Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

What is "objective morality?"

tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 8:46:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The definition of "objective morality" is very unclear. If morality isn't based on perception, what is it based on? What grounds morality to be "real" or "objective?" Does it exist like a stone does, or does it exist in some "metaphysical realm?" What is the source of objective morality? Moral realism is very unclear in that sense. I'm not gaining any strong explanatory power from moral realism since it fails to explain what "real" means, when it comes to morality. It adds on multiple ad hoc explanations unless it relies on an evolutionary or genetic root of morality. Under moral realism, *what* is "objectively" immoral? Why?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 9:12:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 8:46:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
The definition of "objective morality" is very unclear. If morality isn't based on perception, what is it based on? What grounds morality to be "real" or "objective?" Does it exist like a stone does, or does it exist in some "metaphysical realm?" What is the source of objective morality? Moral realism is very unclear in that sense. I'm not gaining any strong explanatory power from moral realism since it fails to explain what "real" means, when it comes to morality. It adds on multiple ad hoc explanations unless it relies on an evolutionary or genetic root of morality. Under moral realism, *what* is "objectively" immoral? Why?

*What* is "objectively" illogical? Why?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 9:35:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 8:46:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
The definition of "objective morality" is very unclear. If morality isn't based on perception, what is it based on? What grounds morality to be "real" or "objective?"
Facts.

Does it exist like a stone does, or does it exist in some "metaphysical realm?"
Either they are natural, hence moral naturalism, or they are non-natural, hence moral platonism.

What is the source of objective morality? Moral realism is very unclear in that sense.
I am not sure what kind of source you have in mind. Realists hold these facts not to be created, but to supervene.

I'm not gaining any strong explanatory power from moral realism since it fails to explain what "real" means, when it comes to morality.
Well, what "real" means is not really a job for metaethics.

It adds on multiple ad hoc explanations unless it relies on an evolutionary or genetic root of morality.
If I have an argument for the existence of moral facts, then that's not ad hoc.

Under moral realism, *what* is "objectively" immoral? Why?
Now we're talking moral epistemology. I'll do a post on that tomorrow. I personally think phenomenal conservativism can be used with great success as a basis for moral foundationalism and moral foundherentism.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 10:23:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 9:35:53 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/27/2015 8:46:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
The definition of "objective morality" is very unclear. If morality isn't based on perception, what is it based on? What grounds morality to be "real" or "objective?"
Facts.

In a Platonist sense, how are morals "facts?"


Does it exist like a stone does, or does it exist in some "metaphysical realm?"
Either they are natural, hence moral naturalism, or they are non-natural, hence moral platonism.

And what is the grounds for moral Platonism?


What is the source of objective morality? Moral realism is very unclear in that sense.
I am not sure what kind of source you have in mind. Realists hold these facts not to be created, but to supervene.

What does it mean by "moral facts supervene?" Did they exist at the origin of the universe?


I'm not gaining any strong explanatory power from moral realism since it fails to explain what "real" means, when it comes to morality.
Well, what "real" means is not really a job for metaethics.

This isn't necessarily a metaethical question. Define "moral realism" -- in that sense, do morals exist just as rocks do?


It adds on multiple ad hoc explanations unless it relies on an evolutionary or genetic root of morality.
If I have an argument for the existence of moral facts, then that's not ad hoc.

How do moral facts "exist?" In what sense of the word?


Under moral realism, *what* is "objectively" immoral? Why?
Now we're talking moral epistemology. I'll do a post on that tomorrow. I personally think phenomenal conservativism can be used with great success as a basis for moral foundationalism and moral foundherentism.

Waiting for your OP...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 10:24:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 9:12:03 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/27/2015 8:46:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
The definition of "objective morality" is very unclear. If morality isn't based on perception, what is it based on? What grounds morality to be "real" or "objective?" Does it exist like a stone does, or does it exist in some "metaphysical realm?" What is the source of objective morality? Moral realism is very unclear in that sense. I'm not gaining any strong explanatory power from moral realism since it fails to explain what "real" means, when it comes to morality. It adds on multiple ad hoc explanations unless it relies on an evolutionary or genetic root of morality. Under moral realism, *what* is "objectively" immoral? Why?

*What* is "objectively" illogical? Why?

The OP deals with metaethics, not epistemology. I'm an epistemological apatheist. It's too confusing.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 10:26:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 10:24:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:12:03 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/27/2015 8:46:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
The definition of "objective morality" is very unclear. If morality isn't based on perception, what is it based on? What grounds morality to be "real" or "objective?" Does it exist like a stone does, or does it exist in some "metaphysical realm?" What is the source of objective morality? Moral realism is very unclear in that sense. I'm not gaining any strong explanatory power from moral realism since it fails to explain what "real" means, when it comes to morality. It adds on multiple ad hoc explanations unless it relies on an evolutionary or genetic root of morality. Under moral realism, *what* is "objectively" immoral? Why?

