Where is the Objective Morality?

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,562
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,630.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.

Objective truth is different from what I am discussing, which is “objective reality,” “objective facts.”

I do not recall using “objective truth” but I recall perhaps saying some iteration of objectively “true” is to be a fact, a reality, that exists independently of us and “is” so, is the case, is a state of affairs in reality, separate and independently of us. If I said “objective truth,” I do not recall that I did, it was a slip, as that opens up an entirely different conversation of what is “truth.”

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).

Sure, it is possible to be “objectively” right about something. Modern day people who think the earth is flat could be “objectively” right. Those today adhering to the geocentric model could be “objectively” right the earth is the center of our solar system. Kids thinking Santa, tooth fairies, gremlins, leprechauns at the end of rainbows and the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist, could be “objectively” right.

But the could be “objectively” right is of little to no comfort when there is a lack of supporting evidence and the reasoning in favor is flawed.

The lack of supporting evidence and flawed reasoning is fatal in any dialogue where someone, anyone, is asserting a fact, a feature, that is true of our reality.

Yes, it is possible those advocating an objective morality exist are correct. It is equally possible they are wrong.

That type of cancelling possibilities provides no one with a rational reason to adopt a belief in something’s existence, objective morality included.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.
First there is a fundelemtal assumption with making descritptive statements based on the physical world the only way we can determine moral truths as it assumes that there are only physical facts about the world.

Because there is no evidence that there are only physical facts or that physical facts are actually physical facts about the world (reality) the arguement is based on an assumption. In this sense it is no different to claims about non-physical assumptions such as human nature or consciousness being a fundemental of nature and reality.

Second we can derive moral truths from descriptive statements when we tie those morals to facts about the world via "prudential oughts", or hypothetical imperatives. There are a number of different arguements for how to do this. Here is one.

So what type of real-world entity does "ought" refer to? From where does it get its apparent prescriptivity? What makes it different from normal descriptive facts like 'snow is white'? The easiest way to approach these questions is probably to forget about morality for a moment, and just consider "prudential oughts", or hypothetical imperatives.

Consider the following examples:
  • John wants to watch The Simpsons, so what channel should ('ought') he set his TV to?
  • You should leave now if you want to get to the movie on time.
  • I've got a big exam tomorrow, so I really should study.
It should be clear that in each of these cases, the 'ought' (or 'should') is alerting us to what must be done in order to fulfill a particular desire
. Sometimes (as in the final example) the desire may be implicit, but it nevertheless is crucial: unless I want to do well in the exam, there is no reason for me to study - it would no longer be true that I "ought" to.

"You ought to X" has no prescriptive properties in and of itself (the words are purely descriptive, as the translation in the previous paragraph demonstrates). Any prescriptivity is attached to the proposition by us, and the source of the prescriptivity is our desire-set.

The end of all human action is the fulfillment of our desires. We use the word/concept 'ought' to bring attention to possible courses of action which (it is believed) will help attain that end. Desires are real, actions are real, and the relationship between them (i.e. "ought") is real. It is thus intrinsically descriptive in nature - the prescription gets attached only when human nature is added into the equation.

You might wonder if this makes the notion of 'ought' redundant: after all, if we always act to fulfill our desires anyway, what do we need this extra notion of 'ought' for? But note that we only act according to our current desires, whereas the concept of 'ought' can refer to the fulfilment of any desire (or set of desires). Thus in the above example of the smoker, we can sensibly say that although I might in fact smoke (because it fulfills my present desires), I 'ought' not to (with regard to the fulfilment of my future desires).
Philosophy, et cetera: Bridging the IS/OUGHT gap

As I mentioned there is some disagreement about the power of the "is/ought" problem and that its overstated and misinterpreted.

Although inferring “ought” from “is” can be problematic, we argue that, in the context of contemporary IOI's in the cognitive sciences, invoking Hume or Moore might be misguided. This is because Hume's and Moore's arguments concern the validity and soundness of deductive inferences while in our view contemporary IOI's in the cognitive sciences are better interpreted as defeasible inferences.

IOI's in the cognitive sciences are better interpreted as defeasible inferences than as deductive inferences. As a consequence, their deductive validity and soundness is not at stake.

