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.
Sorry, good people... Another angle on this topic.
I simply want to know where it is.
If its not an aspect of my own mental state or yours, then it must be out there somewhere, right? So.... where?
It can reside in you(subjective to you, but objective to others) as well as in others(objective to you, but subjective to the ‘other’ it resides in).
Think of it this way: if you’re actually right then you’re objectively right.
Or this way: objective morality can only exist if a person has/acts on accurate understanding of reality.
Accurate understanding of reality.
And that causes something to exist.
You sure about this? Do you believe you have an
" accurate understanding of reality"?
Probably impossible, imo.In certain cases, yes, I think I can have an accurate understanding of reality(maybe not all aspects of reality, but the aspects that I’m focused on at any given moment).
Do you think it’s impossible to accurately understand reality?
Probably impossible, imo.
What accurate reading of reality gives you objective
morality? ( and how you know)
I think its more than that. We don't just reasoned these trutrhs based on being true by default. They are values in themselves and stand independent of other things that give them value.This is known as the "Argument from Consequences" fallacy. You're saying, "Wouldn't it be a bummer if our moral values weren't actually valuable? And wouldn't it be a bummer if there was no actual justice? It can't be a bummer, so it must be true". It's fallacious reasoning and doesn't even count as evidence.
”We all” dont know them, and ”we all” dont live by them.-snip- We all know these truths and live by these truths.
How do you know we don't all know morals. Research shows that we are born with the basic knowledge of morality.”We all” dont know them, and ”we all” dont live by them.
BUt this arguement from moral difference or disagreement is a logical fallacy. It doesn't follow that because people disagree or that morals have changed means there is no moral truths. Let me ask you do you think morality has changed for the better.all know right from wrong and this grows over time. We live
See how morality is different through times, space and from idividual to individual.
How do you know we don't all know morals. Research shows that we are born with the basic knowledge of morality.
The Moral Life of Babies
It turns out instead that the right theory of our moral lives has two parts. It starts with what we are born with, and this is surprisingly rich: babies are moral animals.
The Moral Life of Babies
I am not saying we all live by morals. I am saying that as we are all born with the basics of morality this is reflected in the way we live. We don't have to be moral as we have free will but the fact that we make morality normative and create laws and Rights around morals we actually create moral reality by doing this.
If morality is only relative/subjective then by doing this we are contradicting ourselves by forcing everyone to conform to these norms as the very idea of relativism and subjectivism is that there are no moral truth that everyone can be forced to conform with. But rather everyone has their own moral truth.
So its the fact that we act as hostile witnesses against subjective morality and become crown witnesses for moral truths which must have some bearing on what is morlay real or not.
BUt this arguement from moral difference or disagreement is a logical fallacy. It doesn't follow that because people disagree or that morals have changed means there is no moral truths. Let me ask you do you think morality has changed for the better.
I am responding to your claim that we don't know right and wrong morally. I just provided evdience that we do.I know because I dont know "objective morals".
You again dont understand the very basics what non-objective (or objective for that matter) morality entails.
I am responding to your claim that we don't know right and wrong morally. I just provided evdience that we do.
No the research shows that babies as young as 3 months have the moral basics. They concluded that we are born with moral knowledge as a result as at that young age it is too early to have been taught.Your "evidence" only say that very young people have moral stances (which is to be expected as humans are moral agents).
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Yes, thats what I said, young people have moral stances. It really doesnt support your imagined ”points”.No the research shows that babies as young as 3 months have the moral basics. They concluded that we are born with moral knowledge as a result as at that young age it is too early to have been taught.
There is mounting scientific evidence that this may not be true and that “some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bone.”
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2010-05-psychologists-babies-wrong-months.html
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. It starts with what we are born with, and this is surprisingly rich: babies are moral animals.
The Moral Life of Babies
It actually supports my point. I said that we make objective morality a reality in our world and the fact that we are born with moral knowledge is why we live out that reality.Yes, thats what I said, young people have moral stances. It really doesnt support your imagined ”points”.
I have never said people stop having moral stances, quite the contrary. An moral agent will always have a moral stance.It actually supports my point. I said that we make objective morality a reality in our world and the fact that we are born with moral knowledge is why we live out that reality.
I don't know why you are emphazing young people like moral knowledge disappears when older. This moral knowledge we are born with doesn't disappear. It is the basis for right and wrong much the same as adults have. That is why there is a core set of morals truths that we all know and acknowledge through religion, socialization, culture and with Human Rights, laws and norms.
As the article says the knowledge of right and wrong is bred to the bone. Its a part of us and we cannot help but live like these core morals are like laws that govern us morally.
Then why emphaxise young people.I have never said people stop having moral stances, quite the contrary. An moral agent will always have a moral stance.
But how can anyone take a moral stance without relying on some objective basis. Opinions, preferences and feelings are hardly moral stances and it carries little weight as a moral declaration. A stance is reasoned and therefore in morality its reasoning the best stance to take. Reasoning requires rational thinking and not subjective thinking.It in no way support the notion of an objective morality.
You dont seem to understand what a moral stance is.Then why emphaxise young people.
But how can anyone take a moral stance without relying on some objective basis. Opinions, preferences and feelings are hardly moral stances and it carries little weight as a moral declaration. A stance is reasoned and therefore in morality its reasoning the best stance to take. Reasoning requires rational thinking and not subjective thinking.
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?