Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222:829]

[Visbek]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

That methodology doesn't work. You start with a conclusion and work back to the assumptions. . It then going into 'ought', which an entirely subjective determination.

And as I mentioned already: If you actually read what ethicists have written, the are NOT starting with conclusions and working backwards.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

You already excused killing by focusing on murder. IOW, sometimes killing is good, sometimes it's not. It depends.

sigh

1) "Murder" and "killing" are not synonyms. Look 'em up.

2) I used "murder is immoral" not as an exhaustive discussion of the ethics of ending someone's life, but to illustrate an aspect of objective moral truths. Try to actually read what I write next time.

Moral realism is a form of Platonism.

You have it backwards.

Platonism is one type of moral realist philosophy. Ethicists like Parfit, Moore, Shafer-Landau etc are not Platonists.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

As you may have gathered, I am Aristotelian, not a Platonist. That school of thought has branched into Pragmatism, modern legal theory, and science.

You do know that Aristotle was a moral realist and absolutist, not a pragmatist or relativist, right...?

I'd also say that modern legal theory is at best neutral on moral realism, if not leaning towards it. The Declaration of Independence certainly relies on moral realism, asserting that everyone has the right to life, liberty, happiness, and to rebel against bad government. Human rights are routinely presumed not to be relative, but to apply universally; the UN Declaration of Human Rights explicitly states that all humans have certain inalienable rights, and makes statements like "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

By the way, secular moral realism is fully compatible with a scientific worldview. I have no idea why you'd think otherwise.

 

[Quag]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Uh, hello? I'm not making up any terminology here. Metaethics is an existing field of study.

Metaethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Thank you for posting the definition so now even you can see that there is no definition of moral or ethical or meta ethical that applies to the statement.

 

[Quag]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Should I also make an identity statement without using the concept of identity? :mrgreen:

An objective moral standard is one whose veracity does not depend upon human opinion or preferences. If "murder is immoral" is an objective moral truth, then it means that it is true regardless of individual opinions about murder, or cultural views on murder.

Determining the objective status of specific moral principles requires a deliberative process of reason, to determine which principles ought to be universally applied. Again, it's a complex process that cannot be boiled down into two paragraphs, as it involves complex issues like cognitivism, whether natural principles apply, the limits of naturalism, and so on. So like I keep saying, if you are genuinely interested (rather than simply having a knee-jerk reaction), I suggest you study the topic. This is a pretty good book on the topic:
https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Realis...preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch



LOL

No, I'm neither a Platonist nor religious. Nor am I required to hold a specific commitment on the issue in order to discuss it. I am simply pointing out that moral realism is possible, if not plausible.

Why is murder an objective moral truth?

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Why is murder an objective moral truth?

To be precise , why is the prohibition against murder an objective moral truth'. How is it objective. Isn't it wrong, because people have determined it wrong, by what they think of it?

 

[Quag]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

To be precise , why is the prohibition against murder an objective moral truth'. How is it objective. Isn't it wrong, because people have determined it wrong, by what they think of it?

If so it would be a subjective moral. But since Visbek has claimed it is an objective moral truth then he must have an objective explanation.

 

[devildavid]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Should I also make an identity statement without using the concept of identity? :mrgreen:

An objective moral standard is one whose veracity does not depend upon human opinion or preferences. If "murder is immoral" is an objective moral truth, then it means that it is true regardless of individual opinions about murder, or cultural views on murder.



Determining the objective status of specific moral principles requires a deliberative process of reason, to determine which principles ought to be universally applied. Again, it's a complex process that cannot be boiled down into two paragraphs, as it involves complex issues like cognitivism, whether natural principles apply, the limits of naturalism, and so on. So like I keep saying, if you are genuinely interested (rather than simply having a knee-jerk reaction), I suggest you study the topic. This is a pretty good book on the topic:
https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Realis...preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch



LOL

No, I'm neither a Platonist nor religious. Nor am I required to hold a specific commitment on the issue in order to discuss it. I am simply pointing out that moral realism is possible, if not plausible.

