Moral absolutes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2016, 10:56 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 10:36 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 08:33 AM)unfogged Wrote:  No matter which version of the commandments you pick they are woefully inadequate as even a basis for a rule of law. You can drop the ones that define what and when to worship since those have nothing of value to offer. The best that can be said for the rest is that they may be generally good ideas but they are far too vague to be of much practical use.

Morality would have to be objective in order for you to prove any of this. Actually, it would have to be objective in order for these statements to be true.

Not really. Only if you insist that the basis for a rule of law must be morality and that's not for sure, so morality being objective or not is really no bearing on the basis of law. They're more just practical outcome based than right/wrong based.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
23-03-2016, 11:00 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 10:48 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 10:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The OP takes a variety of moral prohibitions and argues that they're not absolute by pointing to a context in which they might be the moral thing to do.

I just made a prohibition in which the context is already defined, that doesn't give room for that objection.

...And?

Consensus morality is not the same as objective morality. Even if literally every person who ever has lived or will live agreed that killing babies for fun was wrong, that would be a consensus, not objective morality. It is still a value judgment. It is still not differentiable from subjective morality.

Is morality subjective then? Several posters here argued with me quite recently that morality isn't subjective either, like Chas and Bucky, Clyde too I think, I didn't see you chiming in at the time. Is that your position?

And secondly, when it comes to the question or objective morality, different people will likely give different weights to a variety of different considerations. Factors like a core morality that seems to be consistent even in cross cultural studies, might for some be supportive of a view that morality is objective, and etc... You can dismissive of these factors, it would be even harder to use these factors in support of a view that morality is subjective.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
23-03-2016, 11:01 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 10:56 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 10:36 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Morality would have to be objective in order for you to prove any of this. Actually, it would have to be objective in order for these statements to be true.

Not really. Only if you insist that the basis for a rule of law must be morality and that's not for sure, so morality being objective or not is really no bearing on the basis of law. They're more just practical outcome based than right/wrong based.

If laws are based on preference (they are), then you could never objectively say that one law is better than another.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 11:01 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 11:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 10:48 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  ...And?

Consensus morality is not the same as objective morality. Even if literally every person who ever has lived or will live agreed that killing babies for fun was wrong, that would be a consensus, not objective morality. It is still a value judgment. It is still not differentiable from subjective morality.

Is morality subjective then? Several posters here argued with me quite recently that morality isn't subjective either, like Chas and Bucky, Clyde too I think, I didn't see you chiming in at the time. Is that your position?

And secondly, when it comes to the question or objective morality, different people will likely give different weights to a variety of different considerations. Factors like a core morality that seems to be consistent even in cross cultural studies, might for some be supportive of a view that morality is objective, and etc... You can dismissive of these factors, it would be even harder to use these factors in support of a view that morality is subjective.

Whether they want to admit it or not, most atheists believe in objective morality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 11:02 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 10:53 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Well, even if we define it as: "Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality

You still have no reason to believe that it exists (at least I don't). The problem is not one of definition, but one of existence.

It's still one of definition.

No one has even the faintest idea what a "factually true" moral belief would be, or how it might be differentiated from one that is factually untrue.

Because it is insufficiently defined.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 11:04 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 11:01 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 10:56 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Not really. Only if you insist that the basis for a rule of law must be morality and that's not for sure, so morality being objective or not is really no bearing on the basis of law. They're more just practical outcome based than right/wrong based.

If laws are based on preference (they are), then you could never objectively say that one law is better than another.

If law is an intent to create an order or cause an outcome.. yes you easily can. By effectiveness .

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 11:06 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 11:02 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 10:53 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Well, even if we define it as: "Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality

You still have no reason to believe that it exists (at least I don't). The problem is not one of definition, but one of existence.

It's still one of definition.

No one has even the faintest idea what a "factually true" moral belief would be, or how it might be differentiated from one that is factually untrue.

Because it is insufficiently defined.

All moral statements are factually untrue. Objective morality is very sufficiently defined.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 11:07 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 11:04 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 11:01 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If laws are based on preference (they are), then you could never objectively say that one law is better than another.

If law is an intent to create an order or cause an outcome.. yes you easily can. By effectiveness .

Once you've determined a goal, sure, but that goal will always be subjective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 11:11 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 11:06 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 11:02 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It's still one of definition.

No one has even the faintest idea what a "factually true" moral belief would be, or how it might be differentiated from one that is factually untrue.

Because it is insufficiently defined.

All moral statements are factually untrue. Objective morality is very sufficiently defined.

Only in nominative moral manners. You just made a descriptive moral statement yourself just a couple posts back. When you analyize and view morality and discuss the potential outcomes in beyond just the right/wrong scope that morality also entails, you have more wiggling.

But that IS the problem of it being undefined. People just disregard that there are actually multiple meanings to these terms partially because they span millennia, culture, language, and field of study in terms of debate.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 11:12 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 11:11 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 11:06 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  All moral statements are factually untrue. Objective morality is very sufficiently defined.

Only in nominative moral manners. You just made a descriptive moral statement yourself just a couple posts back. When you analyize and view morality and discuss the potential outcomes in beyond just the right/wrong scope that morality also entails, you have more wiggling.

But that IS the problem of it being undefined. People just disregard that there are actually multiple meanings to these terms partially because they span millennia, culture, language, and field of study in terms of debate.

So you know of a moral statement that is true?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: