Where is the Objective Morality?

[childeye 2]

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.

I'm going to get back to this, but I owe somebody else some of my time at the current moment.

 

[childeye 2]

No.

Here is you preaching something: "As I previoudly stated, objective requires an objective agent."

 

[VirOptimus]

Here is you preaching something: "As I previoudly stated, objective requires an objective agent."

Thats a fact.

 

[childeye 2]

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...

I'd like to respond to these, but I'm glad that you have not left the conversation, so at present I wish to defer to your suggestion minus any negative connotation, if applicable, of "ignore".

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.

Respectfully, I don't see a problem even because I used this principle to surmise that; In the given scenario as originally put forth, it's unreasonable for someone else to make the determination on a personal choice about a personal matter which will only affect you and your family and not them. I don't see the problem with that and I said so when you submitted it to me. If I have a problem, then you have a problem. Compassion (we suffer together), an objective morality.

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?

I want to address it, but it's not posed well enough. This is not the original scenario for one thing, and therefore, despite your forthright attention and intention, your paraphrasing of me, will not accurately reflect my original responses.

someone can, out of love for another, refuse to help them end their life. So according to you, euthanasia is then objectively immoral.
(1) This is not the original scenario. You have interjected a second person presenting the alternative determination. It may seem petty, but semantics form in subjective views and it will cause problems in communication down the road, for example when paraphrasing my sentiments.
2)I did not say nor imply, nor discount, that in the original scenario euthanasia is objectively moral or immoral, and I wouldn't do so here. Understandably, you probably see this as dodging the problem (I'll get to that).
3) In the original scenario, there was no refusal, unless refusal were applied as transitory in the original scenario. That scenario dictates that the person doesn't want the person to die in the first place. But in that scenario the forthcoming decision of whether to help or refuse would be better understood as an application of subjective morality according to the person making the decision and therefore cannot possibly be subjective immorality, due to the semantics that form in subjective views, as pertains to negative and positive connotations. "Morality is not immorality in any reasonable subjective deliberation." That statement is objective morality.

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.
1) This is the original scenario.
2) I did not say, nor imply, nor discount that euthanasia is 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?

This is the problem for me and for everyone. I can't make and shouldn't make an evaluation of what's right or wrong objectively without evaluating the reasoning that supports the determination. Such evaluations could only be made on a case by case basis, and it would be recklessly irresponsible to stamp an absolute right or wrong in one broad sweep for every case based on an ignorance of what's actually happening on the ground. To that end the only pertinent information I see that might help determine anything, is in one of the scenarios, (the original), two people agree.

Therefore, it's unreasonable to remotely claim these two scenarios prove there is no objective morality.
Moreover, reasoning between two absolutes of all-ignorance and all-knowledge doesn't mean that ignorance (the lack of knowledge) proves there is no knowledge. Hence, in a scenario where, given the exact same circumstances (And I mean exact), two different people are trying to do the right thing but end up making two different determinations, it should actually be articulated in our psycholinguistics as one is "righter" than the other. Which can only happen if you believe there is an objective morality.

Finally, compassion is all about not hurting others but helping others. So in the objective view, in this particular situation where hurt is inevitable, it should be reasoned upon by calculating who gets hurt the most. Wherefore the determination is not the business of anyone who is unaffected by the decision. And therefore, according to love others as yourself, I would be a hypocrite to make any judgment implying an intent of immorality, because either way someone else gets slandered.

So I have stated that from the outset and so have you. You reasoned on the moral principle of love others as yourself and I saw no hypocrisy in your words. But I see hypocrisy in using this circumstance to prove there is no objective morality. I'm a Theist who studies psycholinguistics. Any reasoning based on falsehood ends in a contradiction. So it's no wonder that those who claim that there is no Truth are simultaneously claiming something as true.

 

[Bradskii]

I'd like to respond to these, but I'm glad that you have not left the conversation, so at present I wish to defer to your suggestion minus any negative connotation, if applicable, of "ignore".

I didn't think this was going to be so difficult.

You are saying that whether euthanasia is right ot wrong depends on the people involved. Do you know what subjective actually means?

 

[childeye 2]

I didn't think this was going to be so difficult.

You are saying that whether euthanasia is right ot wrong depends on the people involved. Do you know what subjective actually means?

Respectfully, again your paraphrasing is utterly incorrect. I would suggest that it would be easier to quote my exact words when claiming my position. It's pointless to debate what subjective means when you have a false impression of what was said.

I'm saying that I/You could not and should not make that evaluation of right or wrong without examining the reasoning and circumstances that supported the persons determination. Do you agree with that or not? This is not that difficult.

 

[childeye 2]

Ignore

 

[Bradskii]

Respectfully, again your paraphrasing is utterly incorrect. I would suggest that it would be easier to quote my exact words when claiming my position. It's pointless to debate what subjective means when you have a false impression of what was said.

I'm saying that I/You could not and should not make that evaluation of right or wrong without examining the reasoning and circumstances that supported the persons determination. Do you agree with that or not? This is not that difficult.