How (not) to argue about is/ought inferences in the cognitive sciences

Also
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God | Free Inquiry
Morality is robustly grounded in facts.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective
Revisiting Folk Moral Realism
According to one of the most prominent arguments in favour of this view, ordinary people experience morality as realist-seeming, and we have therefore prima facie reason to believe that realism is true.
Revisiting Folk Moral Realism

The thesis of this essay is that morality is not objective in the same way that statements of empirically verifiable facts are objective, yet morality is objective in the ways that matter:


Third moral values and facts can be tied to morality in that if there are epistemic values and facts then there are moral values and facts and it can be argued that these stand and fall together. This arguement has been given and you have not defeated this as far as I know.

There are epistemic facts and values as they are required to justify knowledge and belief and without them you cannot claim anything relating to knowledge and belief these would not stand up to scrutiny and will be dismissed based on defective knowledge and belief because they are not proper.

You are implicitely prescribing epistemic values and facts when you engage in a debate with me for example. You implicitely agree that we should not misrepresent any arguements or lie when giving knowledge that supports your claims and I am doing the same. Without this we cannot have any coherent debate.

Some of these epistemic values and facts are intertwined with moral also making them fact. For example to not misrepresent arguements or lie requires honesty which is a moral value. The fact that you don't know or understand some of these arguements or dismiss them shows you have not maximized your efforts to understand all the evdience and therefore have failed in properly justifying your claims.

The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism
Many of our concepts involve a complex entangling of the normative and the descriptive. A pure reductionism, offered as the whole story about epistemic concepts, would indeed miss an essential normative dimension.
The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism

Defending Moral Realism
Anthony M. Matteo’s “In Defense of Moral Realism” offers a fascinating argument. He begins with the seemingly innocuous premise that philosophy, and by extension theorizing of any stripe, should be linked to what people actually do.
The very activity of arguing about the nature of rationality presupposes a conception of rationality wider than that of laboratory testability
Defending Moral Realism

Moral Realism: Defended

As There are several arguements that dispute the "is/oght" problem and you don't know or understand them nor haven't addressed them your claim cannot be justified.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.”
OK fair enough. It seems this debate is as they say like consciousness a "hard problem" to support either way. But it doesný mean that there is no way to support moral truths. There are some very good arguements for this though which need to be addressed. I have linked some for Moral Orel.

I think its the nature of the problem that seems to be the issue. AS morality is abstract it is already at a disadvantage as far as verification is conscerned. It sort of falls into the same category as consciousness, the observer effect (QM), Natural laws, agency especially in biology and other abstract ideas that seem real and may even have indirect evdience but are hard to pin down if we only assume naturalism.

Nevertheless IMO I think there is some convergence in all these areas and for which we are facing difficulties in grounding observations in empricale sciences. So you are right in that its impossible to prove a negative but I also think we need to be open to alternative ways of knowing about reality as it seems things are pointing towards there being some non-physical truths if we are ever to find some unification of what happening.

That's why I think moral realism is the most reasonable moral position to take and it seems the majority of philosophers agree. It is about whats real rather than what is fact/truth. Just as we make our physical world real based on our senses we also do the same with morality. It ground morality in how we justify knowledge and beliefs which is a practical concern.
 
Last edited:
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
I've got a big exam tomorrow, so I really should study.
Okay, let's use this one as an example. You claim "I should study" is true, so prove it. Put it into an argument, and I'll show you the missing premise.

P1 I have a big exam tomorrow
...
C I should study
 
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
Can you give an example?

Also an example of why prescriptive statements can’t be based on fact?
Follow along with Steve's reply to the post just previous to this one for an example.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Okay, let's use this one as an example. You claim "I should study" is true, so prove it. Put it into an argument, and I'll show you the missing premise.

P1 I have a big exam tomorrow
...
C I should study
I think you missed the point of the article.

The article uses prudential truths or hypothetical imperatives tied to desires/goals. So for example the logical arguement is

P1 I have a big exam tomorrow
P2 If I want to do well in the exam
C I should study

So the "should" is related to what must be done to meet the specific desire " do well in the exam". Take the desire away and the "should" disappears. Unless the person has the desire to do well in the exam there is no " should" as there is no reason to study and it would no longer be true that they "should" study.

The other article is arguing that
its wrong in the first place to reduce moral statements to reductionism and logic.

Although inferring “ought” from “is” can be problematic, we argue that, in the context of contemporary IOI's in the cognitive sciences, invoking Hume or Moore might be misguided. This is because Hume's and Moore's arguments concern the validity and soundness of deductive inferences while in our view contemporary IOI's in the cognitive sciences are better interpreted as defeasible inferences.


So we can't rely on logical propositions. Primarily it is rationality that justifies moral statements.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: childeye 2
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
P1 I have a big exam tomorrow
P2 If I want to do well in the exam
C I should study
Okay, lotta problems here.

For starters, you don't put an "if" in there like that. Premises are statements, not sentence fragments.

Second, you don't need to state "I have a big exam tomorrow" anymore since you're declaring there is an exam in P2. So your argument is really:

P1 What I want to do is score well on my exam
C What I ought to do is study​

Let's break it down to letters so you can see the error more clearly.

A = "What I want to do"
B = "What I ought to do"
X = "Score well on my exam"
Y = "Study"

P1 A is X
C B is Y​

There's no connection between your premises and your conclusion. You have to show how A and B and X and Y all relate to each other. You've got no B in your premises, so your argument makes no attempt to connect A and B. You need the following premises:

P2 B is X
P3 X if and only if Y​

Just a note, when we say "X if and only if Y" we're stating "X is true if and only if Y is true". So now it looks like this:

P1 A is X
P2 B is X
P3 X if and only if Y
C B is Y​

And we can see that P1 is totally unnecessary. So really:

P1 B is X
P2 X if and only if Y
C B is Y​

And now you've got yourself a valid argument. See how the argument introduces the different concepts and connects them all? Let's put it all in one place so you can see how it works together:

P1 What I ought to do is score well on my exam
P2 I will score well on my exam if and only if I study
C What I ought to do is study

A = "What I want to do"
B = "What I ought to do"
X = "Score well on my exam"
Y = "Study"

P1 B is X
P2 X if and only if Y
C B is Y​

Now you've got yourself a valid argument. Is this an accurate representation of what you wanted to get across?

So we can't rely on logical propositions. Primarily it is rationality that justifies moral statements.
Logic is just a formal way of organizing and formatting rational arguments. You're seeing a distinction that isn't there.
 
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
Okay, lotta problems here.

For starters, you don't put an "if" in there like that. Premises are statements, not sentence fragments.

Second, you don't need to state "I have a big exam tomorrow" anymore since you're declaring there is an exam in P2. So your argument is really:

P1 What I want to do is score well on my exam
C What I ought to do is study​

Let's break it down to letters so you can see the error more clearly.

A = "What I want to do"
B = "What I ought to do"
X = "Score well on my exam"
Y = "Study"

P1 A is X
C B is Y​

There's no connection between your premises and your conclusion. You have to show how A and B and X and Y all relate to each other. You've got no B in your premises, so your argument makes no attempt to connect A and B. You need the following premises:

P2 B is X
P3 X if and only if Y​

Just a note, when we say "X if and only if Y" we're stating "X is true if and only if Y is true". So now it looks like this:

P1 A is X
P2 B is X
P3 X if and only if Y
C B is Y​

And we can see that P1 is totally unnecessary. So really:

P1 B is X
P2 X if and only if Y
C B is Y​

And now you've got yourself a valid argument. See how the argument introduces the different concepts and connects them all? Let's put it all in one place so you can see how it works together:

P1 What I ought to do is score well on my exam
P2 I will score well on my exam if and only if I study
C What I ought to do is study

A = "What I want to do"
B = "What I ought to do"
X = "Score well on my exam"
Y = "Study"

P1 B is X
P2 X if and only if Y
C B is Y​

Now you've got yourself a valid argument. Is this an accurate representation of what you wanted to get across?


Logic is just a formal way of organizing and formatting rational arguments. You're seeing a distinction that isn't there.

All fine and good, but I don’t see how this prescriptive statement/argument isn’t based on facts? It appears to all be based on the fact that you have an exam that you want/ought to do well on. No?
 
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
Sure, it is possible to be “objectively” right about something.

If you think its possible then surly you think it actually happens, right? That's basically how I view objective morality; when someone is actually right about something, we ought to do our best to verify what they're saying and if it proves logical and true, follow it. No?

But the could be “objectively” right is of little to no comfort when there is a lack of supporting evidence and the reasoning in favor is flawed.

The lack of supporting evidence and flawed reasoning is fatal in any dialogue where someone, anyone, is asserting a fact, a feature, that is true of our reality.

Yes, it is possible those advocating an objective morality exist are correct. It is equally possible they are wrong.

That type of cancelling possibilities provides no one with a rational reason to adopt a belief in something’s existence, objective morality included.

Minds exist in objective reality
Minds can comprehend whats true and determine a moral course of action
Therefore, a moral course of action can exist in objective reality(objective morality)

Is this a valid argument and is it convincing at all? How would you improve it?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: childeye 2
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,921
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,655.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Compassion is objectively moral.
Reality is authoritative not subjective.