A deliberative process of reason does not make a conclusion by human beings something that is true outside of human beings using reason to conclude it. It is not independent of human thought so it does not exist independently. It is created by humans, not discovered by them. You may call it realistic, but it not an independent objective moral standard unless it is discovered outside of human reason.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

In terms of "proof:" If you actually bothered to read any ethicists, it should be quite clear that they are not simply starting with a list, and working backwards to justify those views. E.g. in On What Matters, Parfit runs through a large number of plausible scenarios of ethical systems, and tests whether specific principles or maxims are logically sound. There is no indication that he's merely seeking to justify specific moral premises.

I might add, it's usually pretty obvious when someone is starting with a conclusion, and clutching at any possible defense. The obvious example of this is Christian apologetics, which start with specific premises ("God exists" "Jesus was divine") and then scramble to paper over inconsistencies in theologies or canonical texts.

By the way, "moral subjectivism" sure seems to be the same thing as "moral non-objectivism." If no moral statements are objectively true, then all moral statements must be subjective. Are you sure that's what you meant to say?



The examples of allegedly objective moral principles are the same as any other moral principle -- e.g. "murder is immoral" or ""Everyone ought to follow the principles whose universal acceptance everyone could rationally will."

The difference is in the justifications and purported ontological status of those claims, and yet again!!! that is far too complicated for a web post. I simply cannot boil down 100 pages of On What Matters into two paragraphs and expect that to present a sound defense of Parfit's moral realism.

LMAO seems honest and objective posters imply dont buy your claims because theres no factual prove of them nor can you provide any . . not ONE fact that support your false claims

fact remains by definition morals are subjective

 

[devildavid]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Try again.

There is considerable debate over whether mathematics is a discovery, an invention, or a combination of the two. It's also fairly routine to refer to solving of various mathematical problems or other mathematical innovations as "discoveries" rather than "inventions."

Anyway.... "Humans invented ethics" does not, in fact, preclude the possibility that objective moral truths exist. Let's say that all human beings ceased to exist tomorrow -- would it no longer be true that "2+2=4" or "Julius Caesar defeated Pompey" or "murder is immoral"? I don't see why that would be the case. No one would be alive to care, and the issues will thus be mooted, but that is insufficient to prove that those are subjective propositions.

Similarly, we might argue "evolution is true" does not exist independent of human concepts, because humans came up with the concept of evolution. If there are no humans, then there is no one to have the concept of evolution. Does that prove that "evolution is subjective?" Obviously not.

I.e. your understanding of subjectivity and objectivity is incorrect. Statements are subjective when the truth is based on human opinions and preferences, not because something is expressible as a concept.

Math and ethics are human creations. No one discovered them outside of human ability to conceptualize. Humans invented science as a way to attempt to describe the physical mechanics of everything. If humans stopped existing the universe would go on as it does now, with no morality attached to any actions. Morality applies only to human behavior because it was invented by humans as part of organizing societies.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

To be precise , why is the prohibition against murder an objective moral truth'. How is it objective.

It is objective if you can use a process or method to determine that "murder is immoral, based on factors that are not founded in individual or group preferences."

And for at least the 10th time: Describing that process of reason is far beyond the scope of a web post.

Isn't it wrong, because people have determined it wrong, by what they think of it?

If "what they think" is a rational process based in objective moral truths, then no, it isn't "what people think" (i.e. subjective opinions) that makes it wrong. It is objective moral principles that determine the moral status of the action.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

If so it would be a subjective moral. But since Visbek has claimed it is an objective moral truth then he must have an objective explanation.

:roll:

For the second time: I made no such specific declaration. What I did was say "if that's the case, then this is how it works."

Your inability to read what I'm writing, over and over, is not helping your position.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

It is objective if you can use a process or method to determine that "murder is immoral, based on factors that are not founded in individual or group preferences."

And for at least the 10th time: Describing that process of reason is far beyond the scope of a web post.



If "what they think" is a rational process based in objective moral truths, then no, it isn't "what people think" (i.e. subjective opinions) that makes it wrong. It is objective moral principles that determine the moral status of the action.

Ok. Let's look at the statement 'Murder is immoral'.

YOu did follow it up is that murder is different that killing. I agree.

Let's look at the definition. Murder is different than killing, because it is the illegal taking of human life, rather than the legal taking of human life. What is the differce?? The law. How is the law defined.. by the way people think about it. That makes it subjective, rather than objective.

Now, let's take a specific instance of a murder. Let's take a look at the case of Gary Plauche. He committed murder. A martial arts instructor kidnapped his son, and took him out of state and sexually assaulted him. When the guy was being brought back to Texas after being arrested for trial, Gary Plauche was at the air port, and killed his son's rapist on camera. He got a 7 year suspended sentence and 5 years probation for that.

What he did was illegal, and it definitely was murder. There will be a number of people who look at that, and will claim that his actions were not immoral though. (I will agree others will say it was).

 

[Visbek]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

A deliberative process of reason does not make a conclusion by human beings something that is true outside of human beings using reason to conclude it. It is not independent of human thought so it does not exist independently. It is created by humans, not discovered by them. You may call it realistic, but it not an independent objective moral standard unless it is discovered outside of human reason.

"Discovered outside of human reason?" How does that happen? By taking LSD? Or perhaps by listening to schizophrenic ravings? Oh wait, I know. Religious mystical experiences! That's the ticket.

In case you missed it, very little truth is "discovered outside of human reason." For example, almost every scientific theory and law is based on a rational process, such as empirical observation and the scientific method. Even if something is discovered by accident, we have to use a rational process to confirm it.

Deductions are also operations of pure logic, and are valid methods for determining true inferences. E.g.:

• Socrates is a man.
• All men are mortal.
• Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

It is an operation of human reason that "Socrates is mortal." Does that mean that deductions are subjective? Or that we should believe "Socrates is mortal" not based on any objective facts, but based on how we feel about that conclusion?

Or: "Organisms are subject to natural selection" is a statement that is dependent upon human thought. As far as we know, it is only humans that can form categories like "organisms," and only humans that can articulate processes like "natural selection." Further, concepts like "organisms" and "natural selection" are in fact artificial categories which humans use to try and organize information about the world; per Kant, we are not able to discuss what these things are in themselves, only our cognitions of them. However, that does not justify stating that our knowledge of natural selection is subjective.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Math and ethics are human creations. No one discovered them outside of human ability to conceptualize....

All you're doing is repeating what you already wrote, and ignoring my response. Let me know when you have an actual argument.

 

[Quag]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

:roll:

For the second time: I made no such specific declaration. What I did was say "if that's the case, then this is how it works."

Your inability to read what I'm writing, over and over, is not helping your position.

You ae you arguing that objective morality exists
If so then you must have an explanation of why something is objectively moral.
If you cannot do so then you cannot claim there objective morality.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Ok. Let's look at the statement 'Murder is immoral'.

YOu did follow it up is that murder is different that killing. I agree.

Let's look at the definition. Murder is different than killing, because it is the illegal taking of human life, rather than the legal taking of human life. What is the differce?? The law. How is the law defined.. by the way people think about it. That makes it subjective, rather than objective.

sigh

Laws are (among other things) a collection of criteria, and they establish a process to determine the truth of what happened to the best of our ability. The presumption is that there is one and only one true set of facts, to which certain criteria are applied. While humans are not omniscient, will never be 100% certain that they have all the facts, and do not have a 100% perfect process, the goal is to provide the deciders with the most accurate collection of facts, and apply the legal criteria accordingly.

The law is not based on personal preferences of the jury. Juries are even instructed to base their decision not on personal feelings or on what they think ought to be the law; they are instructed to consider only the evidence presented in court, and the construction of the law(s) in question. People who fail to adhere to the process are not, in fact, applying the law at all.

Or: Let's say I am a botanist, and I find a plant in my backyard. I am a human being that is applying the various criteria to determine the proper taxonomy to this plant. Further, these taxonomies are decided based on "the way people think about plants." Does this mean that all taxonomy is subjective? That there is no correct classification for that plant? No and no. It is not human judgment that makes something subjective, it is the type of judgment -- opinion vs fact.

So no, humans making decisions doesn't make something subjective.

