Where is the Objective Morality?

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,561
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,627.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
To show compassion to the suffering is objectively moral.

Is it? How so?

Again, objective means, “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions; considering only facts…existing outside the mind; based on facts that can be proved…objective reality.”

So, what exactly are you appealing to that exists independently of us, our thoughts, and beliefs, that establishes that behavior as “objectively moral.”
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
BUt you have not even addressed the arguement in the article I linked.
I don't need to address any specific argument. My proof covers all arguments for any prescriptive statements. All prescriptive statements can never be justified. You're trying to sidestep my proof by presenting some other argument. No dice.

I tell you that you can't touch my proof, and so you offer up some other argument as a red herring from the fact that you can't touch my proof. You're just proving me right by avoiding my proof.
 
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,918
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,652.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Is it? How so?

Again, objective means, “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions; considering only facts…existing outside the mind; based on facts that can be proved…objective reality.”

So, what exactly are you appealing to that exists independently of us, our thoughts, and beliefs, that establishes that behavior as “objectively moral.”

Compassion is a response to the suffering of others, along with the desire to alleviate it. That's a facts based moral intention and goal. Compassion is common in humanity. The etymology of the term "compassion" literally means to suffer with another. It requires two or more to suffer with one another. Both the circumstance of suffering and the moral reaction of compassion to alleviate the suffering can only exist in a shared objective reality.

Compassion qualifies as a discomfort, because through it, we suffer with others for real in some manner of a shared factual understanding of what suffering is. Compassion cares about others and seeks to do something about it. And that is why, compassion is the impetus for moral reasoning, and not immoral reasoning. The subjective determination to turn away from the discomfort of suffering with others (heartlessness), still would not make compassion immoral objectively (factually).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,561
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,627.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Compassion qualifies as a discomfort, because through it, we suffer with others for real in some manner of a shared factual understanding of what suffering is. Compassion cares about others and seeks to do something about it. And that is why, compassion is the impetus for moral reasoning, and not immoral reasoning. The subjective determination to turn away from the discomfort of suffering with others (heartlessness), still would not make compassion immoral objectively (factually).

Compassion is a response to the suffering of others, along with the desire to alleviate it. That's a facts based moral intention and goal.

Not really. Your reasoning includes a phenomenal leap. You begin with a fact, people experience compassion, another fact, people experience a desire to alleviate suffering from others.

From those facts you leap to the conclusion “moral intention and goal.” No way! Logically you cannot proceed from a statement of facts of what people experience to a conclusion what they’ve experienced is “moral,” whether it is a “moral” intention or “moral goal.”

The facts themselves are just facts about reality. There’s nothing about those facts that communicate morality, any more than the fact objects fall to the ground at 9.8 meters per second square communicates morality.

Rather your logic rests upon unstated assumptions between your facts and conclusion, assumptions that must be true for your conclusion to be true.

An assumption is the “response” of “compassion” and “desire” to mitigate suffering are themselves morally based. If neither or both are not morally based, then your conclusion is false.

Yet, the assumption underlying your reasoning is the issue, whether the “response” is morally based or rooted in morality. This in turn renders your argument circular, a tautology, as you claim the “response” is moral intention/moral goal, because the response is moral.

Of course, your assertion of morality is dependent on your brain, thoughts, and your brain’s own moral judgment. Without you or any human beings on the planet, is there some fact in existence independent of us and our thoughts that demonstrates the response is moral? No.

Your example doesn’t satisfy the meaning of objective, which is to say based on facts and it dependent on us, our thoughts. Objective is “Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions; considering only facts…existing outside the mind; based on facts that can be proved.”

What you declare to be “moral” doesn’t “exist outside the mind” as there’s nothing “outside the mind” that shows the “response” to be moral. Contrast your example with “objective” reality, where the fact exists outside our mind and independently of us. Such as objects tossed up on earth descend at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared, and that occurs and happens no matter what we think or believe, that is a fact independent of our thoughts and us.

In your example, the facts are only what people experience, and what they experience doesn’t show the experience to be moral. The specific feeling and desire is just that, nothing more, and that fact doesn’t have with it anything showing the fact is moral, whereas falling objects have facts that show us they are falling and fall at a certain rate of speed.

The specific feelings people experience is just that, a factual experience, but that fact doesn’t show morality any more than the facts of falling objects to the ground at a certain rate do. If you can assign moral values to certain facts, then enlighten us as to the moral value of the fact objects fall at a certain rate.

Rather, you and your thoughts attach moral value to the factual experiences. Your example is not one of “objective” morality.

Compassion is common in humanity. The etymology of the term "compassion" literally means to suffer with another. It requires two or more to suffer with one another. Both the circumstance of suffering and the moral reaction of compassion to alleviate the suffering can only exist in a shared objective reality.

It is rather perilous to assert “objective” morality based on what is “common in humanity.” Feelings of superiority, animus, for other races and sexes, and certain kinds of people is “common in humanity” and I suppose the “desire” and “response” to subjugate those who are rendered inferior can only exist in “a shared objective reality.” There’s no shortage of historical examples of this objective morality as human beings have subjugated others they deemed inferior, weak, infirm, for more than ten thousands of years.

Hate and anger for someone or other people is “common in humanity” and so, flipping the off driver who cut in front of you on the roadway, out of hatred or anger, must be moral as anger and hate are “common in humanity” and hence, both are a product of an “objective” morality of hate and anger.

And before you object by noting your examples involved helping people without harm to the person, that doesn’t matter because the “objective” morality is rooted in what’s “common in humanity” and you can’t cherry pick and select only those commonalities where people play by the rules of Marquess of Queensberry Rules towards others but ignore the emotions, feelings, the passion common to humans that has led them to treat other humans horribly.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Equally important is the fact some or all emotions, feelings. known to Homo Sapiens is shared by all Homo Sapiens tells us nothing about the morality of those emotions/feelings. It is just a fact we have them, just as it’s a fact objects fall at a certain rate. You assign “objective” morality on the basis it is shared, common, to us. But that’s the problem, the “morality” is rooted in our existence, and not something that exists independently of us that shows or declares what we feel or experience is or isn’t moral.

Finally, according to the field of evolutionary psychology, the emotions and feelings are a product of survival instincts, and not “objective” moral code.
 
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,918
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,652.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not really. Your reasoning includes a phenomenal leap. You begin with a fact, people experience compassion, another fact, people experience a desire to alleviate suffering from others.

From those facts you leap to the conclusion “moral intention and goal.” No way! Logically you cannot proceed from a statement of facts of what people experience to a conclusion what they’ve experienced is “moral,” whether it is a “moral” intention or “moral goal.”
Actually, I began with the fact that people experience suffering (Compassion is a response to suffering). So, I know for a fact, that "suffering", such as people starving to death, is referring to a bad thing happening to persons who are just like me, according to reality, and not based on an opinion. I therefore know for a fact that showing compassion and feeding them is a good thing to do, for them (That's not subjective). The objective intent is clearly to help others, and the objective goal is to provide according to their need. That's completely logical as being moral, and not being immoral.

And before you object by noting your examples involved helping people without harm to the person, that doesn’t matter because the “objective” morality is rooted in what’s “common in humanity” and you can’t cherry pick and select only those commonalities where people play by the rules of Marquess of Queensberry Rules towards others but ignore the emotions, feelings, the passion common to humans that has led them to treat other humans horribly.
Of course, it's true that Morality and immorality are both common in humanity. However, Morality is not immorality. I don't see how it's possible to cherry pick since we must choose one term "morality" to stand for the goodness when we say it, and without hypocrisy.


If helping others doesn't matter, then why presume to count it a subjective "phenomenal leap" for any person to declare that the intent of a common goodness would be to care for others outside their own subjective view? It obviously matters whether the intention and goal are moral or immoral when the objective is to show what objective morality is and is not, in mankind.

So let us not subjectively confuse/conflate the positive sentiment of morality, with the negative sentiment of immorality by labeling them both as "morality" in an obfuscating form of psycholinguistics. For this erases the true meanings of the words. And let us not compound that error, by subjectively claiming it is objectively honest and unbiased to label them both as the same thing. Because objectively speaking, the reality makes it perfectly clear that Compassion does not equate with cruelty, or wickedness, and it's not dishonest to say so.

Equally important is the fact some or all emotions, feelings. known to Homo Sapiens is shared by all Homo Sapiens tells us nothing about the morality of those emotions/feelings. It is just a fact we have them, just as it’s a fact objects fall at a certain rate. You assign “objective” morality on the basis it is shared, common, to us. But that’s the problem, the “morality” is rooted in our existence, and not something that exists independently of us that shows or declares what we feel or experience is or isn’t moral.
You seem to be under some persuasion, that there's no way to objectively distinguish the difference between morality and immorality in our shared reality. You therefore seem to reason upon the mistaken opinion that to attempt to do so is to exhibit a bias towards objective morality that is somehow objectively immoral/dishonest to begin with. I note in your prior paragraph that you are on record correctly denouncing the horrible treatment of others; which is to point to some treatments as being objectively immoral (objectively pointing out immoral treatment, is an objectively moral thing to do).

Respectfully, we can't make a legitimate claim that there objectively exists horrible treatment of others in our shared reality; and yet also claim that in the objective reality we are all objectively incapable of telling whether horrible treatment is horrible or not (moral or immoral). I therefore suspect that the problem you are actually referring to, is how semantics form in subjective views (positive/negative connotations of terms reverse according to opposing subjective views of reality).

Equally important is the fact some or all emotions, feelings. known to Homo Sapiens is shared by all Homo Sapiens tells us nothing about the morality of those emotions/feelings. It is just a fact we have them, just as it’s a fact objects fall at a certain rate. You assign “objective” morality on the basis it is shared, common, to us. But that’s the problem, the “morality” is rooted in our existence, and not something that exists independently of us that shows or declares what we feel or experience is or isn’t moral.
In all honesty, I don't see a problem where we lack some thing, that's not human, to declare to us whether compassion is a goodness or badness in mankind. I would think that you and I both would know, that reality itself dictates to us authoritatively; that in the event we were starving to death, we would appreciate someone caring enough to take the time to give some of their food to us, because that is what an objective morality does, and how it is. An objective immorality would therefore begin by me simply walking by a starving person due to a lack of compassion (indifference). Or worse, I would find satisfaction in the fact that it's not me starving (cruelty). Or worse still, I actually manifest the perverse hope, that they die so I can loot their belongings, through my subjective morality.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,571
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,730.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That is circular reasoning. Whether they “are values in themselves and stand independent of other things that give them value” is the very issue being debated and argued.

Which, I’ll add, there’s no evidence to demonstrate this “value” as objective, where objective refers to a state of affairs that exist, is factual, reality, without regard to us, our existence, and our thoughts.
So lets say morality is a different sort of fact or truth than the physical ones that science deals with. Its like an abstract fact like Math or the colour red or love. We have no physical objective to refer to.

So first to think in terms of methodlogical naturalism is not going to work here and just because people cannot find that physical evidence doesn't mean there are no moral truths/laws. JUst like it doesn't negate our claim that our partner truely loves us or the existence of the colour Red has no physical evidence yet we make it real and fact.

Second just like we treat or make other abstracts like love, the colour red or Math real and factual we treat moral truths like "murder and rape is wrong" factual or truth regardless of subjective thinking. So according to subjective we can either in error or deluded. But either of these doesn't prove there is no objective reality.

In fact it treats our experience of morality as some defeative state which many say is not the case as we actually live that reality out. That would be to say that we are living in delusions but I think we are smarter than that and morality is more real than that. So it can be the case that we are actually acknowledging and living out moral truths that we all know of and respect.

Its like when we declare rationally that the act of rape is wrong no matter what people subjectively think. That makes it a fact outside what people subjectively think. But your saying thats an error or delusion. But everything about is speaks fact. Its like saying we cannot say the clour red is fact or that our partner truely loves us is fact and we are just deluded because we cannot prove this physically.

To say its not a fact and that somehow we delude ourselves into think it is is silly as we contradict this everyday by the way we treat it as a fact. So if its not a fact that rape is wrong then its not wrong period and thats silly as well because we contradict that everyday. Its either real or its not and the only way we can know its real is how we make it real like love and the colour red. .