*What* is "objectively" illogical? Why?

The OP deals with metaethics, not epistemology. I'm an epistemological apatheist. It's too confusing.

What I was implying is that moral facts are "real" in much the same way that logical laws are.

btw +1 to being an epistemological apatheist lol.
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 10:29:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 10:26:51 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/27/2015 10:24:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:12:03 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/27/2015 8:46:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
The definition of "objective morality" is very unclear. If morality isn't based on perception, what is it based on? What grounds morality to be "real" or "objective?" Does it exist like a stone does, or does it exist in some "metaphysical realm?" What is the source of objective morality? Moral realism is very unclear in that sense. I'm not gaining any strong explanatory power from moral realism since it fails to explain what "real" means, when it comes to morality. It adds on multiple ad hoc explanations unless it relies on an evolutionary or genetic root of morality. Under moral realism, *what* is "objectively" immoral? Why?

*What* is "objectively" illogical? Why?

The OP deals with metaethics, not epistemology. I'm an epistemological apatheist. It's too confusing.

What I was implying is that moral facts are "real" in much the same way that logical laws are.

That actually makes sense...


btw +1 to being an epistemological apatheist lol.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 10:42:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 10:23:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:35:53 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/27/2015 8:46:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
The definition of "objective morality" is very unclear. If morality isn't based on perception, what is it based on? What grounds morality to be "real" or "objective?"
Facts.

In a Platonist sense, how are morals "facts?"
In that certain values exist mind independently.

Does it exist like a stone does, or does it exist in some "metaphysical realm?"
Either they are natural, hence moral naturalism, or they are non-natural, hence moral platonism.

And what is the grounds for moral Platonism?
I am not sure I understand the question.
Are you looking for an argument for moral platonism?

What is the source of objective morality? Moral realism is very unclear in that sense.
I am not sure what kind of source you have in mind. Realists hold these facts not to be created, but to supervene.

What does it mean by "moral facts supervene?" Did they exist at the origin of the universe?
Some properties A supervene on some other properties B if and only if there can be no two things differing in their A properties withould also differing in their B properties.

I'm not gaining any strong explanatory power from moral realism since it fails to explain what "real" means, when it comes to morality.
Well, what "real" means is not really a job for metaethics.

This isn't necessarily a metaethical question. Define "moral realism" -- in that sense, do morals exist just as rocks do?
In the case of naturalism they are natural facts, they exist just as rocks do. In the case of non-naturalism they exist as non-physical, non-mental entities.

It adds on multiple ad hoc explanations unless it relies on an evolutionary or genetic root of morality.
If I have an argument for the existence of moral facts, then that's not ad hoc.

How do moral facts "exist?" In what sense of the word?
In that we can quantify over them in predicate calculus. How many senses of "exist" do you know? I am aware of one.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 11:07:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 10:42:10 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/27/2015 10:23:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:35:53 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/27/2015 8:46:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
The definition of "objective morality" is very unclear. If morality isn't based on perception, what is it based on? What grounds morality to be "real" or "objective?"
Facts.

In a Platonist sense, how are morals "facts?"
In that certain values exist mind independently.

Does it exist like a stone does, or does it exist in some "metaphysical realm?"
Either they are natural, hence moral naturalism, or they are non-natural, hence moral platonism.

And what is the grounds for moral Platonism?
I am not sure I understand the question.
Are you looking for an argument for moral platonism?

No. Romanii gave me an answer that made sense. I meant in the sense of, if morality isn't in the genes, where is it? He said, under moral realism, it existed like logic.


What is the source of objective morality? Moral realism is very unclear in that sense.
I am not sure what kind of source you have in mind. Realists hold these facts not to be created, but to supervene.

What does it mean by "moral facts supervene?" Did they exist at the origin of the universe?
Some properties A supervene on some other properties B if and only if there can be no two things differing in their A properties withould also differing in their B properties.

I'm not gaining any strong explanatory power from moral realism since it fails to explain what "real" means, when it comes to morality.
Well, what "real" means is not really a job for metaethics.

This isn't necessarily a metaethical question. Define "moral realism" -- in that sense, do morals exist just as rocks do?
In the case of naturalism they are natural facts, they exist just as rocks do. In the case of non-naturalism they exist as non-physical, non-mental entities.

It adds on multiple ad hoc explanations unless it relies on an evolutionary or genetic root of morality.
If I have an argument for the existence of moral facts, then that's not ad hoc.

How do moral facts "exist?" In what sense of the word?
In that we can quantify over them in predicate calculus. How many senses of "exist" do you know? I am aware of one.

Hmm... I mean do moral facts exist just like a rock exists, i.e. is it physical?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 11:11:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 11:07:11 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/27/2015 10:42:10 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/27/2015 10:23:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:35:53 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/27/2015 8:46:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
The definition of "objective morality" is very unclear. If morality isn't based on perception, what is it based on? What grounds morality to be "real" or "objective?"
Facts.

In a Platonist sense, how are morals "facts?"
In that certain values exist mind independently.

Does it exist like a stone does, or does it exist in some "metaphysical realm?"
Either they are natural, hence moral naturalism, or they are non-natural, hence moral platonism.

And what is the grounds for moral Platonism?
I am not sure I understand the question.
Are you looking for an argument for moral platonism?

No. Romanii gave me an answer that made sense. I meant in the sense of, if morality isn't in the genes, where is it? He said, under moral realism, it existed like logic.
Which is called platonism lol.

What is the source of objective morality? Moral realism is very unclear in that sense.
I am not sure what kind of source you have in mind. Realists hold these facts not to be created, but to supervene.

What does it mean by "moral facts supervene?" Did they exist at the origin of the universe?
Some properties A supervene on some other properties B if and only if there can be no two things differing in their A properties withould also differing in their B properties.

I'm not gaining any strong explanatory power from moral realism since it fails to explain what "real" means, when it comes to morality.
Well, what "real" means is not really a job for metaethics.

This isn't necessarily a metaethical question. Define "moral realism" -- in that sense, do morals exist just as rocks do?
In the case of naturalism they are natural facts, they exist just as rocks do. In the case of non-naturalism they exist as non-physical, non-mental entities.

It adds on multiple ad hoc explanations unless it relies on an evolutionary or genetic root of morality.
If I have an argument for the existence of moral facts, then that's not ad hoc.

How do moral facts "exist?" In what sense of the word?
In that we can quantify over them in predicate calculus. How many senses of "exist" do you know? I am aware of one.

Hmm... I mean do moral facts exist just like a rock exists, i.e. is it physical?
In case of naturalism, yes, in case of non-naturalism, no. Under non-naturalism they exist, as you said, like logic.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 11:20:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 10:24:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:12:03 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/27/2015 8:46:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
The definition of "objective morality" is very unclear. If morality isn't based on perception, what is it based on? What grounds morality to be "real" or "objective?" Does it exist like a stone does, or does it exist in some "metaphysical realm?" What is the source of objective morality? Moral realism is very unclear in that sense. I'm not gaining any strong explanatory power from moral realism since it fails to explain what "real" means, when it comes to morality. It adds on multiple ad hoc explanations unless it relies on an evolutionary or genetic root of morality. Under moral realism, *what* is "objectively" immoral? Why?

*What* is "objectively" illogical? Why?

The OP deals with metaethics, not epistemology. I'm an epistemological apatheist. It's too confusing.
Metaethics also deals with epistemology.
To get anywhere in ethics, you have to master basically most other big areas of philosophy.
To decide really simple questions like "is murder generally wrong?" you need to know some metaphysics (do moral facts exist? If yes, what are they like?), some epistemology (how do we come to know what is moral?), some philosophy of language and finally some normative ethics.
Only then we can decide whether murder is generally wrong or not.
Which is why I think ethics as a whole is the master discipline in philosophy.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 6:30:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Only then we can decide whether murder is generally wrong or not.

I tend to a contrary position. In my view murder being wrong is the starting point and we use the tools of philosophy to discover why that is so - if we question that matter at all.

Most people decide 'murder is generally wrong' without knowing any formal philosophy at all - so is that just making a lucky guess? In reality we make moral judgements instinctively. Even if I somehow managed to prove philosophically that murder was ok I still wouldn't believe it!
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 11:36:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 6:30:25 PM, kp98 wrote:
Only then we can decide whether murder is generally wrong or not.

I tend to a contrary position. In my view murder being wrong is the starting point and we use the tools of philosophy to discover why that is so - if we question that matter at all.

Most people decide 'murder is generally wrong' without knowing any formal philosophy at all - so is that just making a lucky guess? In reality we make moral judgements instinctively. Even if I somehow managed to prove philosophically that murder was ok I still wouldn't believe it!

We are empathic creatures. We can relate to other people's emotions, pain, etc, and immediately reason to the notion that if its okay for some one else to be killed, its okay for us to be killed too. A rather wretched prospect.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...