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

[devildavid]

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

So it was English Corporal rather than Major after all. Not the character Hamlet nor the authority of Shakespeare but the idea conveyed in the lines, the concept of self-preservation that is offered as a moral principle.

Namaste

Self preservation is natural, not moral. It is instinctive. Hamlet is referring to a creators law against suicide, not the instinct of self preservation. You are misreading the line.

In the final analysis, we can't judge the morality of suicide, as there is no punishment on earth for its successful accomplishment, and anything after that is make believe.

 

[Angel]

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

Self preservation is natural, not moral. It is instinctive. Hamlet is referring to a creators law against suicide, not the instinct of self preservation. You are misreading the line.

In the final analysis, we can't judge the morality of suicide, as there is no punishment on earth for its successful accomplishment, and anything after that is make believe.

You're right about what Hamlet is referring to and wrong about its not being a moral principle. You apparently don't understand what morality is. Look to it.

 

[devildavid]

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

You're right about what Hamlet is referring to and wrong about its not being a moral principle. You apparently don't understand what morality is. Look to it.

Morality has nothing to do with the instinct self preservation. Fight or flight are not moral decisions.

Hamlet believes in a fictional god in his fictional world that made a fictional rule forbidding suicide. Its a fiction about a fiction.

 

[Angel]

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

Morality has nothing to do with the instinct self preservation. Fight or flight are not moral decisions.

Hamlet believes in a fictional god in his fictional world that made a fictional rule forbidding suicide. Its a fiction about a fiction.

Your understanding of morality has not, I dare say, improved in the seven minutes that elapsed between posts #977 and #978.
Keep at it.


Namaste

 

[devildavid]

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

Your understanding of morality has not, I dare say, improved in the seven minutes that elapsed between posts #977 and #978.
Keep at it.


Namaste

How does insinct fall under morality? Maybe its you who needs to understand the artificiality of morality.

 

[Angel]

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

How does insinct fall under morality? Maybe its you who needs to understand the artificiality of morality.

What you call instinct is the effect of the fundamental objective moral imperative.
Now if you don't understand the big words, be humble. You don't want to risk a slap-down on the very verge of enlightenment.


Namaste

 

[devildavid]

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

What you call instinct is the effect of the fundamental objective moral imperative.
Now if you don't understand the big words, be humble. You don't want to risk a slap-down on the very verge of enlightenment.


Namaste

What I call instinct involves no moral choice, any more than breathing does.

 

[Angel]

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

What I call instinct involves no moral choice, any more than breathing does.

Maybe you had better define what you call instinct then. I'm soured on playing your games. Here your analogy points to something autonomic. Define your term and then I'll show you where your argument falls short.

 

[devildavid]

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

Maybe you had better define what you call instinct then. I'm soured on playing your games. Here your analogy points to something autonomic. Define your term and then I'll show you where your argument falls short.

Instinct is a built in natural physical reaction genetically encoded into all living things. This is not an argument any more than hair and eye color being genetic is an argument. This is a fact.

 

[Angel]

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

Instinct is a built in natural physical reaction genetically encoded into all living things. This is not an argument any more than hair and eye color being genetic is an argument. This is a fact.

Okay. Thank you. So, as you use the terms, "instinct" refers to an innate physical reaction, presumably to a stimulus. Therefore a human instinct, as you use the term, refers to an innate human reaction to a stimulus. Have I correctly understood you?

 

[devildavid]

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

Okay. Thank you. So, as you use the terms, "instinct" refers to an innate physical reaction, presumably to a stimulus. Therefore a human instinct, as you use the term, refers to an innate human reaction to a stimulus. Have I correctly understood you?

I guess so. More precisely, instinct is built into all animal life, of which human beings are a part of. And now we await the big twist as you turn this into some kind of error in my view.

The survival instinct is a reaction to threat or perceived threat to life and and general well being. The general reaction is or flight.

 

[Quag]

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

You're getting into an epistemological discussion again... I'm not concerned with that, but rather I'm concerned with the reality of objective morals (ontology). These are two entirely different discussions...

You said:

You'd have to give an example of what you believe to be a "different moral conclusion" ... besides being psychopathic, people may be operating under different facts, so they come to a "different moral conclusion" (even though it isn't 'actually' different) as a result of those differing facts. I'm sure there are other reasons that one could dive into...

I gave you an example, this isn't about ontology vs epistemology it is about you defending your claims.

But to slightly appease your request, some moral duties are MUCH more clear than others... "Is smoking cigarettes immoral" is MUCH more of a "gray" area than "Is cutting off someone's legs with a chainsaw immoral", which is VERY "black and white" area. All I need are those "black and white" examples to support my ontological appeal that objective morality exists. The epistemological discussions concerning the "gray area" moral duties can follow afterward, and have no bearing on the ontological discussion concerning the reality of objective moral duties.

So some morals are objective but some aren't? Is that your claim?

I'm not claiming/appealing to universality in the slightest in the position I am defending. I hold that universality does not imply objectivity and vice versa, so I would never make such an easily refuted assertion. What you have been asserting is that, since a subjective basis always leads to subjectiveness, honey is subjectively sticky, but inferential evidence can prove honey to be objectively sticky, yet you say it is still subjectively sticky even though it is objectively sticky. You're all over the place, Quag... It's either objectively sticky or it's subjectively sticky, and even without any sort of tests, I can grab a cute looking bear shaped bottle of honey, dab some of it onto my skin, rub it around in my fingers, and justifiably determine that it is indeed truly sticky. Unless there is some sort of defeater, proving that I am somehow being tricked into thinking that it is sticky even though it actually isn't sticky, then I am perfectly justified to trust my sensory experience and believe that honey is truly sticky. Moral experience works in the same way because it is experience just like sensory experience is experience.

Actually you are appealing to universality you just wont admit it.
Moral experience works the same as beauty experience.

I agree that they are not the same thing, and I have never advocated for such an easily refutable position. I have told you many times before what the objective measure for morals is, and never once have I claimed it to be my personal subjective view. You keep wanting to refute it by appealing to epistemological differences... Epistemological differences in morality do nothing to refute the ontological status (reality) of moral truths.

I am refuting it because feeling something is sticky isn't objective it can be universal, something you admit isn't the same yet you confuse the two.

 

[Quag]

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

part II

You're literally just repeating your already refuted claim instead of refuting my refutation of it.

Actually yo havent even tried to deal with the fact that you cannot use a subjective basis to claim objectivity.
As my small weight in the hands analogy which shows you personal sense experience is Subjective.

It refuted the very foundation of your dissension. You argue that a subjective basis cannot yield a truthful (objective) conclusion but rather only an opinionated (subjective) conclusion, and I have refuted that position with my appeal to sensory experience and the cute little bear shaped bottle of honey.

You havent refuted anything you have made a false analogy and confused universality with objectivity then denied you have done so. If you want to deal with senory experience analogy take to very small weights then using only your senses of them in your hand objectively tell me which is heavier.

Your response about universalism is misguided because I never advanced such a position, and your response about the 3g/2g difference in weight/viscosity is irrelevant because you are then quibbling about HOW sticky it is, not that it IS sticky. I'm only concerned with the objective fact that it IS sticky because that's all that I need to support my position and to refute yours.

You did advance the argument you just fail to recognize it. As to the 2/3 gram If your senses cannot objectively tell you wich is heavier then guess what they aren't objective. If the next guy gives the opposite answer and they happen to be correct are they objectively correct or did they just guess correctly?
The foundation of the error in your argument aside from being a subjective basis is that you need the morals to be able to be objectively measured which you cannot do. The stickiness of the honey can be measured with viscosity the weights can be weighed. the morals can only be measured on a subjective basis. Your personal moral experience is subjective and cannot measure anything it can only lead yo to believe that something is moral/immoral based on your experience which will be different than another persons. hence subjective.

 

[Quag]

continued...


1) Yes, I do.
2) Yes, I do.
3) Yes, I do.

No you dont any more than a devout Hindu knows that Ganesh exists or a strong atheist knows that God(s) do not exist or a pious ancient Greek knew that Zeus existed.
You just believe very strongly

I've already refuted this.

You havent because logically it is impossible.

Nope.

Actually you did when you admitted that you are unable make any argument for objective morality without resorting to a subjective basis.

So now it isn't the truth that honey is sticky? It's just a matter of personal opinion? Yet you admitted earlier than we can in fact measure the viscosity of honey and determine that it is in fact sticky. So, I'm still confused as to what you actually believe regarding this...

Yes you do seem to be confused. The stickiness of honey can be measured, we have an objective way of doing so. There is no objective way to measure morals just your subjective opinion. Hence the stickiness of honey can be objective the right or wrong of something morally speaking cannot. Putting your finger in honey is not an objective measurement any more than picking up two very weights and deciding A weighs more than B when the difference is to small to be noticeable by your senses alone. Now say one weight is 200lb and another is 230 some people could tell the difference but others unable to even move either of them due to lack of strength will not be able to use their sensory experience to tell the difference. Objectively one is heavier than the other as it can be measured but to the person unable to budge either weight they cannot tell objectively and may conclude the heavier one is the lighter because due to its shape and placement on the ground it wiggles a little bit whereas the lighter one didn't.


quote]Again, I have never argued that universality makes something objective; I have actually taken the position that it doesn't, and that the vice versa doesn't either./quote]
But your stickiness argument IS based on the universality of stickiness.

It's clear in the context of how I use the term, and your second part is asserting, for starters, that we can't know whether people are psychopathic or not.

I want to be clear on what you mean by a defeater and you already stated that a defeater doesn't mean a psychopath, not that it was my question, though psychopaths aren't always that easy to detect.

I was asking how do you know if YOU personally are not subject to a defeater in your personal moral experience?

 

[Quag]

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

No, and never have. That Shakespeare quote was meant to convey my nomination for an objective moral principle.
Of course neither RAMOSS nor Quag, who've incessantly challenged anyone to produce one, has recognized or acknowledged this.
I wonder if you've the intellectual sand to do so?

What suicide?
OK first is it moral or immoral and why is it objectively so?

 

[Angel]

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

Good morning, gfm. I hope you had a quiet peaceful weekend.
Er, remember that stone you pushed uphill last week?
It's rolled back down.

...

 

[Angel]

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

...So, as you use the terms, "instinct" refers to an innate physical reaction, presumably to a stimulus. Therefore a human instinct, as you use the term, refers to an innate human reaction to a stimulus. Have I correctly understood you?

I guess so. More precisely, instinct is built into all animal life, of which human beings are a part of....The survival instinct is a reaction to threat or perceived threat to life and and general well being. The general reaction is or flight.

So instinct is an innate, universal and objective ("built into all animal life, of which human beings are a part") reaction to a stimulus.
And self-preservation is the survival instinct at work in an animal, the animal's biological mandate, "a reaction to threat or perceived threat to life."
I appreciate the thoroughness. But just to avoid confusion as we proceed in our exchanges, this instinctive reaction -- is it voluntary or involuntary?

 

[Angel]

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

What suicide?
OK first is it moral or immoral and why is it objectively so?

Devildavid is about to explain why (See the preceding page of posts).
Now just follow the bouncing ball.

 

[Quag]

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

Devildavid is about to explain why (See the preceding page of posts).
Now just follow the bouncing ball.

I asked you in reply to your post I am not asking DD for his reply on what you think
Are you talking about suicide? (yes/no)

If so:
Is it moral or immoral (moral/immoral)
Why is the above answer objective

 

[Angel]

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

I asked you in reply to your post I am not asking DD for his reply on what you think
Are you talking about suicide? (yes/no)

If so:
Is it moral or immoral (moral/immoral)
Why is the above answer objective

Yes to your first question.
I'm getting the answers to you other two questions from devildavid. He reads your posts. You don't want to give away the answers to him, do you?


Namaste

 

[Quag]

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

Yes to your first question.
I'm getting the answers to you other two questions from devildavid. He reads your posts. You don't want to give away the answers to him, do you?


Namaste

Ok good we are getting somewhere now is suicide moral or immoral?
I want your answer as you have brought up the subject you must have an opinion on its morality

 

[Angel]

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

Ok good we are getting somewhere now is suicide moral or immoral?
I want your answer as you have brought up the subject you must have an opinion on its morality

Of course I have an opinion, but at the moment I'm drawing your friend out on the question and I don't want to let the cat out of the bag.
Shhh...


Namaste

 

[Quag]

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

Of course I have an opinion, but at the moment I'm drawing your friend out on the question and I don't want to let the cat out of the bag.
Shhh...


Namaste

So you wont defend your own claim?

 

[Angel]

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

So you wont defend your own claim?

I certainly will. With all the powers of intellect the Good God has given me.
Will you challenge the claim?
Whence your powers of intellect by the by? Natural Selection?


Namaste

 

[Quag]

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

I certainly will. With all the powers of intellect the Good God has given me.

Then why dont you?

Will you challenge the claim?

How should I know until you tell me what the claim is?

Whence your powers of intellect by the by? Natural Selection?

Genetics and education same as everyone else.

Namaste

ditto