Oh, “we” you say “all know these truths”? And you may speak for the entirety of humanity on what basis? Speculating what all of humanity agrees upon as true is unpersuasive. Especially here where you’ve encountered some people who disagree and aren’t within your “all” category.
OK so an example again "rape is wrong". Can anyone claim rape is ok to do in any rational way. I think the answer is they can't and we all know that. Anyone who disagree is just mistaken. So here is a moral fact that we all know.

We know its wrong by the fact that we have to violate another person. If it was OK to do then people would happily submit to rape. But the fact that our inner being resists this shows we know its something that is not right to do. The idea that this doesn't prove moral facts is silly as it has all the hallmarks of a fact so we must be deluded.

But the alternative is silly as well that its not a fact and we should allow rape. To say that we don't rape because threatens our survival is appealing to an objective outside ourselves. We cannot justify rape being wrong without some objective basis outside ourselves.

So we do make rape wrong by law, by social convention, in our daily lives we live that truth. But wait its all a delusion of some sort there is no fact and therefore we have to say we do not know how we should act on this matter.

Now, that a value is “abstract” but “made real in our lives” doesn’t demonstrate the value as objective truth or objective reality.
For morality this is the only way we can prove moral truths by how we make them reality. Its like Math, we made the system to describe some facts about reality but it cannot be verified apart from how we make it fact. The same with the colour red or love. We cannot prove these apart from our experience of them and how we make them fact in our lives. Live it long enough and it becomes our reality.
Democracy, capitalism, Marxism, socialism, equality, justice, are abstract ideas but manifest existence in our reality as structures and institutions based on how human beings perceive them and understood them in their minds. The institutions, structures, and actions we associate with those abstract ideas vanishes without us. Whether those abstract ideas exist independently of us, and whether our understanding of them accurately reflected their objective existence, cannot be known as there isn’t any evidence of their existence independent of our own existence.
Your thinking in materialistic terms so the only objectives we can know are physical ones. Therefore even iof there are abstract truths it doesn't matter they are discounted before we even start. But as I said we make many abstract things facts and truths and we are quite happy to accept them and live by them as fact.

Yes we live by the facts of how Democracy, capitalism, Marxism, socialism work. They are different by fact and we can live those facts in our lives. Someone can come and say what you claim to be capitalism is actually acting like a Marxist by fact and they are wrong in that claim by showing their contradictory behaviour. The same with morality. If we are happy to do that with other abstracts why not morality.

But values like equality and justice they are also lived as facts as we demonstrate in our lives with human rights and laws. We make them fact in the world. They can be reasoned as facts just like Marxism. Just like someone acts angry which is also an abstract idea we say there is such a thing as "anger" which is real in the world and yet there is no such physical object that is "anger".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That defies the very meaning of “objective.”

Objective: “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions; considering only facts…
existing outside the mind; based on facts that can be proved objective reality” Oxford dictionary.

That which is “objective” is true, reality, factual, independent of our existence. The speed of light is “objective,” as its speed isn’t and doesn’t depend on our existence or an accurate and correct understanding of its speed by any of us. Just as objects tossed in the air on earth A) fall back down at a rate is B.) 9.8 meters per second squared.

That those objects fall back down and at a certain rate isn’t dependent on our existence, or our thoughts. The human race could disappear tomorrow and all else being equal, objects will fall and at that rate on this planet devoid of Homo Sapiens.

So, if there is an “objective” morality, it’s existence isn’t and doesn’t depend on us or our understanding.

Which, I add, there’s no evidence for this morality and presently no way to demonstrate its existence should objective morality exist.

I agree morality can’t exist apart from minds, but that doesn’t mean a mind, not your own (objective to you) couldn't actually be right about something (objectively right).

Unless you think minds don’t exist in objective reality?

The only part of that definition I disagree with is the notion that objective truth can only exist apart from minds. It can also exist within minds. That’s called accurate understanding.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: childeye 2
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,561
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,627.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Morality and immorality are both common in humanity. However, Morality is not immorality. I don't see how it's possible to cherry pick since we must choose one term "morality" to stand for the goodness when we say it, and without hypocrisy.

If helping others doesn't matter, then why presume to count it a subjective "phenomenal leap" for any person to declare that the intent of a common goodness would be to care for others outside their own subjective view? It obviously matters whether the intention and goal are moral or immoral when the objective is to show what objective morality is and is not, in mankind.

So let us not subjectively confuse/conflate the positive sentiment of morality, with the negative sentiment of immorality by labeling them both as "morality" in an obfuscating form of psycholinguistics. For this erases the true meanings of the words. And let us not compound that error, by subjectively claiming it is objectively honest and unbiased to label them both as the same thing. Because objectively speaking, the reality makes it perfectly clear that Compassion does not equate with cruelty, or wickedness, and it's not dishonest to say so.

You seem to be under some persuasion, that there's no way to objectively distinguish the difference between morality and immorality in our shared reality. You therefore seem to reason upon the mistaken opinion that to attempt to do so is to exhibit a bias towards objective morality that is somehow objectively immoral/dishonest to begin with. I note in your prior paragraph that you are on record correctly denouncing the horrible treatment of others; which is to point to some treatments as being objectively immoral (objectively pointing out immoral treatment, is an objectively moral thing to do).

Respectfully, we can't make a legitimate claim that there objectively exists horrible treatment of others in our shared reality; and yet also claim that in the objective reality we are all objectively incapable of telling whether horrible treatment is horrible or not (moral or immoral). I therefore suspect that the problem you are actually referring to, is how semantics form in subjective views (positive/negative connotations of terms reverse according to opposing subjective views of reality).

In all honesty, I don't see a problem where we lack some thing, that's not human, to declare to us whether compassion is a goodness or badness in mankind. I would think that you and I both would know, that reality itself dictates to us authoritatively; that in the event we were starving to death, we would appreciate someone caring enough to take the time to give some of their food to us, because that is what an objective morality does, and how it is. An objective immorality would therefore begin by me simply walking by a starving person due to a lack of compassion (indifference). Or worse, I would find satisfaction in the fact that it's not me starving (cruelty). Or worse still, I actually manifest the perverse hope, that they die so I can loot their belongings, through my subjective morality.

