.

 

[VirOptimus]

Because when a person takes a stand, they are standing for something. They are not just expressing an opinion as that negates their stand. That's because an opinion is not speaking the truth to the world, it says to people that I am not sure and I could be wrong. When you're taking a stand, protesting, and trying to convince others you people don't want to project that. They want to be clear and assured of what they are standing for especially with morality.

yummo.

No, thats simply in error.

One can be very passionate about something without the mistaken belief that it has to be of a ”moral objective truth”.

I f.ex. oppose the death penalty with a passion.

 

[stevevw]

One certainly can have opinions on how others should act without believing in an ”objective morality”.

But an opinion ("I think") is not very convincing in taking a stand about what is morally right and wrong. It says, it is only my opinion and projects the impression that "I could be wrong" because it's just an opinion.

That's not a very good way to convince others or take a stand that you want to show other that there are no two ways about what I am saying, "that X is wrong" Not " I think X is wrong but I may be wrong"

[/quote] Also, you should read Kant, Heidegger and Kirkegaard.[/QUOTE] I am familiar with Kant (deontology) Heidegger and Kirkegaard (existentialism).

 

[stevevw]

No, thats simply in error.

One can be very passionate about something without the mistaken belief that it has to be of a ”moral objective truth”.

I f.ex. oppose the death penalty with a passion.

But passion, (feelings) don't change the fact that your position is an opinion. It' ain't necessarily right or wrong. Sort of takes the wind out of the sails. A moral stand has much more punch and credibility when someone can say " X is wrong" period, its a truth and fact and there are no two ways about it.

 

[VirOptimus]

But passion, (feelings) don't change the fact that your position is an opinion. It' ain't necessarily right or wrong. Sort of takes the wind out of the sails. A moral stand has much more punch and credibility when someone can say " X is wrong" period, its a truth and fact and there are no two ways about it.

Thats just your opinion on how things should be but you cannot support it with any data or reasoned arguments.

And its not just ”opinion”, you use reasoned arguments to strengthen ones position.

A ”objective” morality does not need any reasoned arguments as its just right on its own.

 

[VirOptimus]

But an opinion ("I think") is not very convincing in taking a stand about what is morally right and wrong. It says, it is only my opinion and projects the impression that "I could be wrong" because it's just an opinion.

That's not a very good way to convince others or take a stand that you want to show other that there are no two ways about what I am saying, "that X is wrong" Not " I think X is wrong but I may be wrong"

You are truly unable to separate what you think morality should be (your religion) to what can be supported.

Brw, having to argue for ones position is a strength, not a weakness.

I am familiar with Kant (deontology) Heidegger and Kirkegaard (existentialism).

Really? I dont believe you.

 

[stevevw]

Value nihilism is the norm here.

Your religion seem to interfere with your reason (which btw is true in many things you post about, ex. the ToE).

How can you say that when I have not really used religion as the reason. I have also posted many examples of non-religious reasons why objective morality is supported. My arguments have mainly been based on logic, that people live like there are objective morals in the way they act and react. That they intuitively know that certain things are always wrong despite subjective morality.

Plus once again you once again making a logical fallacy in trying to discredit any argument based on associations with religion. Many great scientists support immaterial existence and that science cannot answer many things in life.

 

[VirOptimus]

How can you say that when I have not really used religion as the reason. I have also posted many examples of non-religious reasons why objective morality is supported. My arguments have mainly been based on logic, that people live like there are objective morals in the way they act and react. That they intuitively know that certain things are always wrong despite subjective morality.

Plus once again you once again making a logical fallacy in trying to discredit any argument based on associations with religion. Many great scientists support immaterial existence and that science cannot answer many things in life.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[Kylie]

Okay, so how about you personally? Which of those lines up closest to what you mean when you say "X is wrong"? Feel free to elaborate on my examples, I'm not trying to pigeonhole you with a false dichotomy.

Let's say that that we're talking about smacking a disobedient child. I'd say, "I think smacking a disobedient child is wrong." By this I mean that I feel that it is the wrong thing to do (although I know that many people do not feel it is the wrong thing to do), and I also feel that it's wrong in the sense that it isn't an effective means of discipline, as it often teaches the child to just fear the parent, and also teaches them to make sure that the parent doesn't catch them.

But that can't be taken to be the standard thing that people mean, of course. Other people may mean different things as I said.

 

[Kylie]

Because when a person takes a stand, they are standing for something. They are not just expressing an opinion as that negates their stand. That's because an opinion is not speaking the truth to the world, it says to people that " I think", I am not sure and I could be wrong.

When you're taking a stand, protesting, and trying to convince others you don't want to project that lack of certainty. They want to be clear and assured of what they are standing for and stating facts and truths especially with morality. Because you are saying there is only two positions on this matter and I am stating that it's wrong. Truth dictates that it can only be right or wrong one way or the other.

It's almost like it's SUBJECTIVE!

People can present their opinion just fine without it being an objective fact. I honestly can't understand why you don't get this.

 

[VirOptimus]

It's almost like it's SUBJECTIVE!

I honestly can't understand why you don't get this.

Its his modus operandi.

 

[stevevw]

Thats just your opinion on how things should be but you cannot support it with any data or reasoned arguments.

How it is my opinion. That's sort of ironic as I could say "you saying it's my opinion is just your opinion" and so on. But claiming that opinion does not state a fact is logically self-supporting. An opinion comes from self (the person) which says nothing about what is fact or truth even if you say it with feeling.

And its not just ”opinion”, you use reasoned arguments to strengthen ones position.

When a person states that "X is wrong" as a comment or a protest they are not giving any reason. The sign they hold does explain things but only states "X is wrong". Besides a person's reasoning doesn't make their opinion a truth or fact either. Different people may have different reasoning to rationalize or justify something as right or wrong.

A ”objective” morality does not need any reasoned arguments as its just right on its own.

You make an assumption. Reasoning is used to determine if the moral act conforms to the objective standards. Our intuition tells us that something is wrong but we also use reasoning to determine that this conforms to the objective standards we believe are objective.

 

[VirOptimus]

How it is my opinion. That's sort of ironic as I could say "you saying it's my opinion is just your opinion" and so on. But claiming that opinion does not state a fact is logically self-supporting. An opinion comes from self (the person) which says nothing about what is fact or truth even if you say it with feeling.

When a person states that "X is wrong" as a comment or a protest they are not giving any reason. The sign they hold does explain things but only states "X is wrong". Besides a person's reasoning doesn't make their opinion a truth or fact either. Different people may have different reasoning to rationalize or justify something as right or wrong.

You make an assumption. Reasoning is used to determine if the moral act conforms to the objective standards. Our intuition tells us that something is wrong but we also use reasoning to determine that this conforms to the objective standards we believe are objective.

Hahaha, no, just no.