Total Posts:97|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Morality Objective?

Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 3:15:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is Morality Objective and Analytically Absolute? I'll not be taking too much part in this discussion due to matters of having a life, but I still will check in to hear your views
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 4:41:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I can't imagine anyone here thinks Morality is objective...
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Dognuts
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 12:01:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Some aspects of Morality may be objective, such as murder and rape. No matter what worldview one might have, he is most likely to preserve his life and dignity in some way.

Aspects relating to foods, clothing, and household traditions are mainly developed by cultural conditioning. In some cultures, bowing is an acceptable sign of respect, but in the western world, it may make one seem foolish.
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 12:17:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 4:41:46 PM, donald.keller wrote:
I can't imagine anyone here thinks Morality is objective...

Uh, why not?
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 12:27:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 12:17:15 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/26/2014 4:41:46 PM, donald.keller wrote:
I can't imagine anyone here thinks Morality is objective...

Uh, why not?

Because it's a primitive idea. Only people who can't stand being wrong still believes their morals to be objective over everyone else's.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 12:30:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 3:15:05 PM, Unitomic wrote:
Is Morality Objective and Analytically Absolute? I'll not be taking too much part in this discussion due to matters of having a life, but I still will check in to hear your views

no

/endthread
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 12:42:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 12:27:03 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 11/29/2014 12:17:15 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/26/2014 4:41:46 PM, donald.keller wrote:
I can't imagine anyone here thinks Morality is objective...

Uh, why not?

Because it's a primitive idea. Only people who can't stand being wrong still believes their morals to be objective over everyone else's.

Ha, okay. So your original comment was basically that no one on the sublimely free-thinking intellectual debate dot org would ever hold to such a naive view of morality?
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 1:04:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 12:27:03 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 11/29/2014 12:17:15 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/26/2014 4:41:46 PM, donald.keller wrote:
I can't imagine anyone here thinks Morality is objective...

Uh, why not?

Because it's a primitive idea. Only people who can't stand being wrong still believes their morals to be objective over everyone else's.

Oh wow.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 1:54:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 1:04:15 AM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/29/2014 12:27:03 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 11/29/2014 12:17:15 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/26/2014 4:41:46 PM, donald.keller wrote:
I can't imagine anyone here thinks Morality is objective...

Uh, why not?

Because it's a primitive idea. Only people who can't stand being wrong still believes their morals to be objective over everyone else's.

Oh wow.
Are you against his statement? If so you should give a better answer then that.

I personally agree with him. It's arrogant to assume one's own morality is Objectively true over everyone elses, especially since we tend to change our views many times over our lives. They have one view of whats right, and think it's absolute. Realize their wrong, and adopt a reformed view, and thinks it's absolute. Eventually again spot a fault in their argument, and reforms again. Still think's it's objectively true. Perhaps they need to take a hint.

But what if they believe in an objective morality, and don't think it's necessarily true. Then they are themselves proof that Objectivity is either non existent or too obscure for us to assume absolutely that one view is right or wrong objectively.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 8:17:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 12:30:17 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 11/26/2014 3:15:05 PM, Unitomic wrote:
Is Morality Objective and Analytically Absolute? I'll not be taking too much part in this discussion due to matters of having a life, but I still will check in to hear your views

no

/endthread

So you have no problem with the morality of someone who says you are not allowed to express your opinion or debate, or the morality of someone who applies it as an objective morality?
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 10:52:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 8:17:10 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/29/2014 12:30:17 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 11/26/2014 3:15:05 PM, Unitomic wrote:
Is Morality Objective and Analytically Absolute? I'll not be taking too much part in this discussion due to matters of having a life, but I still will check in to hear your views

no

/endthread

So you have no problem with the morality of someone who says you are not allowed to express your opinion or debate, or the morality of someone who applies it as an objective morality?

That's life, objective laws are applied in culture and society and adopted as objective. Nothing is objective though, morality itself is subjective and always will be
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 11:10:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 10:52:39 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 11/29/2014 8:17:10 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/29/2014 12:30:17 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 11/26/2014 3:15:05 PM, Unitomic wrote:
Is Morality Objective and Analytically Absolute? I'll not be taking too much part in this discussion due to matters of having a life, but I still will check in to hear your views

no

/endthread

So you have no problem with the morality of someone who says you are not allowed to express your opinion or debate, or the morality of someone who applies it as an objective morality?

