Of course we can. I agree with every bit of what you say.
Excellent, that means we have a good base to work from. We agree that moral decisions/opinions can be reached through reason and logic.
Ahh, this is where the confusion lies Dave. And I have seen others make this same error.
You are taking the terms objective and subjective and and using them in an epistemological sense instead of an ontological sense. This is the confusion and conflation and it is an accidental confusion due to a lack of understanding between the fundamental differences between moral ontology and moral epistemology.
Moral ontology deals with whether or not values and duties EXIST.
Moral epistemology deals with how we come to KNOW or APPREHEND moral values.
Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of
being, existence, or
reality.
Epistemology is the branch of
philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge.
So Dave, when you say: "
There's nothing objective at all with that, that conclusion is reached through purely subjective means." You are speaking of how you KNOW what is right and what is wrong and I definitely agree with everything you said. We use our moral intuition or conscience, reason, logic and rational capacities to know or apprehend that genocide is wrong. This is something we agree on. In fact, that is how everyone knows anything! We use our own minds to rationally produce thoughts about this or that. In this sense our apprehension or understanding of (X) or (y) is owed to our reasoning process. They are our own in that we produce them.
But Dave, when I say that objective moral values and duties EXIST, I am talking about their existence, NOT how we come to KNOW them. Here the issue is ONTOLOGY.
What you have done is spoken epistemologically and sought to argue against ontology.
I realise that's what you are referring to, however you have not demonstrated that any kind of morality exists in the ontological sense.
In fact, I don't see how morality can exist ontologically even if a God actually does exist.
Here's why:
If a God does exist, and is indeed the author of morality, how did he determine what is and is not moral?
If God uses logic and reason to create his laws, then morality is indeed epistemological.... It is reason based, even if God did the reasoning. Likewise, we should also be able to use logic and reason to reach the same conclusions God did if our logic is properly applied.
I don't see what other system God would have used to create his laws.
I will give you an example of why you cannot do this:
Lets say you are given a sheet of paper and are told to solve the math equation 2+2=? which is written on the paper. How do you do this? You use your mind, and reasoning processes to mentally calculate and come to the conclusion that the answer is 4. This conclusion of yours was reached through purely subjective means i.e. your brain, but the answer "4" is true objectively. Just because your subjective reasoning process leads you to the conclusion that "4" is the right answer, does not mean that the answer to the equation is NOT OBJECTIVE. The answer to the equation is true INDEPENDENTLY of your reasoning process or how you come to know 2+2=4. You subjectively (epistemologically) come to the conclustion that objectively (ontologically) the answer is 4.
The problem is you're arguing apples and oranges. Morality is not Mathematics. So far we've been arguing fairly cut and dry moral issues, however there are a lot of moral grey areas and moral dilemmas. These are examples of our moralities conflicting with each other, and there may or may not be a correct answer for everyone... it simply falls to personal opinion. For example, Euthanasia of a terminally ill patient who is doomed to live a life in extreme pain. Some view it as a moral, compassionate action, others view it as immoral. Is there a right answer? Morality isn't as cut and dry as 2+2=4. a lot of it is extremely subjective and situational.
I can see a baby being tortured and my subjective reasoning processes tell me (epistemologically) that the torture of that baby is wrong (objectively) because it is a moral fact (ontologically speaking) that torturing babies is wrong.
I would argue that torture of that baby is wrong subjectively, however it's a pretty well unanimously subjectively held opinion. And we consider it a moral fact because pretty well everyone agrees with that view.
We have demonstrated that morality can be reached through subjective means, we have not demonstrated that there is an objective form of morality. How can you demonstrate this?
All opinions are reached through subjective means. This is indisputable. How else would we reach conclusions and form opinions if not with our own minds?
I completely agree
I also agree that just because a belief is shared by many, that does not make it objective. In fact, for something to be objective means that it is true independently of people's beliefs. For example, just because a lot of people used to believe the earth was flat, does not mean it was really flat. The shape of the earth ( a fact ) is independent of people's beliefs.
In the same way, moral objectivists say that rape is wrong (a moral fact) independent of people's beliefs.
And I say rape is wrong because we believe it is wrong. We believe it is wrong because we use logic and reason to come to that conclusion, which is a commonly held belief.
There really is no justification for asserting otherwise.
I do not think you actually believe this.
For example, in order to know that rape is wrong independently of people's opinions, you do not have to be shown that or have that proven to you. Our moral intuition or conscience tells us that rape is wrong independent of people's opinions.
If not, then a person is morally impaired, not unlike a blind person is visually impaired.
Your moral intuition/conscience is based on empathy in this regard. Without that empathy, it's unlikely we would be able to make moral decisions, or at least our moral reasoning would be severely diminished. This behaviour is displayed in sociopaths.
I'd argue if the entire human race was made up of sociopaths, it's very likely that rape would not be viewed as wrong.... However it's also very likely we never would have made it out of the jungle as we'd never have the ability to work together.
