Where is the Objective Morality?

[childeye 2]

Haha, no, thats an empty assertion.

It's on record. No one has actually proved it unreasonable.

 

[childeye 2]

As I previoudly stated, objective requires an objective agent.

Do you mean God?

 

[VirOptimus]

Do you mean God?

Yes, god(s).

 

[VirOptimus]

It's on record. No one has actually proved it unreasonable.

Thats not how it works.

 

[childeye 2]

It sounds like you don't believe that objective morality exists. That, for example, euthanasia is not objectively right or wrong but is a subjective matter. Perhaps you could simply confirm that to save some of us some time arguing for a position that you already hold.

I believe both exist in degrees, but the absolute on the objective end is unfinished. The problem is the terminology. I don't think it's a true/fair dichotomy since morality is qualified as a person in subjective morality, but it is qualified as a thing in objective morality, (specifically a code/set of codes/law). Ironically it requires a Person to write such codes. The main difference is morality doesn't have to prove the factual existence of morality or immorality at all, whereas objective morality does.

I therefore conclude that subjective morality is where the positive and negative aspects of moral/immoral begin as unclear. And I'm glad that Love others as yourself is a reasonable moral code to establish an objective morality. It provides clarity which is what Objective morality represents.

So I do believe objective morality (clariity) exists in degrees. Because otherwise I'm saying morality is purely a matter of opinion, and I don't believe that.

 

[childeye 2]

Yes, god(s).

Do you mean myths?

 

[childeye 2]

Thats not how it works.

By all means please elaborate.

 

[Bradskii]

I believe both exist in degrees, but the absolute on the objective end is unfinished. The problem is the terminology. I don't think it's a true/fair dichotomy since morality is qualified as a person in subjective morality, but it is qualified as a thing in objective morality, (specifically a code/set of codes/law). Ironically it requires a Person to write such codes. The main difference is morality doesn't have to prove the factual existence of morality or immorality at all, whereas objective morality does.

Objective morality exists in degrees? That makes no sense at all. The absolute on the objective end? That's simply meaningless. Objective morality is a set of laws? You are again confusing absolute with objective. And then requires a person to formulate them? Which would, by definition, make them subjective.

I suggest that we ignore all that. Some of it's not even wrong...

Let's run with your comment that 'Love others as yourself is a reasonable moral code to establish objective morality.' If that's your criteria, and you've stated it in various forms in any number of posts, then you have a problem. Going back to euthanasia, someone can, out of love for another, refuse to help them end their life. So according to you, euthanasia is then objectively immoral. Then another person will, out of love for another, help that person to end their life. So according to you, euthanasia is then objectively moral.

Something of a conundrum I think. It seems that, according to you, whether it's moral or immoral depends on the view of the person being asked. They obviously can't be both. Can you please address that directly?

 

[childeye 2]

You are correct. I see something wrong with that. A judgement made by me. An opinion informed by my preferences. I don't believe there is any fact of the matter other than facts about preferences.

There are beliefs which we reason upon, and beliefs that are determinations, which determine preferences. I see in the preferences of people and therefore their opinions, the factual evidence of a deliberation that realizes there is a difference between what is moral and immoral. And moreover, I see a predisposition towards trying to do the good, and away from doing any evil. In other words, a reasonable nature grounded in the sanity of belief in a mutual compassion. I see an objective morality, I see God.

"I believe abortion is morally acceptable in some circumstances."
This is an objectively true statement about my beliefs. But is not a moral statement.

"Abortion is morally acceptable in some circumstances."
This is a moral statement. I don't believe this has an objective true or false truth-value.

I've thought about this for a while. I can't help but see both as moral statements. In other words, to me they're both about someone's beliefs on a moral topic. One statement is worded stronger in the definitive, making it an assertion with the more conviction, but they still both believe and express the same judgment/preference/belief.

As for objective true or false truth-value: as in any assertion, I'd have to evaluate their reasoning in which they formed their belief to evaluate it.

If that's the case, then this and some of your other statements demonstrate that you don't really understand the topic of the thread.

Concerning this, you were claiming it's a subjective opinion that you're glad the Astros lost. But how can someone have an opinion that they're glad? Concerning some of my other statements demonstrating that I don't understand the topic, I have no idea what you're referring to so I can't respond nor learn anything from it?

I'm a theist. I've been told I'm in over my head several times already. And I admit I've never debated this topic. But when I saw the thread and read the definition of objective morality, I submitted love others as yourself as an argument for objective morality, and jumped in to test the waters. I understand the topic of the thread.

 

[VirOptimus]

Do you mean myths?

No.

 

[VirOptimus]

By all means please elaborate.

I'm not responsible for your education.

 

[childeye 2]

I'm not responsible for your education.

Your reasoning is not mine. I'm a theist. I'm responsible for your education.

 

[VirOptimus]

Your reasoning is not mine. I'm a theist. I'm responsible for your education.

Please dont, I dont apreciate preaching.

And Im well versed in theology.

 

[childeye 2]

No.

Then why use god(s)?

 

[VirOptimus]

Then why use god(s)?

They are all the same to me.

 

[childeye 2]

Please dont, I dont apreciate preaching.

And Im well versed in theology.

Respectfully, we're all preaching something.

 

[VirOptimus]

Respectfully, we're all preaching something.

No.

 

[childeye 2]

They are all the same to me.

Thanks for the reply. As an axiomatic proposition, There can be only one Creator of everything that exists. You're probably referring to religions.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I've thought about this for a while. I can't help but see both as moral statements.

As for objective true or false truth-value, as in any assertion, I'd have to evaluate their reasoning in which they formed their belief to evaluate it.

OK, this seems to open the possibility that Bob can use Bob's reasoning to correctly conclude
"Abortion is not always immoral."

And Kate can use Kate's reasoning to correctly conclude "Abortion is always immoral."

You have described these statements as being objectively true.

But the way we understand 'objectivity' is that it is something that is true and does not depend on anyone's preferences. So abortion can't be objectively both always immoral and not-always immoral.

If Bob thinks Salt Lake City is the capital of Utah and Kate thinks Provo is the capital of Utah. We know at least one of them is objectively wrong. It's not the kind of thing that allows multiple true answers.

You seem to be suggesting that the morality of abortion can have multiple true answers. I can certainly see how each person might validly, or correctly, determine the answer based on their worldview. But if the answer depends on their worldview, this is precisely what we mean by subjective.

 

[childeye 2]

ignore