Reality dictates that morality in mankind exists in a
shared reality wherever people care about others, and where they do what is factually good for one another.

Definition of compassion
: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it

images
images
images

Definition of objective

1a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

2a: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers: having reality independent of the mind, objective reality
993d406f-7607-43f5-91a4-868ba82f06fa-AP_Yemen.JPG

nigeriamain.jpg

moral
/ˈmôrəl/
adjective
13malnutrition_600.JPG

Compassion is real (objective), and good (moral).
Hunger-in-Afghanistan.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Friendly
Reactions: Chriliman
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

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,921
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,655.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, it is possible those advocating an objective morality exist are correct. It is equally possible they are wrong.
Respectfully, and for what it's worth, the above as articulated, becomes a contradiction in reasoning when factoring in that only one can possibly exist in reality.

I submit that the sentiment would be better articulated as "I don't know what morality is, objectively"... or, "I don't know what objective morality is, subjectively". Those articulations in thought, carry a progression of reasoning, that morality is realized through more objectivity, as opposed to ending in futility.
 
Last edited:
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
All fine and good, but I don’t see how this prescriptive statement/argument isn’t based on facts? It appears to all be based on the fact that you have an exam that you want/ought to do well on. No?
It's assumed as a fact that you want to do well. Is it a fact that you ought to do well? "Want" and "Ought" aren't synonymous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chriliman
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
It's assumed as a fact that you want to do well. Is it a fact that you ought to do well? "Want" and "Ought" aren't synonymous.

Sorry, I meant to say the “Ought” is based on the fact that you “Want” to do well on the test and therefore justified.
 
Last edited:
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
Sorry, I meant to say the “Ought” is based on the fact that you “Want” to do well on the test and therefore justified.
But it isn't justified based on that. That's what that whole long post showed.
 
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
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Okay, lotta problems here.

For starters, you don't put an "if" in there like that. Premises are statements, not sentence fragments.
Then you haven’t understood the articles argument. They are talking about prudential oughts. You can use an “If” when speaking about prudential or hypothetical imperatives because they are factual predictions about the world. As the article mentions

For instance, “the streets ought to be wet because it is raining” is a descriptive statement because it predicts that the streets will be wet. Conversely, “If you do not want to get wet, you ought to carry an umbrella,” is a deontic statement because it prescribes what you should do.

Second, you don't need to state "I have a big exam tomorrow" anymore since you're declaring there is an exam in P2. So your argument is really:

P1 What I want to do is score well on my exam
C What I ought to do is study​

Let's break it down to letters so you can see the error more clearly.

A = "What I want to do"
B = "What I ought to do"
X = "Score well on my exam"
Y = "Study"

P1 A is X
C B is Y​

There's no connection between your premises and your conclusion. You have to show how A and B and X and Y all relate to each other. You've got no B in your premises, so your argument makes no attempt to connect A and B. You need the following premises:

P2 B is X
P3 X if and only if Y​

Just a note, when we say "X if and only if Y" we're stating "X is true if and only if Y is true". So now it looks like this:

P1 A is X
P2 B is X
P3 X if and only if Y
C B is Y​

And we can see that P1 is totally unnecessary. So really:

P1 B is X
P2 X if and only if Y
C B is Y​

And now you've got yourself a valid argument. See how the argument introduces the different concepts and connects them all? Let's put it all in one place so you can see how it works together:

P1 What I ought to do is score well on my exam
P2 I will score well on my exam if and only if I study
C What I ought to do is study

A = "What I want to do"
B = "What I ought to do"
X = "Score well on my exam"
Y = "Study"

P1 B is X
P2 X if and only if Y
C B is Y​

Now you've got yourself a valid argument. Is this an accurate representation of what you wanted to get across?
Yes this seems to be a valid argument. But you know I am not good at this.

From what I understand from the article as it states that there is an implicit desire in the premise that the person wants/desires to do well in the exam.

Unless I want to do well in the exam, there is no reason for me to study - it would no longer be true that I "ought" to.

So it’s the persons desire is an important part of this arguement as it links peoples behaviour to psychology which then grounds the "ought/should" in fact. In the example you used the desire/want to do well in the exam is linked to what should be done. If the desire/want is removed then the "should"/"ought" no longer applies.

So it would go like this

P1 I have a big exam tomorrow
P2 I want/desire to do well
C therefore I should study.

Logic is just a formal way of organizing and formatting rational arguments. You're seeing a distinction that isn't there.
Yes but logic as in deductive inference is a particular kind of reasoning. It relies solely on deductive thinking. Whereas the second article I linked was arguing that as people’s behaviour is psychologically based is better understood by defeasible inferences rather than deductive ones. Defeasible arguments can be logically false because they are reasoned. So long as they stand up rationally they are true. They have the benefit of changing if new information comes to light.

These examples lead us to conclude that IOI's in the cognitive sciences are better interpreted as defeasible inferences than as deductive inferences. As a consequence, their deductive validity and soundness is not at stake. We therefore suggest that, instead of referring to Hume or Moore, critics of is/ought inferences apply evaluation criteria for defeasible inferences.

This conclusion supplements previous work on the is/ought problem. Schurz (in Pigden, 2010; p. 216), for instance, suggests that defeasible conditional norms might provide plausible bridge principles in ethical is/ought inferences. Other authors suggest that defeasible reasoning can solve problems and paradoxes occurring in monotonic deontic logic (e.g., Nute, 1997).

Philosophy, et cetera: Bridging the IS/OUGHT gap
 
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
Then you haven’t understood the articles argument.
No, you don't understand how to write an argument. You never write a premise like this:

P2 If blah blah

You at least need a "then" to be part of that premise. Like I said, premises are statements, you wrote a sentence fragment. If you think that's a valid way to argue.
Yes this seems to be a valid argument. But you know I am not good at this.

From what I understand from the article as it states that there is an implicit desire in the premise that the person wants/desires to do well in the exam.

Unless I want to do well in the exam, there is no reason for me to study - it would no longer be true that I "ought" to.

So it’s the persons desire is an important part of this arguement as it links peoples behaviour to psychology which then grounds the "ought/should" in fact. In the example you used the desire/want to do well in the exam is linked to what should be done. If the desire/want is removed then the "should"/"ought" no longer applies.

So it would go like this

P1 I have a big exam tomorrow
P2 I want/desire to do well
C therefore I should study.
But that argument is invalid. The terms "have" and "want" and "should" are all different propositions. So let's break it down.

P = What I have
Q = What I want to do
R = What I should do
X = A big exam
Y = Score well
Z = Study

P1 P is X
P2 Q is Y
C R is Z

Nothing is related to anything else. You just have a series of unrelated claims. Remember, and this isn't up for argument:

Anything in your conclusion must also be in your premises.

Your argument simply won't be valid if you don't have a premise connected to your conclusion.
Yes but logic as in deductive inference is a particular kind of reasoning. It relies solely on deductive thinking.
The term "logic" applies to all kinds of reasoning. If it isn't logical, then it's irrational.

Whereas the second article I linked was arguing that as people’s behaviour is psychologically based is better understood by defeasible inferences rather than deductive ones. Defeasible arguments can be logically false because they are reasoned. So long as they stand up rationally they are true. They have the benefit of changing if new information comes to light.

These examples lead us to conclude that IOI's in the cognitive sciences are better interpreted as defeasible inferences than as deductive inferences. As a consequence, their deductive validity and soundness is not at stake. We therefore suggest that, instead of referring to Hume or Moore, critics of is/ought inferences apply evaluation criteria for defeasible inferences.

This conclusion supplements previous work on the is/ought problem. Schurz (in Pigden, 2010; p. 216), for instance, suggests that defeasible conditional norms might provide plausible bridge principles in ethical is/ought inferences. Other authors suggest that defeasible reasoning can solve problems and paradoxes occurring in monotonic deontic logic (e.g., Nute, 1997).

Philosophy, et cetera: Bridging the IS/OUGHT gap
That doesn't have anything to do with my proof. You still have to show a valid argument. I explained the only way to make one. Your version is not valid. This is the form your argument needs to take:

P1 B is X
P2 X if and only if Y
C B is Y​

When you replace your propositions with letters you can see where your reasoning is faulty. You all keep wanting to speak about these things colloquially because it lets you hide premises you don't want to prove.
 
Upvote 0

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Compassion is objectively moral.

No it isn't. Because Compassion isn't objectively..."true". Case in point, euthanasia. I'm sure if I tried I could find a dozen people that think it's compassionate and another dozen that think it's murder.


ETA And I have seen people on this board argue that the starving Afghan children in your pictures above shouldn't receive aid.
 
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

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,921
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,655.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No it isn't. Because Compassion isn't objectively..."true". Case in point, euthanasia. I'm sure if I tried I could find a dozen people that think it's compassionate and another dozen that think it's murder.
Respectfully, that's a semantical construct and those would be subjective views.
 
Upvote 0