Actually, I began with the fact that people experience suffering (Compassion is a response to suffering). So, I know for a fact, that "suffering", such as people starving to death, is referring to a bad thing happening to persons who are just like me, according to reality, and not based on an opinion. I therefore know for a fact that showing compassion and feeding them is a good thing to do, for them (That's not subjective). The objective intent is clearly to help others, and the objective goal is to provide according to their need. That's completely logical as being moral, and not being immoral.

To keep focus, the issue is does objective morality exist. You said it does, and used a compassion for others and help others suffering as objective morality.

Your example above is nothing more than a regurgitation of your circular argument.

A few points. First, your use of “bad” in your example isn’t immorality or a “moral” bad.

Second, You’ve assigned a moral and immoral value to a certain action in your example. Then, you rely upon this example with morality already built in it to conclude objective morality. That is a circular argument.

Your argument is doing X for a person under specific circumstances is moral. Therefore, objective morality exists. Translation: Objective morality exists because it exists in this example.

That is flawed reasoning as it is a tautology.

Your reasoning ASSUMES providing food is moral and not merely moral, but “objectively” moral. Hence, your ASSUMPTION is the same as your conclusion, objective morality exists because it exists here, where the debate is whether your example IS “objective” morality. Doubling down on circular reasoning is doubling down on flawed logic.

Upon what are you asserting your example illustrates an “objective” morality? If you refer back to your example you are reasoning in a circular manner and say it IS then you have a circular argument. There’s no factual feature in your example that shows it IS “objective” morality.

Contrast your example with an example of “objective” facts, and reality. A rock dropped from a building falls at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared.

This example has all the characteristics that establishes an “objective” set of facts and reality and reveal an objective law of nature.

The rock can be observed falling when released and not flowing upward when released. This tells us there’s a law of nature, some law, that governs rocks on earth when released, they fall down. That is inherent in the repeated observation of the rock falling.

Next, with measurements, the rock falls at a certain rate of 9.8 meters per second squared. This then informs us there’s some law, rule, that governs rocks falling at a certain rate. How do we know? Because the rock falls at that rate.

All of the above is “objective” because those facts are independent of our thoughts and existence. Something causing a rock to fall, rather than flow upward, and fall at a certain rate, exists independently of us in the features associated with the falling rock.

That is nothing like your example as there’s nothing about your example, not one fact or feature, that says the conduct IS caused by, rooted in, or consistent with “objective” morality and an instance of “objective” morality.

But by your logic, where you look at facts and allege some “objective” morality, then where is the “objective” morality in my factual example of the falling rock and the rate at which it falls?

You are personally assigning morality and as a result, that is subjective, not objective. You are declaring morality is present, and that is subjective. “Objective” morality would be inherently present in the characteristics and features and observable, as observing a rock fall when released, and fall at a certain rate, is revealed by the occurrence itself and informs us there is a rule of a nature, a law of nature, as a cause for the rock to fall at a certain rate.

Your example doesn’t have the same features or characteristics that shows there’s an “objective” morality in existence.

And before you might argue the law of nature as the cause is parallel to an “objective” morality in your example, there’s a clear difference. We can test for the law of nature for the falling rock and the rate at which it falls, we can’t test for an “objective” morality. Which keeps you in the same starting position, of asserting an objective morality for which we have no evidence of its existence, no way of testing for it, thereby leaving you with the flawed reasoning of baking morality into your examples and then declaring “objective” morality exists because it exists in your examples.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,561
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,627.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Of course, it's true that Morality and immorality are both common in humanity. However, Morality is not immorality. I don't see how it's possible to cherry pick since we must choose one term "morality" to stand for the goodness when we say it, and without hypocrisy.


If helping others doesn't matter, then why presume to count it a subjective "phenomenal leap" for any person to declare that the intent of a common goodness would be to care for others outside their own subjective view? It obviously matters whether the intention and goal are moral or immoral when the objective is to show what objective morality is and is not, in mankind.

So let us not subjectively confuse/conflate the positive sentiment of morality, with the negative sentiment of immorality by labeling them both as "morality" in an obfuscating form of psycholinguistics. For this erases the true meanings of the words. And let us not compound that error, by subjectively claiming it is objectively honest and unbiased to label them both as the same thing. Because objectively speaking, the reality makes it perfectly clear that Compassion does not equate with cruelty, or wickedness, and it's not dishonest to say so.

You seem to be under some persuasion, that there's no way to objectively distinguish the difference between morality and immorality in our shared reality. You therefore seem to reason upon the mistaken opinion that to attempt to do so is to exhibit a bias towards objective morality that is somehow objectively immoral/dishonest to begin with. I note in your prior paragraph that you are on record correctly denouncing the horrible treatment of others; which is to point to some treatments as being objectively immoral (objectively pointing out immoral treatment, is an objectively moral thing to do).

Respectfully, we can't make a legitimate claim that there objectively exists horrible treatment of others in our shared reality; and yet also claim that in the objective reality we are all objectively incapable of telling whether horrible treatment is horrible or not (moral or immoral). I therefore suspect that the problem you are actually referring to, is how semantics form in subjective views (positive/negative connotations of terms reverse according to opposing subjective views of reality).

In all honesty, I don't see a problem where we lack some thing, that's not human, to declare to us whether compassion is a goodness or badness in mankind. I would think that you and I both would know, that reality itself dictates to us authoritatively; that in the event we were starving to death, we would appreciate someone caring enough to take the time to give some of their food to us, because that is what an objective morality does, and how it is. An objective immorality would therefore begin by me simply walking by a starving person due to a lack of compassion (indifference). Or worse, I would find satisfaction in the fact that it's not me starving (cruelty). Or worse still, I actually manifest the perverse hope, that they die so I can loot their belongings, through my subjective morality.

The above is an amalgamation of reasoning by false dilemma, Strawman argument, red herrings, and more circular reasoning. I’ll address only a few.

I don't see how it's possible to cherry pick since we must choose one term "morality" to stand for the goodness when we say it, and without hypocrisy.

Oh, “we” must do so? According to whom? According to what? Once again, you have morality as a fact built into your reasoning.
And to compound your error, you invoke another word that is ambiguous and hence susceptible to subjectivity, when you say “goodness.”

But there’s no evidence or reasoning that demonstrates “we” must use the word “morality” at all.

Furthermore, the “cherry pick” was in regards to your reasoning of finding objective morality in that which is common to humanity. Well, based on that logic, I chose to identify some reprehensible conduct by human beings, rooted in emotions and feeling “common to humanity” that many people would denounce as immoral. My point? Your “common to humanity” theme to find any kind of morality leads to the acceptance of mistreatment of people by other people as moral. That alone should make you rethink your moral formula.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,571
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,730.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I will address the above and subsequently address the remainder of your post at a later time.



The above is not a deduction based on what I said. The above is contrary to and inconsistent with what I said.

I previously said, “objective, where objective refers to a state of affairs that exist, is factual, reality, without regard to us, our existence, and our thoughts.”

So, an object tossed up in the air on the rather will A) fallback toward earth at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared. That is “objective” reality, objective truth. This will occur without any human being on the planet. This occurrence exists independently of our existence. Hence, it is objective.
I think something like Math truths or colours like Red which have no physical state to measure can be regarded as facts/truth as well.

The explanation you have given for how gravity works and is measured says nothing about it as an objective truth of reality. It is just a description of what is happening according to assumptions like methodological naturalism and reductionism. For all we know it may be just describing a simulation effect or some magical phenomena caused by some powerful being.

We cannot step outside our reality to confirm what is really going on.

Objective: “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions; considering only facts…existing outside the mind; based on facts that can be proved
• objective reality”
Yes but only according to a limited method of measuring and describing reality.

But if we consider moral realism which is basically about moral reality then we can also determine some facts outside human subjective thinking through rationality. For example we both are prescribing epistemic values and facts to our debate such as "not misrepresenting arguments or using logical fallacies" to prove a point and find the truth of the matter.

Epistemic facts are independent of human subjective thinking because they have to be justified and proper. We can certainly choose not to prescribe these epistemic facts but we won’t be able to engage in any coherent debate. But the reality is we do prescribe epistemic facts as they are necessary for human interactions.

Some epistemic values are intertwined with moral values. For example epistemic values of how we justify proper knowledge and beliefs in debates relates to “Honesty”. So we are also prescribing “Honesty” by extension when we choose to engage with others in rational debates. Otherwise without “Honesty” we can never find the truth of a matter.

Because we are rational beings we can rationalize epistemic and moral values and facts based on independent facts which are beyond human subjective thinking. Just like we do with Math, or colours or a number of abstract truths that affect reality.

Subjective is that which doesn’t exist or occur independently of us and our thoughts. Moral and value judgments likely fall into this category.
Yet we need our thoughts to determine truths like in Math and even science. There is a difference between rational thoughts (critical thinking) and subjective thinking. We can reason independent facts beyond our subjective mind.
Unlike gravity causing an object to fall to earth at a certain rate, there’s nothing we can observe or test, independently of our existence, that declares X is morally valuable, morally reprehensible, or morally acceptable.
Not necessarily. We can determine abstract ideas like in Math, or like experiencing colours like “Red” or “Love” as independent realities. The fact that you use ideas like “test” seems to point to using a limited method of determining factual reality (methodological naturalism) when there may be other ways we can determine facts/truths.

Take “Life” itself. There are good rational reasons why we should value and respect human life. We use those reasons to justify forcing people to conform to things like Human Rights and laws. This is not based on someone’s personal; view but is rationalised as being an independent fact. That is why HR states that these Rights are said to be

Basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person in the world, for no other reason than that they were born human.
https://humanrights.gov.au/about/covid19-and-human-rights/what-are-human-rights

Otherwise are we to say there is no independent justification for Human Rights independent of personal opinions.

So, no, objective reality exists independently of us precisely and exactly because objective realtity isn’t dependent on us or our thoughts.
Then how can we even measure objective reality if there are no human thoughts. How do we know reality exists as it does without any humans? Who said it’s not some simulation when there are no human thought or when so called objective realities may be simulated to look like objective reality. WE could be just measuring a computer software program. We could be measuring Gods creation for all we know.

Second we can determine moral truths that are independent of us with the same rational thinking. Though they are not physical laws they are laws none the less like abstract truths independent of us. It just requires a different way of measuring like with proper and justified knowledge and beliefs.

I will finsih the rest of this post later.
Regards
Steve
 
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,918
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,652.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your example above is nothing more than a regurgitation of your circular argument.
You mean this argument: Compassion is objectively moral and not immoral, because it's a response to the suffering of others with the moral intent and moral goal of alleviating their suffering.

Respectfully, that's not a circular argument. It's simple. It simply states that as a matter of circumstance, compassion objectively does not support any immoral intention towards anyone, only moral intentions.


A few points. First, your use of “bad” in your example isn’t immorality or a “moral” bad.
True, I qualified it to show starvation/malnutrition being universally understood factually as a bad thing in reality.

Second, You’ve assigned a moral and immoral value to a certain action in your example.
Yes, I said, "I therefore know for a fact that showing compassion and feeding them is a good thing to do, for them (That's not subjective)."

This statement is to establish a universal fact, that to alleviate their starvation would be a good thing for the starving people. Hence compassion intends to do what is factually good for those who are suffering, and is therefore a universal or objective morality.

Then, you rely upon this example with morality already built in it to conclude objective morality. That is a circular argument.
It's predetermined that facts are built into the truth of an event. Two words 'Objective/morality'; Objective is built in as circumstantial to a tragic event happening to others, and the morality is built into the response from a compassionate person. Why shouldn't the facts line up that way?

It's not a circular argument. So long as moral conduct or Character is personified by doing what is good for others, then by definition, doing what is factually good for others qualifies as moral. It's not circular to say that compassion carries with it the intent to do what is factually good towards others (it's moral).

Your argument is doing X for a person under specific circumstances is moral. Therefore, objective morality exists. Translation: Objective morality exists because it exists in this example.
My argument is that compassion intends to do good (X) to those who suffer and is therefore an objective morality. I gave an example where starving people were fed through compassion to show why compassion is both objective and moral. I don't see what's wrong with giving an example of an objective morality.
That is flawed reasoning as it is a tautology.

Your reasoning ASSUMES providing food is moral and not merely moral, but “objectively” moral. Hence, your ASSUMPTION is the same as your conclusion, objective morality exists because it exists here, where the debate is whether your example IS “objective” morality. Doubling down on circular reasoning is doubling down on flawed logic.
I simply state that compassion objectively does not support any immoral intention towards anyone, only moral intentions, as a matter of circumstance. There is no circular reasoning. On the contrary, it's an objective fact that starving people need food. Respectfully, I can't see how you would think that's my idea (assumption).

And the term moral is about doing what is good for others, such as it's good to feed people who are starving. That's not my idea either. That's simply what the term morality is meant to express.

Doubling down on circular reasoning is doubling down on flawed logic. There’s no factual feature in your example that shows it IS “objective” morality.
Well, it's an objective universal fact of reality, that starving people need food. So that is not flawed reasoning.

Therefore, it's also an objective universal fact of reality that feeding them is good for them, because malnourishment and starvation is bad for them. So that's not a flawed reasoning either.

Your argument does not dispute the substance of the facts presented.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,571
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,730.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You find this study persuasive?

The baby isn’t a tabula rasa at 6 months to ten months, which was the range of study.
This is an assumption that humans are born as blank slates. It limits causes of human behaviour to whatever they are exposed to which limits causes to external ones.

So everything we do in society is the cause of wrong behaviour. So male violence is due to watching violent movies, women’s weight problems are because we stereotype women’s shapes etc.

There is no innate cause like biological ones that may contribute to male aggression or women’s propensity to be overweight. Great athletes can only learn to be great and there’s no natural born talent. It’s even used to discredit biological sex and we are all blank slates to be whatever sex we choose as determined by social and cultural views.

Yet the science seems to show this limited view is wrong.
These arguments are pure fiction otherwise rooted in a perfectly erroneous view of human nature. Each of these faulty attributions is hopeful because it provides people with the illusion of control. Alter the supposed culprit environmental cause and the issue will apparently be resolved. Regrettably, as hopeful as this worldview might be, it is erroneous. Ignoring our biological heritage yields a litany of false and incomplete theories of human behaviour, the grandest of which might be the Tabula Rasa view of the human mind.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/homo-consumericus/201210/the-mind-blank-slate-hopeful-wrong

The baby has been exposed to, on a daily basis, from birth to 10 months, to a wide range of human behaviors and interactions. Such as parents, adults, siblings, and sitters yelling “no” when they do not want the baby to act some way, saying “yes” to approve of behaviors, observing the parent, sibling, or adult helping the baby with a host of activities, such as washing them, changing their clothing, diaper, wiping them, feeding them, rocking them, essentially the baby from birth to ten months have personally experienced and witnessed a wide range of behaviors that can influence the study. They controlled for this how exactly?
AS mentioned this is based on a false assumption. The researchers show there are certain baby responses that are more sophisticated and deeper that go beyond them being taught and copying adults.

Indeed, some of these studies suggest that children’s positive social inclinations are so deeply ingrained that it doesn’t matter what parents say or do
Are Babies Born Good? | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

The same basic idea has also been supported with a baby’s intuition about the physical world.
The 1980s and ’90s brought a series of revelations about very young babies’ sophisticated perceptions of the physical world, suggesting that we come to life equipped with quite an extensive tool kit.
Are Babies Born Good? | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

For example, the article states they “used the ability to differentiate between unhelpful and helpful behavior as their indicator of moral judgement.” Of course, the subjects would be able to so identity such behavior and strongly associate with the behavior positively but not because of any innate, born with morality, but because since birth they have witnessed and experienced help, a lot of help, from adults, as adults fed them when hungry in the middle of the evening and other hours of the day, read to them, sang to them, bathed them, changed their diapers, wiped their butts, dressed them, rocked them, burped them, etcetera. Infants from birth to ten months spend their entire lives during that span being helpless and receiving inordinate amounts of help by adults. So, it is no surprise 80% pick the “helpful” behavior, they know it when they see it because they have seen and received copious amounts of helpful behavior.
As mentioned they found babies had a more sophisticated and deeper sense of the difference between helpful and unhelpful behaviour. They also didn’t link it to morality in the study itself but rather reasoned the helpful behaviour being associated with values like empathy, justice and equality. One of the researchers (Bloom) then reasoned that this could relate to morality which is a reasonable conclusion.

In one experiment “the babies were shown a toy dog puppet attempting to open a box, with a friendly teddy bear helping the dog, and an unfriendly teddy thwarting his efforts by sitting on him. After watching at least half a dozen times the babies were given the opportunity to choose one of the teddy bears. The majority chose the helpful teddy.” In another experiment, “A red ball attempts to climb a hill and is aided at times by a yellow triangle that helps it up the hill by getting behind it and pushing. At other times the red ball is forced back down the hill by a blue square. After watching the puppet show at least six times the babies were asked to choose a character. An overwhelming majority (over 80%) chose the helpful figure.”

Now, the “friendly teddy” and helpful “yellow triangle” resembles the adults and others in their lives who help the subjects on a daily basis and, shocker, they develop an attachment and liking for the people in their lives who help them by feeding them, bathing them, getting them something to drink, getting them dressed, tending to their daily needs that are so voluminous as to exhaust parents and others.

So, it’s no surprise the study subjects pick the helpful entity, as their entire life to that point has been daily, copious amounts of helpful behaviors showered upon them.

The study has other issues.

The study’s author(s) assigned moral significance to helpful behavior. That’s a problem don’t ya think? They’ve assigned a moral value to their study, and did so in a binary fashion, such that there’s only two choices, that of A which is morally positive behavior, or B which is not, with morally approved behavior baked into the study.
Like I said the study was not about finding morality but basic reactions about helpful and unhelpful behaviour. This could be related to pro-social behaviour as opposed to anti-social behaviour. It doesn’t matter. It was later reasoned to being something that is related to moral norms which is a reasonable conclusion.

But what makes the “helpful” or “unhelpful” conduct in the study moral or immoral? It’s either one because the author says so? The study has a decent shot of finding what it’s looking for because it’s already baked into the study by the study authors assigning moral values. That never occurred to you to be a serious issue that hits at the integrity of the study?
I think you will find the author says the findings show that there is an inclination for helping rather than hindering. So it’s not necessarily about morality. But then rationalizations can be made from the findings to relate this helpful behaviour to empathy and justice which are moral values.

But nonetheless further research is needed. All I know that other studies show the similar findings.

But tiny children are also some of psychology’s most powerful muses. Because they have barely been exposed to the world, with its convoluted cultures and social norms, they represent the raw materials of humanity: who we are when we’re born, rather than who we become. “There’s another point that needs to be made to parents: Your baby knows more than you think she knows. That’s what’s coming out of this kind of research.”
Are Babies Born Good? | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

The last few years produced a spate of related studies hinting that, far from being born a “perfect idiot,” as Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued, or a selfish brute, as Thomas Hobbes feared; a child arrives in the world provisioned with rich, broadly pro-social tendencies and seems predisposed to care about other people. Children can tell, to an extent, what is good and bad, and often act in an altruistic fashion. “

They passionately preferred the helper to the hinderer. This result “was totally surreal,” Hamlin says—so revolutionary that the researchers themselves didn’t quite trust it. They designed additional experiments with plush animal puppets helping and hindering each other; at the end babies got the chance to reach for the puppet of their choice.
Are Babies Born Good? | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

Other studies have shown 3 month olds have similar responses which are more sophisticated than just responding how adults act. These babies showed a deeper inclination about justice and empathy that is beyond just copying what they have seen like it has been "bred to the bone" as the article states..

At best this study has baked into it someone’s subjective belief of moral and immoral value judgments assigned to helpful and unhelpful behavior in which 6 to 10 month olds can identify and distinguish helpful from unhelpful as their existence to that point is accurately characterized as an inundation of helpful behaviors showered upon them, which supports the idea the results aren’t a result of any innate, objectivity morality, but a bias towards it based on the authors moral judgments in the study and the subjects heavy exposure to that behavior rendered moral by the authors.
And the study addressed personal bias and assumption with a variety of tests (including blind tests) and props. Plus other studies show similar findings so they all cannot be author bias.

As independent studies have reached similar findings that meets scientific verification of repetition of test results.

“Prof. Bloom said it was not a subtle statistical trend as “just about all the babies reached for the good guy.”

Oh, okay, so it’s the “good guy” because he said so? Oh no, wait, the “helpful” guy was the one pushing and he’s the “good guy” but based on what, the professor saying so? There is a “good guy” baked into the study but what makes the “good guy” in the study “good”?
He uses the term "good guy" to represent the helpful behaviours of the puppet. Call it nice guy if you want as you don’t have to moralize the findings. The point is this inclination towards the nice guy and not the nasty guy seems complex and innate and beyond something mimicked.

And the article was thoughtful enough to disclose some of the criticism of the study. “Other psychologists have cautioned that adult assumptions can affect how babies’ reactions are interpreted, and that babies begin to learn from the moment they are born.”
Yes and this was accounted for by neutralizing the tests such as with blind tests and involving a variety of different props and experiment type so that any bias that influence results was neutralized.

Despite the anemic attention to the criticism, the criticism is compelling because the study has baked into “adult assumptions” that “interpret” the “reactions” and “babies begin to learn from the moment they are born,” including that which is helpful behaviors.

The study is flawed.
It’s not the only study which has similar findings. Isn’t that a requirement for scientific consistent findings?

But even if we say that babies have learnt these morals at such an early age and these moral basics are universal in that similar results have been found regardless of family context and culture this is still something humans seem to relate to and take on like it’s natural to them.

So these studies are highlighting a similar set of core morals in babies which are reflected across a wide range of domains which converge on these same core morals of empathy, justice and equality. I don’t think it’s a coincident. It goes against the idea of subjective/relative morality where different individuals and cultures having different moral views acording to their conditioning.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,918
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,652.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The above is an amalgamation of reasoning by false dilemma, Strawman argument, red herrings, and more circular reasoning. I’ll address only a few.
childeye: I don't see how it's possible to cherry pick since we must choose one term "morality" to stand for the goodness when we say it, and without hypocrisy.

NotreDame: Oh, “we” must do so? According to whom? According to what?

Once again, you have morality as a fact built into your reasoning.
According to the common understanding that the words we say carry an expressed sentiment or meaning.

Of course, I have morality as a fact built into my psycholinguistics. My reasoning would not be sound if I didn't factor in the existence of my own good/bad behavior through the eyes of others, and not just my own.

To think my stink don't stink, is an example of a form of ignorance coming into a fuller knowledge of reality, through a greater degree of objectivity. That's just how it is factually. We all reason upon fundamental dichotomies, good/bad, pro/con, true/false, morality/immorality, etc...

For sound reasoning, the positives must always be a positive, and the negatives must always be a negative, as we learn what to put in which box. However, these same terms can reverse in connotation through opposing subjective views, just as left is on the right of someone you are facing (It's circumstantial). This creates misunderstandings through semantics even though people would otherwise agree on the intended sentiments when seen from the other side. Objectivity accounts for this.

And to compound your error, you invoke another word that is ambiguous and hence susceptible to subjectivity, when you say “goodness.”
Respectfully, your premise that it's error to realize the existence of good and bad behavior towards others, is not established to begin with.

As for "goodness" being ambiguous and susceptible to subjectivity; if you recall I mentioned this issue earlier.

"I therefore suspect that the problem you are actually referring to, is how semantics form in subjective views (positive/negative connotations of terms reverse according to opposing subjective views of reality)."


But there’s no evidence or reasoning that demonstrates “we” must use the word “morality” at all.
It's a simple way to sum up the many qualities that are considered virtuous. The term is in the op, so... And also, I really do want to understand others, even as much as to be understood, so there's that.

