Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Where does morality come from?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="stevevw" data-source="post: 74980671" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>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.</p><p></p><p> OK then in the automatic car scenario no one is responding.</p><p></p><p> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p> 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?</p><p></p><p> 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.</p><p></p><p> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p> I am not sure. Because you're having a dig at me perhaps.</p><p></p><p> Agreed. Agreed.</p><p></p><p>But what if Steve only claims that "Objective morality exists". Then he only has to show that objective morality exists once.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 74980671, member: 342064"] 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. OK then in the automatic car scenario no one is responding. 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. 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. 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? That is not what I am talking about. Intuition call it "inner knowledge", a "gut feeling" which could be acquired by a range of influences, be it natural laws, an inner sense of what is right and wrong. It is a good indicator of determining when something just doesn't sit right. What I am saying is that we all have this and it tells us that certain things are always evil no matter what people say. When someone is trying to rationalise or justify something good when you know it is bad it just doesn't sit right. I only said that as you were getting upset that I kept referring to it. But as I said that is part of the support for objective morality. Yes, it can be a (logical fallacy of popularity) that just because many do it doesn't mean its right or is. But at the same time, it can be used as indirect support along with other supports that add up to a strong case. As I said with the logical argument based on moral lived experience and comparing it to our lived experience with the physical world. It is not just that many people may do something but it is also the way they do it. When they act against their own subjective moral position this is showing that some inner intuition is causing them to contradict themselves and act truthfully. I am not sure. Because you're having a dig at me perhaps. Agreed. Agreed. But what if Steve only claims that "Objective morality exists". Then he only has to show that objective morality exists once. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Where does morality come from?
Top
Bottom