That's life, objective laws are applied in culture and society and adopted as objective. Nothing is objective though, morality itself is subjective and always will be

Didn't bluesteel have an argument supporting objective morality? I could of sworn we were talking about this a few months ago on Hangouts and either you or someone else said he might actually be on to something.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 11:16:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 11:10:02 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 11/29/2014 10:52:39 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 11/29/2014 8:17:10 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/29/2014 12:30:17 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 11/26/2014 3:15:05 PM, Unitomic wrote:
Is Morality Objective and Analytically Absolute? I'll not be taking too much part in this discussion due to matters of having a life, but I still will check in to hear your views

no

/endthread

So you have no problem with the morality of someone who says you are not allowed to express your opinion or debate, or the morality of someone who applies it as an objective morality?

That's life, objective laws are applied in culture and society and adopted as objective. Nothing is objective though, morality itself is subjective and always will be

Didn't bluesteel have an argument supporting objective morality? I could of sworn we were talking about this a few months ago on Hangouts and either you or someone else said he might actually be on to something.

not an overall sense in the type everyone is discussing but a gauge by which you can establish it on a global scale. (Ie Still not Universal absolutism )
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 11:20:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 11:16:23 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 11/29/2014 11:10:02 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 11/29/2014 10:52:39 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 11/29/2014 8:17:10 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/29/2014 12:30:17 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 11/26/2014 3:15:05 PM, Unitomic wrote:
Is Morality Objective and Analytically Absolute? I'll not be taking too much part in this discussion due to matters of having a life, but I still will check in to hear your views

no

/endthread

So you have no problem with the morality of someone who says you are not allowed to express your opinion or debate, or the morality of someone who applies it as an objective morality?

That's life, objective laws are applied in culture and society and adopted as objective. Nothing is objective though, morality itself is subjective and always will be

Didn't bluesteel have an argument supporting objective morality? I could of sworn we were talking about this a few months ago on Hangouts and either you or someone else said he might actually be on to something.

not an overall sense in the type everyone is discussing but a gauge by which you can establish it on a global scale. (Ie Still not Universal absolutism )

Ohh okay, I can understand that.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 11:25:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes morality is objective. Our interpretation of our innate awareness of right and wrong is the subjective component. The morality, amorality, and immorality of behavior exists on a continuum. Once you regress this continuum back to a certain a point you'll see universal agreement among societies that certain behaviors are immoral. Infant rape and killing/raping without necessary justification has never been acceptable by any society regardless of culture, nation, religion, or time period. Are these evidently subjective or objective moral standards?

Further, moral relativism suffers severe problems of its own. This is from a topic I posted a little hit ago.

Moral relativism is the idea that all morality is entirely subjective. What's considered moral depends on what society you happen to be living in. There's truly no such thing as criticizing slavery, genocide, child marriage or anything of that sort. There's no such thing as moral progress or basic human rights. Tolerance and acceptance is a figment of the imagination. If you live in a society with 50,001 people that are Nazi's and 49,999 people who are part of the international peace and love society, whatever the Nazi's decide is moral is moral and whatever anyone else thinks is wrong. Raping, brutalizing, murdering, and cannibalizing is really just as fine as any other behavior. No objective or true moral ideals exist whatsoever. It's not truly better for people to be intelligent rather than ignorant, it's not better to love than to hate, it's not better to be generous rather than to steal, it's not better to seek peace rather than war, it's not better to tell the truth rather than lie, nothing is really better or worse than anything imaginable. Any and all moral judgments are nothing more than meritless opinion. Whenever you make a moral judgement about anything it truly means as much as an astrological forecast. How does all of this sound when aligned with reality? Like a joke.

So seeing as how moral relativism suffers its own host of problems, it's not surprising that the vast majority of even atheist philosophers accept moral realism over moral anti-realism.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 12:21:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Morality cannot be objective till there is a set moral standard for it to conform to. A moral standard is a mental construct, which contradicts the definition of objective.

So that's a no.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 12:23:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 11:25:34 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Yes morality is objective. Our interpretation of our innate awareness of right and wrong is the subjective component. The morality, amorality, and immorality of behavior exists on a continuum. Once you regress this continuum back to a certain a point you'll see universal agreement among societies that certain behaviors are immoral. Infant rape and killing/raping without necessary justification has never been acceptable by any society regardless of culture, nation, religion, or time period. Are these evidently subjective or objective moral standards?