Furthermore, the “cherry pick” was in regards to your reasoning of finding objective morality in that which is common to humanity. Well, based on that logic, I chose to identify some reprehensible conduct by human beings, rooted in emotions and feeling “common to humanity” that many people would denounce as immoral. My point? Your “common to humanity” theme to find any kind of morality leads to the acceptance of mistreatment of people by other people as moral. That alone should make you rethink your moral formula.
I specifically stated that "compassion" is common as a moral goodness in humanity. I qualified that goodness as moral in its intention and goal to help others in distress. Please consider that you're speaking about "any kind of morality" as well as immorality, and I'm speaking specifically about "compassion".

Your argument does not dispute the facts I presented.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,571
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,730.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't need to address any specific argument. My proof covers all arguments for any prescriptive statements. All prescriptive statements can never be justified. You're trying to sidestep my proof by presenting some other argument. No dice.

I tell you that you can't touch my proof, and so you offer up some other argument as a red herring from the fact that you can't touch my proof. You're just proving me right by avoiding my proof.
These are arguements directly related to disputing the "is/ought" problem which you don't even know or have addressed. How can you claim to have addressed them when you have not even read them. Your arguement is based on the assumption that the "is/ought" problem is unbridgable.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: childeye 2
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't need to address any specific argument. My proof covers all arguments for any prescriptive statements. All prescriptive statements can never be justified. You're trying to sidestep my proof by presenting some other argument. No dice.

I tell you that you can't touch my proof, and so you offer up some other argument as a red herring from the fact that you can't touch my proof. You're just proving me right by avoiding my proof.

Prescriptive statements should be based on facts and therefore justified by those facts, no?
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
These are arguements directly related to disputing the "is/ought" problem which you don't even know or have addressed. How can you claim to have addressed them when you have not even read them. Your arguement is based on the assumption that the "is/ought" problem is unbridgable.
Still avoiding addressing my argument. Still proving me right that you are incapable of arguing against it. Still trying to use a Red Herring to avoid it. But I'm too familiar with your debate style to fall for that.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Prescriptive statements should be based on facts and therefore justified by those facts, no?
No. Prescriptive statements can only be true if they are justified by other true prescriptive statements.
 
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No. Prescriptive statements can only be true if they are justified by other true prescriptive statements.

Can you give an example?

Also an example of why prescriptive statements can’t be based on fact?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,561
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,627.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Therefore we act in contradiction to relative/subjective morals which shows deep down we do really know that there is a core set of moral truths that stand independent of relative/subjetcive morality. Objective morality can accommodate subjectivity of morals but subjective morality cannot accommodate objectivity of morals. But this is more a reflection of subjective/relative morality because when there is no moral truth a void is left and this is filled by whoever gains power. The so called objectives of religions is merely a subjective claim as morality is a rational enterprise and because morality is between humans and based on what is morally best behaviour rationalizing atrocities in the name of objetcive morality is impossible.

Yes because Paul was pointing out the moral truth that it wasn't what people ate that made them rightious but what was in their hearts. Very consistent with moral truths. If this was under a subjective system then what you eat would be of no consequence as preferences for food cannot be morally wrong.

This in no ways means that there are no moral truths and nor does it mean that these issues have no moral truth. Like abortion its about people thinking the Fetus is no human life. But if it was established then this would change everything and we could no longer justify abortion. So potentially there may be moral truths to these situations and we just have not found them yet.

Except the idea that moral truths can be denied or rationalized away according to subjective thinking and therefore people disagree does not mean there are no moral truths.

Yet, I make no attempt to establish “there are no moral truths.” It is near impossible if not impossible to establish something doesn’t exist.

Rather, I was offering a critique of your reasoning to show your reasoning doesn’t establish the existence of “objective” morality, or as you say “moral truths.”

The fact that we can look back on all these past moral acts and claim they are immoral shows that we have gained a better understanding of moral truths. We now condemn as objectively wrong things like genocide, female genitalia mutilation, slavery shows this. You cannot improve morality unless there is some moral truth to measure what is moral or not.

A few points. Your reasoning above presumes the existence of moral truths. In several posts you reasoned circularly.

What circular reasoning? “The fact that we can look back on all these past moral acts and claim they are immoral shows that we have gained a better understanding of moral truths.”

This statements rests on the unstated assumption there are moral truths. If there aren’t any moral truths, or there’s no existence of their existence, this your remark is false.

An area of disagreement underlying our colloquy is whether there are moral truths. Presuming moral truth exists to then say here it is in this instance is circular.

And who is the “we” in the statement of “We now condemn as objectively wrong…female genitalia mutilation, slavery shows this.”?

Your “we” presently doesn’t represent the view of those who today practice female genitalia mutilation.

Whoever the “we” is doesn’t include those who are presently practicing slavery (chattel slavery still persists today) and human trafficking, in which people are “owned” by another, and forced to perform tasks for money, such as sex, labor, and other tasks. Which, I’ll also add the people who presently believe, today, some people should be enslaved.

Regardless, my salient point is “we” isn’t as “we” as you suggest. Furthermore, a consensus or majority poin of view doesn’t render the view “objective” as defined by Oxford, where, as here, “objective” is a reference to an objective reality, objective facts.

So, the “we” POV of what is immoral or moral doesn’t show or establish their POV as rooted in, consistent with, caused by, or reflective of an “objective” morality, or a moral truth.

Rather, the facts demonstrate what is moral today is immoral tomorrow, to only later the understood as moral again. If you find that kind of consistent, vacillating, changing, human perspective of morality and immorality as evidence of objective morality, of moral truth, then it stands to reason all of it is a moral truth. After all, the pages of human history are inundated of accepting as moral today what was immoral yesterday, which, based on your logic, illuminates an inconsistent and contradictory catalogue of moral truths and objective morality.

Rather, the moral flip flopping by humans over the many thousands of years they’ve described conduct as moral or immoral is more consistent with not having a clue, or a poor understanding, of these “moral truths” and objective morality you say exists.

Which prompts me to ask how exactly, by what method, do people rely upon today that renders them having a “better understanding” of moral truths, objective morality? What exactly is “it” that is the shining light to people today to have a “better understanding” of moral truths/objective morality, and thus, are the liberated from a kind of famed Allegory of the Cave in Plato’s works? Your inference is those in the past were anemic in their “understanding” of moral truths/objective morally, were metaphorically in Plato’s cave.
 
Upvote 0