Where is the Objective Morality?

[essentialsaltes]

If it were true that there is plenty of factual information (Objectivity) to make an informed decision, then we would have access to an objective standard that would tell us whether abortion is always wrong or sometimes justified.

If I read between the lines I think you're trying to say, "It's perfectly reasonable to want to be responsible for the personal decisions that will affect only you".

Not at all.

What I'm saying is that we do have enough factual information, but the reason we don't have access to an objective standard is because there isn't one.

 

[childeye 2]

What I'm saying is that we do have enough factual information, but the reason we don't have access to an objective standard is because there isn't one.

Respectfully, the statement above taken at face value is another contradiction in reasoning, both denying and claiming the same thing. And for what it's worth, I think that what you should consider, is that to claim that no objective standard exists would therefore by definition infer the claim is purely subjective, purely speculative, purely opinion, and yet you're using definitive language as if you're speaking from an objective point of view, which infers it is based on facts. Any reasoning based on something false ends in a contradiction.

I've submitted that Love others as you would want to be loved is an objective view of morality because it says that compassion/empathy/love is the goodness in mankind and it also exposes hypocrisy.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Respectfully, the statement above taken at face value is another contradiction in reasoning, both denying and claiming the same thing. And another problem you should honestly consider, is that while your claim that no objective standard exists is purely subjective, purely speculative, purely opinion, you're using definitive language as if you're speaking from the objective point of view. Any reasoning based on something false ends in a contradiction.

I'm not claiming that everything is subjective. Just that moral statements are subjective. There are no objective moral facts.

"Abortion is always immoral." is a moral statement. I deny that it has an objective true or false value.

"Moral statements are subjective." is not a moral statement. I claim it is objectively true. I can be as definitive as I like.

 

[childeye 2]

I'm not claiming that everything is subjective. Just that moral statements are subjective. There are no objective moral facts.

You're saying all moral statements are subjective. You're saying all expressed moral sentiments of goodness are based on personal opinion not facts. Yet in several prior posts you're saying the exact opposite, that we have enough facts to make an informed decision on what is moral/immoral. You can't see that? It's in the record. Why not just admit you're wrong? Learning something is a good thing.

"Moral statements are subjective." is not a moral statement. I claim it is objectively true. There are no objective moral facts.

Forgive me but this is ridiculous. It's impossible that all moral statements are subjective because all moral statements are about how we all should treat each other. You're saying there is no objective observable facts to determine right and wrong that we all should concede to. Facts such as "punching people in the nose hurts". Your reasoning is backwards. Any viable moral statement would have to be objective simply because it concerns everyone in the community. This statement, "Moral statements are subjective" is an immoral statement because objectively speaking it is clearly an attempt to say there is no factual right or wrong that exists in reality.

I can be as definitive as I like.

Everyone can lie as much as they want to, but why want to? I love my children. I don't teach my children that people will say "it's wrong to lie", but that's just their opinion.

I've submitted that the moral principle of Love others as you would want to be loved is an objective view of morality because it points to compassion/empathy/love as the goodness in mankind and it also exposes hypocrisy.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You're saying all moral statements are subjective. You're saying all expressed moral sentiments of goodness are based on personal opinion not facts.

No, I'm saying they are personal opinions not facts.

The Houston Astros lost the World Series this year. This is an objective fact.
I think it's great that the Houston Astros lost the World Series this year. This is a personal judgment about a fact.

This statement, "Moral statements are subjective" is an immoral statement because objectively speaking it is clearly an attempt to say there is no factual right or wrong that exists in reality.

Well, yes indeed that is what those words mean. I don't see what's so immoral about saying so. Especially if it happens to be true.

 

[childeye 2]

No, I'm saying they are personal opinions not facts.

But you're denoting the definitive when you say all moral statements are opinion. And that's unreasonable.

So I walk into my neighbors' house and torture his wife and kids and butcher their dog and cat, leaving a man's beautiful family all quadriplegics for life. But when another neighbor who witnesses the act exclaims "That was a horrific wrong done to others", then according to you it's just their opinion, but it can't possibly factually and actually be wrong from your all seeing objective view.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

The Houston Astros lost the World Series this year. This is an objective fact.
I think it's great that the Houston Astros lost the World Series this year. This is a personal judgment about a fact.

This example is not even in a moral/immoral context. It's useless for making any point in the matter.

Well, yes indeed that is what those words mean. I don't see what's so immoral about saying so. Especially if it happens to be true.

Because it's a lie to say there's nothing objectively right or wrong. How could you possibly see what's immoral about it when every moral statement is opinion and you're claiming it's not a lie?

 

[VirOptimus]

But you're denoting the definitive when you say all moral statements are opinion. And that's unreasonable.

So I walk into my neighbors' house and torture his wife and kids and butcher their dog and cat, leaving a man's beautiful family all quadriplegics for life. But when another neighbor who witnesses the act exclaims "That was a horrific wrong done to others", then according to you it's just their opinion, but it can't possibly factually and actually be wrong from your all seeing objective view.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

This example is not even in a moral/immoral context. It's useless for making any point in the matter.



Because it's a lie to say there's nothing objectively right or wrong.