They are subjective by definition.

Haven't we been through this already?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 12:36:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 12:23:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2014 11:25:34 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Yes morality is objective. Our interpretation of our innate awareness of right and wrong is the subjective component. The morality, amorality, and immorality of behavior exists on a continuum. Once you regress this continuum back to a certain a point you'll see universal agreement among societies that certain behaviors are immoral. Infant rape and killing/raping without necessary justification has never been acceptable by any society regardless of culture, nation, religion, or time period. Are these evidently subjective or objective moral standards?

They are subjective by definition.

Haven't we been through this already?

Key word "evident". Objective morality is an innate awareness within the human consciousness so it can definitely be objective.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 2:20:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 12:36:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/29/2014 12:23:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2014 11:25:34 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Yes morality is objective. Our interpretation of our innate awareness of right and wrong is the subjective component. The morality, amorality, and immorality of behavior exists on a continuum. Once you regress this continuum back to a certain a point you'll see universal agreement among societies that certain behaviors are immoral. Infant rape and killing/raping without necessary justification has never been acceptable by any society regardless of culture, nation, religion, or time period. Are these evidently subjective or objective moral standards?

They are subjective by definition.

Haven't we been through this already?

Key word "evident". Objective morality is an innate awareness within the human consciousness so it can definitely be objective.

"Evident" is not a keyword, it is an excuse to not have to defend your empty assertion. Even if there was an objective morality there is no reason why it must be innately understood within human consciousness, and in fact this has been proven not to be the case. But being proven false seems to be no problem to you, you'll just keep asserting it anyway.

And please define objective again.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 2:28:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 2:20:30 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2014 12:36:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/29/2014 12:23:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2014 11:25:34 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Yes morality is objective. Our interpretation of our innate awareness of right and wrong is the subjective component. The morality, amorality, and immorality of behavior exists on a continuum. Once you regress this continuum back to a certain a point you'll see universal agreement among societies that certain behaviors are immoral. Infant rape and killing/raping without necessary justification has never been acceptable by any society regardless of culture, nation, religion, or time period. Are these evidently subjective or objective moral standards?

They are subjective by definition.

Haven't we been through this already?

Key word "evident". Objective morality is an innate awareness within the human consciousness so it can definitely be objective.

"Evident" is not a keyword, it is an excuse to not have to defend your empty assertion. Even if there was an objective morality there is no reason why it must be innately understood within human consciousness, and in fact this has been proven not to be the case. But being proven false seems to be no problem to you, you'll just keep asserting it anyway.

And please define objective again.

What morality is evident, besides first person awareness, is all of the information we have. Morality isn't assumed to be subjective unless shown otherwise. Tell me how it has been proven false. I'm all ears.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 2:39:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 2:28:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/29/2014 2:20:30 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2014 12:36:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/29/2014 12:23:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2014 11:25:34 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Yes morality is objective. Our interpretation of our innate awareness of right and wrong is the subjective component. The morality, amorality, and immorality of behavior exists on a continuum. Once you regress this continuum back to a certain a point you'll see universal agreement among societies that certain behaviors are immoral. Infant rape and killing/raping without necessary justification has never been acceptable by any society regardless of culture, nation, religion, or time period. Are these evidently subjective or objective moral standards?

They are subjective by definition.

Haven't we been through this already?

Key word "evident". Objective morality is an innate awareness within the human consciousness so it can definitely be objective.

"Evident" is not a keyword, it is an excuse to not have to defend your empty assertion. Even if there was an objective morality there is no reason why it must be innately understood within human consciousness, and in fact this has been proven not to be the case. But being proven false seems to be no problem to you, you'll just keep asserting it anyway.

And please define objective again.

What morality is evident, besides first person awareness, is all of the information we have. Morality isn't assumed to be subjective unless shown otherwise. Tell me how it has been proven false. I'm all ears.

Morality is a product of our values, which is a product of our desires. Certain desires, such as the desire to live and the desire to feel pleasure are extremely basic to our nature and therefore lead to very common values, which therefore leads to common standards of morality.

It is innate within most people but not to "the human consciousness", proven by the fact that there are some human beings who do not share this awareness. You make it sound like we have some supernatural connection to it, as opposed to it being a simple product of our nature.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 2:49:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 1:54:54 AM, Unitomic wrote:
Are you against his statement? If so you should give a better answer then that.

I was just expressing my surprise upon hearing that I must not be able to tolerate being wrong if I believe in objective morality. It's a surprising statement to me because I'm inclined to admit when I'm wrong or show where I agree with aspects of the opposing arguments. Hence the statement.

I personally agree with him. It's arrogant to assume one's own morality is Objectively true over everyone elses,

I'm not aware of any logical principle which states that a proposition is false if it's arrogant. However, if these are sufficient to make one "arrogant", then it seems that we're both very arrogant. Presumably, you believe that I am incorrect in regards to objective morality, and therefore, you have a belief that is true, whereas I have a belief that is false. If holding your beliefs to be correct over another person's (I'm not sure how it's possible not to given the definition of belief) is a sign of arrogance, then we both must be very arrogant.

especially since we tend to change our views many times over our lives. They have one view of whats right, and think it's absolute. Realize their wrong, and adopt a reformed view, and thinks it's absolute. Eventually again spot a fault in their argument, and reforms again. Still think's it's objectively true. Perhaps they need to take a hint.

You're failing to make a critical distinction between moral epistemology and moral ontology. Objective morality is a statement about right and wrong at an ontological level, not how we come to know what is right and wrong. There is a very careful bifurcation between the two in philosophy.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 2:50:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 2:39:31 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2014 2:28:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/29/2014 2:20:30 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2014 12:36:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/29/2014 12:23:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2014 11:25:34 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Yes morality is objective. Our interpretation of our innate awareness of right and wrong is the subjective component. The morality, amorality, and immorality of behavior exists on a continuum. Once you regress this continuum back to a certain a point you'll see universal agreement among societies that certain behaviors are immoral. Infant rape and killing/raping without necessary justification has never been acceptable by any society regardless of culture, nation, religion, or time period. Are these evidently subjective or objective moral standards?

They are subjective by definition.

Haven't we been through this already?

Key word "evident". Objective morality is an innate awareness within the human consciousness so it can definitely be objective.

"Evident" is not a keyword, it is an excuse to not have to defend your empty assertion. Even if there was an objective morality there is no reason why it must be innately understood within human consciousness, and in fact this has been proven not to be the case. But being proven false seems to be no problem to you, you'll just keep asserting it anyway.

And please define objective again.

What morality is evident, besides first person awareness, is all of the information we have. Morality isn't assumed to be subjective unless shown otherwise. Tell me how it has been proven false. I'm all ears.

Morality is a product of our values, which is a product of our desires. Certain desires, such as the desire to live and the desire to feel pleasure are extremely basic to our nature and therefore lead to very common values, which therefore leads to common standards of morality.

Our values are a product of our sense of right and wrong. Our desires are secondary to this. Somebody could desire to have have sex with someone else despite being in a relationship but won't because they have values founded on a sense of right and wrong.

It is innate within most people but not to "the human consciousness", proven by the fact that there are some human beings who do not share this awareness. You make it sound like we have some supernatural connection to it, as opposed to it being a simple product of our nature.

How do you prove that some human beings don't share this awareness? It's necessarily subjective to the observer whether or not somebody has this awareness.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 3:43:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 2:50:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/29/2014 2:39:31 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2014 2:28:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/29/2014 2:20:30 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2014 12:36:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/29/2014 12:23:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2014 11:25:34 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Yes morality is objective. Our interpretation of our innate awareness of right and wrong is the subjective component. The morality, amorality, and immorality of behavior exists on a continuum. Once you regress this continuum back to a certain a point you'll see universal agreement among societies that certain behaviors are immoral. Infant rape and killing/raping without necessary justification has never been acceptable by any society regardless of culture, nation, religion, or time period. Are these evidently subjective or objective moral standards?

They are subjective by definition.

Haven't we been through this already?

Key word "evident". Objective morality is an innate awareness within the human consciousness so it can definitely be objective.

"Evident" is not a keyword, it is an excuse to not have to defend your empty assertion. Even if there was an objective morality there is no reason why it must be innately understood within human consciousness, and in fact this has been proven not to be the case. But being proven false seems to be no problem to you, you'll just keep asserting it anyway.

And please define objective again.

What morality is evident, besides first person awareness, is all of the information we have. Morality isn't assumed to be subjective unless shown otherwise. Tell me how it has been proven false. I'm all ears.