What he did was illegal, and it definitely was murder. There will be a number of people who look at that, and will claim that his actions were not immoral though. (I will agree others will say it was).

sigh

You're conflating applied (descriptive) and normative ethics. A journalist who is describing people's reactions may say that "some citizens do not believe those actions are immoral." That has no impact on normative realist ethics, because... wait for it... people can make mistakes about objective facts, moral and otherwise.

So no, you can't just say "some people think X is moral, and some think X is immoral" and, on that basis, claim that moral realism is proven wrong. That's not a remotely valid consideration in the debate of moral realism and anti-realism.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

You ae you arguing that objective morality exists
If so then you must have an explanation of why something is objectively moral.
If you cannot do so then you cannot claim there objective morality.

For at least the 10th time: The justification is far too complex for a web forum. (So is the justification for moral anti-realism.) If you are genuinely interested in the topic, do some research on your own.

And no, that's not unique to this issue. I couldn't possibly defend Platonism, Aristotelianism, metaphysical realism, M-Theory, or dozens of other topics in such a short post either.

 

[the_recruit]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

=
What he did was illegal, and it definitely was murder. There will be a number of people who look at that, and will claim that his actions were not immoral though. (I will agree others will say it was).

That there is disagreement over moral claims doesn't have anything to do with whether moral truths (if there are any) are objective.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

sigh

Laws are (among other things) a collection of criteria, and they establish a process to determine the truth of what happened to the best of our ability. The presumption is that there is one and only one true set of facts, to which certain criteria are applied. While humans are not omniscient, will never be 100% certain that they have all the facts, and do not have a 100% perfect process, the goal is to provide the deciders with the most accurate collection of facts, and apply the legal criteria accordingly.

The law is not based on personal preferences of the jury. Juries are even instructed to base their decision not on personal feelings or on what they think ought to be the law; they are instructed to consider only the evidence presented in court, and the construction of the law(s) in question. People who fail to adhere to the process are not, in fact, applying the law at all.

Or: Let's say I am a botanist, and I find a plant in my backyard. I am a human being that is applying the various criteria to determine the proper taxonomy to this plant. Further, these taxonomies are decided based on "the way people think about plants." Does this mean that all taxonomy is subjective? That there is no correct classification for that plant? No and no. It is not human judgment that makes something subjective, it is the type of judgment -- opinion vs fact.

So no, humans making decisions doesn't make something subjective.



sigh

You're conflating applied (descriptive) and normative ethics. A journalist who is describing people's reactions may say that "some citizens do not believe those actions are immoral." That has no impact on normative realist ethics, because... wait for it... people can make mistakes about objective facts, moral and otherwise.

So no, you can't just say "some people think X is moral, and some think X is immoral" and, on that basis, claim that moral realism is proven wrong. That's not a remotely valid consideration in the debate of moral realism and anti-realism.

And, who comes up with that criteria?? People do. People THINK about it, and come up with that criteria.

 

[the_recruit]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Isn't it wrong, because people have determined it wrong, by what they think of it?

According to moral realism, definitely not. Is the shape of the earth round because people have determined that it is? No of course not. Moral realists see ethical matters like this.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

That there is disagreement over moral claims doesn't have anything to do with whether moral truths (if there are any) are objective.

On the other hand, if you can't show any specific thing is objective, and there is disagreement on it, then it is totally and utterly worthless claim

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

According to moral realism, definitely not. Is the shape of the earth round because people have determined that it is? No of course not. Moral realists see ethical matters like this.

There is a difference between a concept (morals), and the shape of the earth.. (physical). I can measure and observe the earth. Can you show me how to measure a moral?

This is the logical fallacy of a 'false analogy'

 

[the_recruit]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

And, who comes up with that criteria?? People do. People THINK about it, and come up with that criteria.

Moral realism - by definition - holds that the truth/falsity of moral statements is independent of our attitudes!

 

[devildavid]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

According to moral realism, definitely not. Is the shape of the earth round because people have determined that it is? No of course not. Moral realists see ethical matters like this.

But ethical matters are about judging human behavior, not physical things like the chemical composition of water. That humans kill other humans is a fact. The morality of such an act is a subjective judgement. Is there an objective morality for animal behavior?