Prove that there are an objective morality.

 

[childeye 2]

Prove that there are an objective morality.

Proof: A young man got drunk and drove his car and killed a family and maimed several others. From then on he spent the remainder of his life telling his story and teaching and preaching to others to never drink and drive.

I've submitted that the moral principle of Love others as you would want to be loved is an objective view of morality because it points to compassion/empathy/love as the goodness in mankind and it also exposes our hypocrisy.

 

[VirOptimus]

Proof: A young man got drunk and drove his car and killed a family and maimed several others. From then on he spent the remainder of his life telling his story and teaching and preaching to others to never drink and drive.

I've submitted that the moral principle of Love others as you would want to be loved is an objective view of morality because it points to compassion/empathy/love as the goodness in mankind and it also exposes our hypocrisy.

Ok, you couldnt.

Because morality is not ”objective”.

 

[childeye 2]

Ok, you couldnt.

Because morality is not ”objective”.

Did you not see remorse from your subjective view? I did.

Proof you are incorrect: When you say you saw no remorse in the man who drank and drove and unintentionally killed a family.

 

[VirOptimus]

Did you not see remorse from your subjective view? I did.

Proof you are incorrect: When you say you saw no remorse in the man who drank and drove and unintentionally killed a family.

Do you know what ”objective morality” entails?

 

[childeye 2]

Do you know what ”objective morality” entails?

What's the big deal? Why not answer if you saw the evidence of remorse in reality? Are you afraid to acknowledge the reality of remorse?

To answer your question:
Yes I do and it's Love/compassion. Unless I think being Anti-Love is moral and Pro-Love is immoral.

And it's on record: I've submitted that the moral principle of Love others as you would want to be loved is an objective view of morality, because it points to compassion/empathy/love as the goodness in mankind and it also exposes our hypocrisy.

I'm saying to you that with this moral principle we are able to determine when a person is a hypocrite, immoral, reasoning on a contradiction, that ultimately will find them disagreeing with themselves in their own subjective moral/immoral determinations of right and wrong. And that it only matters to those who have a spirit that cares about others not just themselves. Therefore it qualifies as an objective moral view.

 

[VirOptimus]

What's the big deal? Why not answer if you saw the evidence of remorse in reality? Are you afraid to acknowledge the reality of remorse?

To answer your question:
Yes I do and it's Love/compassion. Unless I think being Anti-Love is moral and Pro-Love is immoral.

And it's on record: I've submitted that the moral principle of Love others as you would want to be loved is an objective view of morality, because it points to compassion/empathy/love as the goodness in mankind and it also exposes our hypocrisy.

I'm saying to you that with this moral principle we are able to determine when a person is a hypocrite, immoral, reasoning on a contradiction, that ultimately will find them disagreeing with themselves in their own subjective moral/immoral determinations of right and wrong. But it only matters to those who have a spirit that cares about others not just themselves. Therefore it qualifies as an objective moral view.

I see. You dont know what ”objective morality” means.

 

[childeye 2]

I see. You dont know what ”objective morality” means.

A blank assertion.

It means Love/compassion is goodness/morality in mankind, and that's the reality from the objective view.

 

[Bradskii]

Well spoken. And to your point about euthanasia, my initial response is that it's perfectly reasonable to want to be responsible for the personal decisions that will affect only.

So it's right for me. And it would be right for all those who agreed with me. So it cannot be objectively wrong if we are responsible for the decision.

 

[Bradskii]

To answer your question:
Yes I do and it's Love/compassion. Unless I think being Anti-Love is moral and Pro-Love is immoral.

So if you love someone enough to put them out of their misery if tbey are dying and they so desire, then that is an objectively moral thing to do.

I think that you may have a great deal of other forum members disagreeing with you on that.

 

[VirOptimus]

A blank assertion.

It means Love/compassion is goodness/morality in mankind, and that's the reality from the objective view.

No, objective morality would be a morality where there are definitive right/wrong independent of humanity. Your word salad means… well nothing.

 

[childeye 2]

So it's right for me. And it would be right for all those who agreed with me. So it cannot be objectively wrong if we are responsible for the decision.

I think it's just like you said the first time (That was well said). I'll say it this way: It's objectively wrong for others to make personal decisions for you and your family about personal matters
that don't affect them. If there was some harm done in the decision, it's your hurt. Whereas, if it's another person that makes that decision and it does harm to you and yours, it's immoral because it hurt someone else.

 

[Bradskii]

I think it's just like you said the first time (That was well said). I'll say it this way: It's objectively wrong for others to make personal decisions for you and your family about personal matters
that don't affect them. If there was some harm done in the decision, it's your hurt. Whereas, if it's another person that makes that decision and it does harm to you and yours, it's immoral because it hurt someone else.

That's avoiding the point I made. You say that moral objectivity is related to love and compassion. So is ending someone's life out of love for that person the objectively moral thing to do?

 

[childeye 2]

No, objective morality would be a morality where there are definitive right/wrong independent of humanity. Your word salad means… well nothing.

What exactly is a right/wrong independent of humanity when we're the ones experiencing what's right and wrong collectively?