Morality is a product of our values, which is a product of our desires. Certain desires, such as the desire to live and the desire to feel pleasure are extremely basic to our nature and therefore lead to very common values, which therefore leads to common standards of morality.

Our values are a product of our sense of right and wrong. Our desires are secondary to this. Somebody could desire to have have sex with someone else despite being in a relationship but won't because they have values founded on a sense of right and wrong.

The decision to follow your sense of right and wrong is determined by your desire to do things you consider to be right. Desires are not secondary to anything. Right and wrong are not some separate sense, they are the product of your desires. You desire to live, so you understand other peoples desire to live. Violating that desire is therefore something you can relate to and understand, so it impacts your emotions negatively, which produces a sense that it is wrong. That sense is nothing more then a recognition that it violates your values, which are determined by your desires.

It is innate within most people but not to "the human consciousness", proven by the fact that there are some human beings who do not share this awareness. You make it sound like we have some supernatural connection to it, as opposed to it being a simple product of our nature.

How do you prove that some human beings don't share this awareness? It's necessarily subjective to the observer whether or not somebody has this awareness.

By their actions. Someone who murders for fun clearly does not share this innate awareness you speak of.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 3:55:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 2:49:06 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/29/2014 1:54:54 AM, Unitomic wrote:
Are you against his statement? If so you should give a better answer then that.

I was just expressing my surprise upon hearing that I must not be able to tolerate being wrong if I believe in objective morality. It's a surprising statement to me because I'm inclined to admit when I'm wrong or show where I agree with aspects of the opposing arguments. Hence the statement.

I personally agree with him. It's arrogant to assume one's own morality is Objectively true over everyone elses,

I'm not aware of any logical principle which states that a proposition is false if it's arrogant.

This.

However, if these are sufficient to make one "arrogant", then it seems that we're both very arrogant. Presumably, you believe that I am incorrect in regards to objective morality, and therefore, you have a belief that is true, whereas I have a belief that is false. If holding your beliefs to be correct over another person's (I'm not sure how it's possible not to given the definition of belief) is a sign of arrogance, then we both must be very arrogant.

especially since we tend to change our views many times over our lives. They have one view of whats right, and think it's absolute. Realize their wrong, and adopt a reformed view, and thinks it's absolute. Eventually again spot a fault in their argument, and reforms again. Still think's it's objectively true. Perhaps they need to take a hint.

You're failing to make a critical distinction between moral epistemology and moral ontology. Objective morality is a statement about right and wrong at an ontological level, not how we come to know what is right and wrong. There is a very careful bifurcation between the two in philosophy.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 4:38:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 3:43:56 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2014 2:50:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/29/2014 2:39:31 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2014 2:28:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/29/2014 2:20:30 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2014 12:36:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/29/2014 12:23:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2014 11:25:34 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Yes morality is objective. Our interpretation of our innate awareness of right and wrong is the subjective component. The morality, amorality, and immorality of behavior exists on a continuum. Once you regress this continuum back to a certain a point you'll see universal agreement among societies that certain behaviors are immoral. Infant rape and killing/raping without necessary justification has never been acceptable by any society regardless of culture, nation, religion, or time period. Are these evidently subjective or objective moral standards?

They are subjective by definition.

Haven't we been through this already?

Key word "evident". Objective morality is an innate awareness within the human consciousness so it can definitely be objective.

"Evident" is not a keyword, it is an excuse to not have to defend your empty assertion. Even if there was an objective morality there is no reason why it must be innately understood within human consciousness, and in fact this has been proven not to be the case. But being proven false seems to be no problem to you, you'll just keep asserting it anyway.

And please define objective again.

What morality is evident, besides first person awareness, is all of the information we have. Morality isn't assumed to be subjective unless shown otherwise. Tell me how it has been proven false. I'm all ears.

Morality is a product of our values, which is a product of our desires. Certain desires, such as the desire to live and the desire to feel pleasure are extremely basic to our nature and therefore lead to very common values, which therefore leads to common standards of morality.

Our values are a product of our sense of right and wrong. Our desires are secondary to this. Somebody could desire to have have sex with someone else despite being in a relationship but won't because they have values founded on a sense of right and wrong.

The decision to follow your sense of right and wrong is determined by your desire to do things you consider to be right. Desires are not secondary to anything. Right and wrong are not some separate sense, they are the product of your desires. You desire to live, so you understand other peoples desire to live. Violating that desire is therefore something you can relate to and understand, so it impacts your emotions negatively, which produces a sense that it is wrong. That sense is nothing more then a recognition that it violates your values, which are determined by your desires.

That doesn't make any sense because a desire you consider to be "right" can only follow if you had a sense of right and wrong in the first place. Values are not determined by our desires. Values are determined by what we hold to be right and wrong. If it's the case that our desires govern our sense of right and wrong anyone would just do whatever the heck they wanted without any regard to right and wrong.

It is innate within most people but not to "the human consciousness", proven by the fact that there are some human beings who do not share this awareness. You make it sound like we have some supernatural connection to it, as opposed to it being a simple product of our nature.

How do you prove that some human beings don't share this awareness? It's necessarily subjective to the observer whether or not somebody has this awareness.

By their actions. Someone who murders for fun clearly does not share this innate awareness you speak of.

That's the problem. Whether somebody murders for fun or not doesn't mean that they didn't know it was wrong. Without a first person sense it's impossible to know.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 5:24:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 12:27:03 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 11/29/2014 12:17:15 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/26/2014 4:41:46 PM, donald.keller wrote:
I can't imagine anyone here thinks Morality is objective...

Uh, why not?

Because it's a primitive idea. Only people who can't stand being wrong still believes their morals to be objective over everyone else's.

Yes, because anyone who tries to argue against a schizophrenic who thinks that square circles can exist just cannot stand to be wrong.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 5:43:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 4:38:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/29/2014 3:43:56 PM, Double_R wrote:
The decision to follow your sense of right and wrong is determined by your desire to do things you consider to be right. Desires are not secondary to anything. Right and wrong are not some separate sense, they are the product of your desires. You desire to live, so you understand other peoples desire to live. Violating that desire is therefore something you can relate to and understand, so it impacts your emotions negatively, which produces a sense that it is wrong. That sense is nothing more then a recognition that it violates your values, which are determined by your desires.

That doesn't make any sense because a desire you consider to be "right" can only follow if you had a sense of right and wrong in the first place.

Desires begin and are understood internally. You desire to live. You desire to feel pleasure. You desire the privilege of having rights that are protected. You understand all of this about yourself first and foremost. You then develop a sense of how to treat other people based on this. You know you don't want anyone stealing from you, so you don't do it to anyone else. You don't want anyone killing you, so you don't kill others. And because of this you and your fellow human beings design a system that maximizes everyone's chances of getting what they want. That system is what you judge your actions by. That system is where your "sense" comes from.

Is it morally wrong to kill someone in war? No, because if you don't kill them they will kill you. You are not in violation of any agreed system. However, when you live in a society that values everyone's life, then you implicitly agree to that system by living in and therefore taking advantage of it. So at that point you develop a sense that it is wrong to kill someone. What makes it wrong is that you are violating the agreement you have been living by. The agreement is what sets that standard.

Values are not determined by our desires. Values are determined by what we hold to be right and wrong. If it's the case that our desires govern our sense of right and wrong anyone would just do whatever the heck they wanted without any regard to right and wrong.

What does it mean to value something? Think about that question. In fact here, let me help you out...

"I value you as a friend"

"I value my ability to read"

"My Star Wars collection is very valuable to me"

Hint... A sense of right and wrong has nothing to do with it.

Do you value your life? Why?

And what does it mean that we would run around doing whatever the heck we wanted? Don't you do that now? How would your life change if you did whatever you wanted?

By their actions. Someone who murders for fun clearly does not share this innate awareness you speak of.

That's the problem. Whether somebody murders for fun or not doesn't mean that they didn't know it was wrong. Without a first person sense it's impossible to know.

They can know it's wrong in the sense that they understand that they are in violation of the agreement of their own society that they took advantage of. If knowing they were wrong is what you describe then it would be a sense within them that would stop them from enjoying it, thus stopping them from wanting to do it, thus stopping them from doing it.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 1:32:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 4:41:46 PM, donald.keller wrote:
I can't imagine anyone here thinks Morality is objective...

I'm fairly certain a good number of people here believe in objective morality. My last conversation with bladerunner (a long time ago) left a distinct impression he believed in such. Is it arrogant? Yes. However, what is much more pertinent to the discussion is whether or not one can discern such a thing as "objective good" when it comes to morality. I don't see how anyone can pull that out of how we behave, given that our behavior is definitionally subjective.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?