Moral absolutes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2016, 01:36 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
I don't believe in objective morality. From a sociological stance all morals or what was considered moral came from subjective perspectives.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
23-03-2016, 01:40 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 01:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 12:46 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Obviously.


Setting aside for the moment that you have a track record of grossly mischaracterizing everyone else's positions, I am not any other poster. I am myself.

To quote Bucky: "Morality is complex. It arises from many sources, and is PROCESSED, IN EVERY CASE by human brains. There is nothing about that that is "objective". It also does not meet any definition of "subjective".

It's one thing for you to claim morality is subjective, it's another thing to claim it's obviously subjective, which judging from my previous conversations here, it's anything but.

But let ask a question. If I were to claim that torturing babies just for fun is objectively immoral, would I be wrong?

Or did I make a subjective claim, for which there is no right or wrong answers to?

he gets quoted about it but i don't, how unfair Unsure

Yes, you would be wrong there. I know you're asking someone else but I elaborated on that why earlier to no response.

One thing to add, you kinda have to accept anything described as morality in the normative sense of morality exists for it to be even subjective. That may be where some divisions lie.

I know I've kinda bickered or wiggled on the line saying as a moral nihilist moral relativism is still possible. It's possible in the described kinda way where people of different cultures/times/ages can say it's true to them. It doesn't make it actually true or false. I know there are only a few ranges of the relativist scale that fit in there, but there have been some philosophers in that range. I'm not gonna be of a common range to many I suppose. I am more leaning extreme in my skeptical view than some here, maybe not as agnostic shane is, idk.

"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, 01:46 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 01:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  To quote Bucky: "Morality is complex. It arises from many sources, and is PROCESSED, IN EVERY CASE by human brains. There is nothing about that that is "objective". It also does not meet any definition of "subjective".

I am not Bucky. Unless you care to argue for his statements, bringing up what he said is utterly irrelevant.

(23-03-2016 01:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's one thing for you to claim morality is subjective, it's another thing to claim it's obviously subjective, which judging from my previous conversations here, it's anything but.

Do you have any actual reason to believe that it might not be subjective, or are you just going to go off on a tangent about my choice of descriptor and pretend that it's an argument?

(23-03-2016 01:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  But let ask a question. If I were to claim that torturing babies just for fun is objectively immoral, would I be wrong?

Yes.

(23-03-2016 01:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Or did I make a subjective claim, for which there is no right or wrong answers to?

"Is 'this is objectively wrong' a claim about subjective opinion?"

I can't decide whether you're playing an exceptionally silly game with words or just didn't think through your post at all before making it.

"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, 02:46 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 08:06 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 07:55 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  But here is a deductive proof that morality is objective

1. If man qua man is not exempt from the law of identity then his life requires a specific course of action to sustain it.

2. If man's life requires a specific course of action to sustain it, then any other course of action is objectively wrong, so long as he chooses to live.

3. Man qua man is not exempt from the law of identity.

Therefore so long as he chooses to live there is an objectively right course of action he must take in order to sustain his life.

This is not a valid proof of objective morality. It equivocates between actions that will sustain one's life and actions which are morally correct - but the belief that the preservation of one's life is the highest moral imperative is itself a subjective value judgment.

My argument was only designed to prove that there are objectively right and wrong actions. I expected that people would take issue with my first premise. I'm guessing you have a problem with it because you think it can not be objectively validated and I'm guessing that is because you see nothing objective from which to deduce it's truth. Would this be correct? I don't want to put words in your mouth so please correct me if I'm wrong.

For the record I don't believe there are any moral imperatives at all. I don't subscribe to a deontological view of morality so I'm not stating that there is a moral imperative to hold one's life as the standard of value.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 02:56 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 02:46 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  My argument was only designed to prove that there are objectively right and wrong actions.

You explicitly stated that it was intended to prove the existence of objective morality, not merely demonstrate that certain actions serve a given purpose.

Unfortunately, it only succeeds at the latter.

(23-03-2016 02:46 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I expected that people would take issue with my first premise. I'm guessing you have a problem with it because you think it can not be objectively validated and I'm guessing that is because you see nothing objective from which to deduce it's truth. Would this be correct?

No. I have no issue with your first premise. The issue lies in your equivocation between "action which serves a certain goal" and "action which is objectively moral".

(23-03-2016 02:46 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  For the record I don't believe there are any moral imperatives at all. I don't subscribe to a deontological view of morality so I'm not stating that there is a moral imperative to hold one's life as the standard of value.

Then why did you state that your proof showed that morality was objective?