The exact scenario is irrelevant. Again, we aren't discussing absolute v relative. We don't need to examine the relative conditions. The only variable that's of any interest is the personal opinions of those involved. So we have two options:

I love her so I will not allow her to die.
I love her so I will help her to die.

In any given scenario, that is the only difference. And you have constantly said that objective morality is based on love for the other. Period. But now your position is 'It's based on love for the other...oh, but depending on the circumstances of course. I need more info'.

In which case, if I give you some circumstance where all factors that can be known are given then whatever the reasons why the people involved are making their decision, you are going to make a personal call and declare it right or wrong. Why else do you need to know all the conditions?

And when you make that personal decision as to whether it it is morally correct ot not, guess what that makes it...

 

[childeye 2]

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.

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.

The above statement was meant to express that in the case of Katie, I could not evaluate whether the statement made was objectively true without "examining" the reasoning and circumstances of her reasoning.

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.

I understand that, which is why it's Kate's reasoning that I would be more inclined to examine.

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.

Yes I get this too, but this is not a moral/immoral scenario so I personally would not use it to make a point about morality.

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.

I'm suggesting that the morality/immorality of abortion can have multiple true answers depending on the circumstances, and I'm stating that compassion is the essence of morality not one's worldview.

I know a couple who wanted a baby, and they had ultrasound images of a little girl hanging on their refrigerator door. Finally, the day came and after much labor the baby's head came out and it collapsed. As I understand it the brain had never fully formed and there was only a piece of brain stem. The family had only so much time to decide what to do, because legally they could still abort. Ultimately they made the decision to abort. I know their reasoning and I don't judge it.

 

[childeye 2]

The exact scenario is irrelevant. Again, we aren't discussing absolute v relative. We don't need to examine the relative conditions. The only variable that's of any interest is the personal opinions of those involved.

I'm simply saying that if the circumstances are different, that could explain why they chose differently.

So we have two options:

I love her so I will not allow her to die.
I love her so I will help her to die.

From post#204:
To that end the only pertinent information I see that might help determine anything, is in one of the scenarios, (the original), two people agree.

In any given scenario, that is the only difference.

What if the person has been in a coma for ten years and the family is divided on what to do?

And you have constantly said that objective morality is based on love for the other. Period. But now your position is 'It's based on love for the other...oh, but depending on the circumstances of course. I need more info'.

Respectfully, that's not an exact representation of my sentiment. But it's close.

In which case, if I give you some circumstance where all factors that can be known are given then whatever the reasons why the people involved are making their decision, you are going to make a personal call and declare it right or wrong. Why else do you need to know all the conditions?

To find out why these two people chose differently of course. I mean, in both scenarios two different choices are coming from compassion, right? I told you from the start, my compassion says don't judge others, but since it's a hypothetical I'm going to tell you that I honestly don't see anything wrong in either scenario.

And when you make that personal decision as to whether it is morally correct ot not, guess what that makes it...

You think one must be immoral if the other is moral, but I don't see anything immoral in either one of these scenarios unless there's more information that says otherwise. So you show me where the wickedness is that has to be there. But before you do, you'd better ask yourself if the wickedness in mankind is in people who must find fault in others.

 

[childeye 2]

Thats a fact.

I don't disagree, but is compassion/Love a Person?

 

[VirOptimus]

I don't disagree, but is compassion/Love a Person?

Of course not.

 

[childeye 2]

Of course not.

Is Love/compassion a Person in the collective?

 

[VirOptimus]

Is Love/compassion a Person in the collective?

No.

 

[childeye 2]

No.

Then why do we suffer together if compassion can't feel?

 

[Bradskii]

I'm simply saying that if the circumstances are different, that could explain why they chose differently.


From post#204:
To that end the only pertinent information I see that might help determine anything, is in one of the scenarios, (the original), two people agree.


What if the person has been in a coma for ten years and the family is divided on what to do?


Respectfully, that's not an exact representation of my sentiment. But it's close.


To find out why these two people chose differently of course. I mean, in both scenarios two different choices are coming from compassion, right? I told you from the start, my compassion says don't judge others, but since it's a hypothetical I'm going to tell you that I honestly don't see anything wrong in either scenario.


You think one must be immoral if the other is moral, but I don't see anything immoral in either one of these scenarios unless there's more information that says otherwise. So you show me where the wickedness is that has to be there. But before you do, you'd better ask yourself if the wickedness in mankind is in people who must find fault in others.

I think we're done.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then why do we suffer together if compassion can't feel?

Thats just religious nonsense, not philosophy.

 

[childeye 2]

I think we're done.

Did I say something offensive? If I did, I'm sorry.

 

[childeye 2]

Thats just religious nonsense, not philosophy.

This reminds me of a story about an English explorer who was in the Amazon jungle and he came across an indigenous tribe. He spent some time there getting to know their culture. In their language poop meant food and every time he asked where to take a poop they handed him something to eat.

 

[VirOptimus]

This reminds me of a story about an English explorer who was in the Amazon jungle and he came across an indigenous tribe. He spent some time there getting to know their culture. In their language poop meant food and every time he asked where to take a poop they handed him something to eat.

Ok, what has that to do with anything?