"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, 07:05 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2016 07:18 PM by true scotsman.)
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 02:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 02:46 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  My argument was only designed to prove that there are objectively right and wrong actions.

You explicitly stated that it was intended to prove the existence of objective morality, not merely demonstrate that certain actions serve a given purpose.

Unfortunately, it only succeeds at the latter.

That is not the conclusion that my argument draws, that certain actions serve a given purpose. My conclusion is that given the goal of living and given that man is subject to the law of identity, certain actions are objectively right and others are objectively wrong. Now why do you feel the need to change the conclusion of my argument from what I stated?
(23-03-2016 02:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 02:46 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I expected that people would take issue with my first premise. I'm guessing you have a problem with it because you think it can not be objectively validated and I'm guessing that is because you see nothing objective from which to deduce it's truth. Would this be correct?

No. I have no issue with your first premise. The issue lies in your equivocation between "action which serves a certain goal" and "action which is objectively moral".
Again you change the conclusion of my argument from what it states. My actual conclusion was that there are objectively right actions. What is the difference between an action which is objectively right and one that is objectively moral. Is a moral action something other than a right action? Is an objectively wrong action a moral action? My argument said nothing about "the belief that the preservation of one's life is the highest moral imperative is itself a subjective value judgment". That is a much higher level abstraction. The validation of egoism is several steps from establishing that actions are objectively right or wrong. But validating the concept of objective values is the start of inducing the principle of egoism. But we are not ready to discuss that yet and actually I really don't care to discuss egoism.
(23-03-2016 02:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 02:46 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  For the record I don't believe there are any moral imperatives at all. I don't subscribe to a deontological view of morality so I'm not stating that there is a moral imperative to hold one's life as the standard of value.

Then why did you state that your proof showed that morality was objective?

Now I might have given the impression, because I was in a hurry, that I didn't believe in objective morality. That is not the case. What I mean is that there are no moral imperatives but there are hypothetical moral imperatives. Given the choice to live man ought to discover the values needed to live and the virtues needed to obtain them. That is why I said in my premise "If man wants to live". This choice to live or not is pre-moral. Morality does not come into play until the choice has been made to live. A man who does not wish to live has no need of values or morals. This is the solution to the so called is/ought problem. This problem arises from a deontological view of morals. A values based morality does not cause this problem. Values are the bridge between is and ought. If man Is a specific kind of being and he chooses to live then he must discover what values support his life and act in a specific way to achieve them.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 07:18 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 07:05 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  My conclusion is that given the goal of living and given that man is subject to the law of identity, certain actions are objectively right and others are objectively wrong.

Unless by "objectively right" you mean "serves the stated purpose", this does not follow. That is my point.

(23-03-2016 07:05 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  What is the difference between an action which is objectively right and one that is objectively moral. Is a moral action something other than a right action? Is an objectively wrong action a moral action?

That's also rather my point. You stated that your argument was deductive proof of objective morality, but your conclusion is merely that some actions are objectively "right" - that is, serve a given purpose, not "right" as in the context of morality. This would seem entirely unrelated to your initial statement about having a deductive proof for objective morality.

"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, 08:58 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 07:55 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 07:23 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  What about when some atheists claim that their morality is superior? Aren't they also claiming that objective morality exists? Don't they also carry the burden of proof?

I've heard many atheists say things like that on this site without even flinching.
The problem is that moral principles are discovered and validated by induction. And most people have this strange aversion to induction. So it is very difficult to convince them that moral principles are objective. If a principle is discovered by observing facts and using a method that is in accordance with the primacy of existence, then it is an objective principle.

Another problem I see is that most people can't get much beyond the perceptual level of abstraction and to reach the concept of objective morality requires higher level abstraction. So it is very difficult.

But here is a deductive proof that morality is objective

1. If man qua man is not exempt from the law of identity then his life requires a specific course of action to sustain it.

2. If man's life requires a specific course of action to sustain it, then any other course of action is objectively wrong, so long as he chooses to live.

3. Man qua man is not exempt from the law of identity.

Therefore so long as he chooses to live there is an objectively right course of action he must take in order to sustain his life.

There is rarely, if ever, only one course of action.
And the outcomes of actions are rarely, if ever, certain.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-03-2016, 09:05 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 08:03 AM)ScottD Wrote:  That's the point dude.
So, you honestly can't see a connection between 10 commandments and rule of law?

Asked and answered. There are billions of people living in lawful societies that have no history of the Biblical 10 commandments.
Your assertion is parochial and ignorant.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-03-2016, 09:09 PM
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?

I said no such thing. Please provide a link to the post where you think I did.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: