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

AGENT J · Jul 12, 2018

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

gfm7175 said:
I think the bolded shows who has made the stronger argument...

I agree it shows your "arguments" have lost and been destroyed at every turn because they are based on your feelings while the vast majority here use facts.

Fact remains morals are subjective, if you or ANYBODY disagree please simply post one moral that is subjective and factually prove it.

anybody?
one fact or factually objective moral that proves otherwise......one? thanks!

RAMOSS · Jul 12, 2018

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

gfm7175 said:
I think the bolded shows who has made the stronger argument...

I've shown your philosophical foundation on this issue (and WHY you believe what you believe) to be rather inconsistent, and as of yet, you have not addressed this inconsistency in any way.

I've also shown that moral experience and sensory experience have the same philosophical foundation, and that beliefs that arise from sensory experience are objectively true (unless a defeater is presented for why the sensory experience is not reliable), so the same objective truth holds for moral experiences (unless a defeater is presented for why the moral experience is not reliable).

No, I've shown you that moral experience works in the same way as sensory experience does. You just happen to accept the objectivity of sensory experience while you deny the objectivity of moral experience. I don't see why the inconsistency is warranted...

In the end of all this, you have a very inconsistent and unreasonable philosophical foundation, and I have a very consistent and reasonable one.

Well, that is for others to decided.

I bet one thing for sure. For all your huge argument that senstory experience is a 'bad foundation', you stop at stop signs when you are driving, and you look both ways when you cross a busy road.

devildavid · Jul 12, 2018

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

gfm7175 said:
I think the bolded shows who has made the stronger argument...

I've shown your philosophical foundation on this issue (and WHY you believe what you believe) to be rather inconsistent, and as of yet, you have not addressed this inconsistency in any way.

I've also shown that moral experience and sensory experience have the same philosophical foundation, and that beliefs that arise from sensory experience are objectively true (unless a defeater is presented for why the sensory experience is not reliable), so the same objective truth holds for moral experiences (unless a defeater is presented for why the moral experience is not reliable).

No, I've shown you that moral experience works in the same way as sensory experience does. You just happen to accept the objectivity of sensory experience while you deny the objectivity of moral experience. I don't see why the inconsistency is warranted...

In the end of all this, you have a very inconsistent and unreasonable philosophical foundation, and I have a very consistent and reasonable one.

Moral experience is based upon what you hold in you brain as to what morality is. Morality is learned, physical sensations are not. Fire does not cause you pain because you learned that it does, it simply causes physical pain. Taking the last piece of chocolate cake may or may not make you feel guilty, depending on what you have learned. It is a conditioned reaction. It is entirely different from sensory experience. And sensory experience is just a simple building block used in gaining intelligence which impacts brain structure, as all learning does. Why does an infant feel no shame when it wets its diaper but an older child feels shame? It is a learned reaction.

Quag · Jul 13, 2018

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

gfm7175 said:
Yes, I did say the exact words "That defeater may be that they are in a psychopathic mental state.", but those words are MUCH different than asserting that "anyone who has any different morals than me is a psychopath", like you are asserting that I asserted. Completely different things...

Already said that, now what other reasons cansomeone come to a different moral conclusion than you based on their moral experience?

I've explained numerous times in numerous posts in this thread and I'm not going to re-post it all here.

I have already explained several times that you your arguments are actually for subjective morality because they have a subjective basis. YOUR personal experience is inherently subjective it cannot be otherwise. Since you can only have a subjective measure when using a subjective basis your personal morals are inherently subjective. NOT objective

Have you?

Yes all the time, assuming we can be incorrect is a good way to learn. However as no one has ever come up with any argument for objective morals that doesn't have a subjective basis it seems pretty clear what the correct answer is.
Now Ill ask again have you ever considered that you may be wrong?

You can consider whatever you want, but your considerations have no effect on God's perfect moral nature.

Your subjective belief in God and your subjective belief in what that perfect nature is, doesn't equate to objective morals it just means you are calling your subjective morals objective.
This isn't really a matter of my opinion vs your opinion it is a matter of facts.
Facts are that you are unable make any argument for objective morality without resorting to a subjective basis. Using a subjective basis means that the morals are subjective not objective.

gfm7175 · Jul 13, 2018

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

devildavid said:
Moral experience is based upon what you hold in you brain as to what morality is. Morality is learned, physical sensations are not.

But that's no different than sensory experience being "based upon what you hold in you brain"... With moral experience, if you have something happen to you, you learn from it (I got hurt when someone beat me up; hmmm, beating up other people is wrong) ... With sensory experience, it's the same exact way (I got hurt when I put my hand on a hot stove; hmmm, maybe I ought not do that)

Seems to me that the objectivity of physical sensations is learned (and known by us) THROUGH their sensory experience. Morality works in the same way... One learns/knows the objectivity of morality through their moral experience.

devildavid said:
Fire does not cause you pain because you learned that it does, it simply causes physical pain.

While true, that's not the point... Sure, you can take someone's word for it and heed their warning about it, but when you trace back through the genealogy of humanity, we only 'know' that fire causes pain because somebody somewhere down the line EXPERIENCED that pain through their sensory experience.

devildavid said:
Taking the last piece of chocolate cake may or may not make you feel guilty, depending on what you have learned.

So?

devildavid said:
It is a conditioned reaction. It is entirely different from sensory experience.

The bolded shows why it ISN'T different from sensory experience... They are both experiences... Experience, by definition, is "practical contact with and observation of facts or events." ... In both ways, people are learning objective truth through experience.

devildavid said:
And sensory experience is just a simple building block used in gaining intelligence which impacts brain structure, as all learning does.

And "all learning" would include moral experience... right?

devildavid said:
Why does an infant feel no shame when it wets its diaper but an older child feels shame? It is a learned reaction.

An older child doesn't feel moral shame, but rather they feel embarrassment because the vast majority of people their age don't wet their diaper (they want to "fit in" with other people). Their thought process isn't "I feel shame because it was morally wrong for me to wet my diaper", but rather, "I feel shame because I'm different than the vast majority of people. I'm still wetting my diaper yet, and most people my age aren't, and those people will make fun of me for it".

Those are two different "shame" feelings...

gfm7175 · Jul 13, 2018

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

RAMOSS said:
Well, that is for others to decided.

I bet one thing for sure. For all your huge argument that senstory experience is a 'bad foundation', you stop at stop signs when you are driving, and you look both ways when you cross a busy road.

The bolded is a straw man and a complete misrepresentation of my argument. My argument is that your philosophical foundation is bad (inconsistent) because you apply your properly basic belief of sensory experience to the world in an objective way, but you (for unexplained or non-existent reasons) refuse to apply your properly basic belief of moral experience to the world in that same objective way. That's not arguing that sensory experience is a bad foundation, as your straw man suggested; that's arguing that properly basic beliefs, in the absence of defeaters, are GOOD OBJECTIVE foundations that are 100% justifiable/reasonable to believe in, and this is something that you make use of all the time yet you're trying to reject when it comes to morality.

RAMOSS said:
you stop at stop signs when you are driving, and you look both ways when you cross a busy road.

Yes, I do, because through sensory experience, I have learned that this is the objectively correct thing to do if I don't want to experience adverse effects.

In the same way, through moral experience, I have learned that I ought not cut people's legs off with chainsaws, and that it is objectively morally abhorrent, because I don't want other people to cut my legs off with a chainsaw.

RAMOSS · Jul 13, 2018

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

gfm7175 said:
The bolded is a straw man and a complete misrepresentation of my argument. My argument is that your philosophical foundation is bad (inconsistent) because you apply your properly basic belief of sensory experience to the world in an objective way, but you (for unexplained or non-existent reasons) refuse to apply your properly basic belief of moral experience to the world in that same objective way. That's not arguing that sensory experience is a bad foundation, as your straw man suggested; that's arguing that properly basic beliefs, in the absence of defeaters, are GOOD OBJECTIVE foundations that are 100% justifiable/reasonable to believe in, and this is something that you make use of all the time yet you're trying to reject when it comes to morality.

Yes, I do, because through sensory experience, I have learned that this is the objectively correct thing to do if I don't want to experience adverse effects.

In the same way, through moral experience, I have learned that I ought not cut people's legs off with chainsaws, and that it is objectively morally abhorrent, because I don't want other people to cut my legs off with a chainsaw.

No,, actually not.

And, at the end of the day, you got a bunch of words based on long involved logical fallacy's , which used contorted language to hide that fact, and I got a rutabaga.

gfm7175 · Jul 13, 2018

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

RAMOSS said:
No,, actually not.

Yes, actually yes.

RAMOSS said:
And, at the end of the day, you got a bunch of words based on long involved logical fallacy's , which used contorted language to hide that fact,

Any more blind assertions you want to hurl towards my logically sound argument while you're at it?

RAMOSS said:
and I got a rutabaga.

and I got logical reasoning for WHY I believe what I believe...

RAMOSS · Jul 13, 2018

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

gfm7175 said:
Yes, actually yes.

Any more blind assertions you want to hurl towards my logically sound argument while you're at it?

and I got logical reasoning for WHY I believe what I believe...

We can take the logical fallacies yet again, one step at a time, such as 'red herring', 'straw man' (your saying my foundation is inconsistent is one, since i never talked about 'my foundation'... so that is a big lie right there', the argument from personal belief, the unsupported claims, the circular reasoning, etc etc etc.

It seems you are trying to convey the arguments of WLC, and one thing about his arguments, they are like an onion, you keep peeling away the different layers, and when you finally get to the last layer, there is nothing there.

gfm7175 · Jul 13, 2018

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

Quag said:
Already said that, now what other reasons cansomeone come to a different moral conclusion than you based on their moral experience?

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...

Quag said:
I have already explained several times that you your arguments are actually for subjective morality because they have a subjective basis.

Yes, you have, but if that position were true, then "honey is sticky" would be a purely subjective statement (thus NOT an objectively true statement) because "honey is sticky" would have the 'subjective basis' of my personal sensory experience. Since that's not the case, your objection fails.

And if you would respond with "we have inferential evidence for...", well, we didn't always have inferential evidence of that. There was a time when we based that objective truth on our personal sensory experience with it, and we were 100% justified in our belief of that objective truth. Honey was objectively sticky back then, and it is objectively sticky now. This shows that sensory experience and moral experience (properly basic beliefs) are 100% justifiable to believe as objective truth unless a defeater to that belief is presented. Your 'subjective basis' objection fails and has not convinced me that morality is subjective.

Quag said:
YOUR personal experience is inherently subjective it cannot be otherwise. Since you can only have a subjective measure when using a subjective basis your personal morals are inherently subjective. NOT objective

I understand why you assert what you do, and on the surface it makes complete sense, but as I've shown above, it ultimately fails.

Quag said:
Yes all the time, assuming we can be incorrect is a good way to learn. However as no one has ever come up with any argument for objective morals that doesn't have a subjective basis it seems pretty clear what the correct answer is.
Now Ill ask again have you ever considered that you may be wrong?

See my earlier refutation of the bolded part... and yes, I've considered it, but after diving into the philosophy behind WHY I believe what I believe, I don't find that I am wrong. I'll ask again, have you ever considered that you may be wrong?

Quag said:
Your subjective belief in God and your subjective belief in what that perfect nature is, doesn't equate to objective morals it just means you are calling your subjective morals objective.

Your assertion that those subjective beliefs can not equate to the reality of objective morals fails (see my earlier refutation). It's not calling MY subjective morals objective, it's saying that GOD'S objective morals exist in reality, and can be known by us through our moral experience.

Quag said:
This isn't really a matter of my opinion vs your opinion it is a matter of facts.

True, but we seem to not be seeing those 'facts' in the same way.

Quag said:
Facts are that you are unable make any argument for objective morality without resorting to a subjective basis.

Given our current knowledge (unless I am missing something), I completely agree with you here.

Quag said:
Using a subjective basis means that the morals are subjective not objective.

This is where I completely disagree with you, as shown in my above refutation of this position that you hold.

If that were true, then using the subjective basis of sensory experience would mean that the stickiness of honey would be subjective, not objective. -- However, honey is objectively sticky, and that "subjectively based" belief has been further supported as objectively true by use of inferential evidence, so your objection fails.

I still find that I am, in the absence of a defeater, perfectly justified to use my moral experience to believe that objective morality exists in our perceived reality.

gfm7175 · Jul 13, 2018

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

RAMOSS said:
We can take the logical fallacies yet again, one step at a time, such as 'red herring', 'straw man' (your saying my foundation is inconsistent is one, since i never talked about 'my foundation'... so that is a big lie right there',

You've shown what your 'foundation' is through your responses to me, and I have responded accordingly given what you have shown.

RAMOSS said:
the argument from personal belief, the unsupported claims, the circular reasoning, etc etc etc.

bringing up that list you got open on your browser tab again I see...

RAMOSS said:
It seems you are trying to convey the arguments of WLC, and one thing about his arguments, they are like an onion, you keep peeling away the different layers, and when you finally get to the last layer, there is nothing there.

If WLC agrees with my position, then great, but I've been using my own words and beliefs to convey my support for objective morality.

I think the onion thing actually applies to you. I've peeled away your layers of why you believe what you believe until I got down to the properly basic belief core, and I've found that core of yours to be quite inconsistent, and you refuse to provide reasoning as to why your inconsistency is justified. My core, on the other hand, is consistent.

Quag · Jul 13, 2018

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

gfm7175 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...

Ok take homosexuality is it moral or immoral and why? If soemoen disagrees with yo why are they obejctively wrong?

Yes, you have, but if that position were true, then "honey is sticky" would be a purely subjective statement (thus NOT an objectively true statement) because "honey is sticky" would have the 'subjective basis' of my personal sensory experience. Since that's not the case, your objection fails.

It is the case you are confusing universality with obejctivity. Again you can objectively emasure the viscosity and come to a conclusion based on that but otherwise it is just a subejctive opinion such as the 3/2g scenario.
You are desperately trying to compare apples and oranges. Morals are clearly not experienced the same by all thus there you cannot even claim universality of morals as you are doing with the sticky honey. I dealt with this in post 929.

And if you would respond with "we have inferential evidence for...", well, we didn't always have inferential evidence of that. There was a time when we based that objective truth on our personal sensory experience with it, and we were 100% justified in our belief of that objective truth. Honey was objectively sticky back then, and it is objectively sticky now. This shows that sensory experience and moral experience (properly basic beliefs) are 100% justifiable to believe as objective truth unless a defeater to that belief is presented. Your 'subjective basis' objection fails and has not convinced me that morality is subjective.

Universality and objecitivity are not the same. Show me the obejctive measure for morals that isnt your personal subejctive view and then you can have a point.

I understand why you assert what you do, and on the surface it makes complete sense, but as I've shown above, it ultimately fails.

No it doesnt fail your subejctive basis make it subejctive

See my earlier refutation of the bolded part... and yes, I've considered it, but after diving into the philosophy behind WHY I believe what I believe, I don't find that I am wrong. I'll ask again, have you ever considered that you may be wrong?

Your earlier refutation failed to refute anything

Your assertion that those subjective beliefs can not equate to the reality of objective morals fails (see my earlier refutation). It's not calling MY subjective morals objective, it's saying that GOD'S objective morals exist in reality, and can be known by us through our moral experience.

1. You dont know God exists
2. You dont know if God exists that God has a morals
3. You dont know if God has morals that they are obejctive
4.You personal experience is subjective so whatever you get from it regardless if the preceding 3 statments fall your way you still end up with subejctive morals.

True, but we seem to not be seeing those 'facts' in the same way.

Given our current knowledge (unless I am missing something), I completely agree with you here.

You just agreed with me that morals are subejctive! OK

This is where I completely disagree with you, as shown in my above refutation of this position that you hold.

If that were true, then using the subjective basis of sensory experience would mean that the stickiness of honey would be subjective, not objective. -- However, honey is objectively sticky, and that "subjectively based" belief has been further supported as objectively true by use of inferential evidence, so your objection fails.

Honey is subejctively sticky it dépends on the point of view, Again universalty doesnt make something objective.

I still find that I am, in the absence of a defeater, perfectly justified to use my moral experience to believe that objective morality exists in our perceived reality.

What is a defeater and how would you know if you are not subject to any defeater in your personal moral experience?

Quag · Jul 13, 2018

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

Subjective | Define Subjective at Dictionary.com

existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).

Morals exist only in the mind, which makes them subejctive.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/subjective

influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts:

As all the claims of what is moral/immoral is based on personal feelings/beleifs morals are suejctive

By definition of the term morals are inherently subjective.

gfm7175 · Jul 13, 2018

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

Quag said:
Ok take homosexuality is it moral or immoral and why? If soemoen disagrees with yo why are they obejctively wrong?

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...

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.

Quag said:
It is the case you are confusing universality with obejctivity. Again you can objectively emasure the viscosity and come to a conclusion based on that but otherwise it is just a subejctive opinion such as the 3/2g scenario.
You are desperately trying to compare apples and oranges. Morals are clearly not experienced the same by all thus there you cannot even claim universality of morals as you are doing with the sticky honey. I dealt with this in post 929.

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.

Quag said:
Universality and objecitivity are not the same. Show me the obejctive measure for morals that isnt your personal subejctive view and then you can have a point.

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.

Quag said:
No it doesnt fail your subejctive basis make it subejctive

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

Quag said:
Your earlier refutation failed to refute anything

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.

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.

gfm7175 · Jul 13, 2018

continued...

Quag said:
1. You dont know God exists
2. You dont know if God exists that God has a morals
3. You dont know if God has morals that they are obejctive
4.You personal experience is subjective so whatever you get from it regardless if the preceding 3 statments fall your way you still end up with subejctive morals.

1) Yes, I do.
2) Yes, I do.
3) Yes, I do.
4) I've already refuted this.

Quag said:
You just agreed with me that morals are subejctive! OK

Nope.

Quag said:
Honey is subejctively sticky it dépends on the point of view, Again universalty doesnt make something objective.

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...

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.

Quag said:
What is a defeater and how would you know if you are not subject to any defeater in your personal moral experience?

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.

AGENT J · Jul 13, 2018

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

Quag said:
Subjective | Define Subjective at Dictionary.com

Morals exist only in the mind, which makes them subejctive.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/subjective

As all the claims of what is moral/immoral is based on personal feelings/beleifs morals are suejctive

By definition of the term morals are inherently subjective.

Facts like these and many others were posted many times by the super vast majority of posters here. Thats claims in the OP were instantly destroyed and that beat down is still going strong almost into 1000 posts. IMO its the biggest beat down of a false claim in 2018 so far, this one and the "can you name a lie Donald trump told" or what ever....

Yes based on facts and definitions morals are subjective hence when the what . . 2 posters who claim otherwise are challenged to name ONE objective moral and factually prove it, it cant be done.

Angel · Jul 13, 2018

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

Oh, that this too, too sullied flesh would melt,
Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew,
Or that the Everlasting had not fixed
His canon 'gainst self-slaughter!
Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 2

RAMOSS · Jul 13, 2018

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

gfm7175 said:
You've shown what your 'foundation' is through your responses to me, and I have responded accordingly given what you have shown.

bringing up that list you got open on your browser tab again I see...

If WLC agrees with my position, then great, but I've been using my own words and beliefs to convey my support for objective morality.

I think the onion thing actually applies to you. I've peeled away your layers of why you believe what you believe until I got down to the properly basic belief core, and I've found that core of yours to be quite inconsistent, and you refuse to provide reasoning as to why your inconsistency is justified. My core, on the other hand, is consistent.

My disagree does not show anything , except your inability to show your claims are true. To me, the shifting of the argument from 'moral basis and 'sensory basis' it shifting the burden of proof for your inability to show that there is indeed objective morals. If you notice how the argument shifted.. from 'there are objective morals' to 'you don't have a solid foundation of philosophy'.. Because I don't accept your claims. suddenly my 'foundation is inconsistent'. .. which you have shown by the way.

And, in the end, you have a long drawn out argument filled with double talk, and I have a rutabaga , which is more nutritious.

gfm7175 · Jul 13, 2018

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

RAMOSS said:
My disagree does not show anything , except your inability to show your claims are true. To me, the shifting of the argument from 'moral basis and 'sensory basis' it shifting the burden of proof for your inability to show that there is indeed objective morals.

That's not what I did in the slightest... Quit attacking strawmen Ramoss... I showed that sensory experience works in the same way as moral experience, how they are both properly basic beliefs, and that if sensory basis is objectively true absent of a defeater, then moral basis is objectively true absent of a defeater. It only makes sense...

RAMOSS said:
If you notice how the argument shifted.. from 'there are objective morals' to 'you don't have a solid foundation of philosophy'.. Because I don't accept your claims. suddenly my 'foundation is inconsistent'. .. which you have shown by the way.

Yes, I definitely HAVE shown it... glad you agree with me on that point... You still haven't answered why your sensory experience is objectively true but your moral experience is not...

RAMOSS said:
And, in the end, you have a long drawn out argument filled with double talk, and I have a rutabaga , which is more nutritious.

Maybe instead of continuously insulting the format of my argument, try refuting the argument itself? Enjoy your rutabaga, of which the color and texture of it is apparently entirely subjective, but yet can be objectively determined, even though it is still subjective...

devildavid · Jul 13, 2018

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

gfm7175 said:
But that's no different than sensory experience being "based upon what you hold in you brain"... With moral experience, if you have something happen to you, you learn from it (I got hurt when someone beat me up; hmmm, beating up other people is wrong) ... With sensory experience, it's the same exact way (I got hurt when I put my hand on a hot stove; hmmm, maybe I ought not do that)

Seems to me that the objectivity of physical sensations is learned (and known by us) THROUGH their sensory experience. Morality works in the same way... One learns/knows the objectivity of morality through their moral experience.

While true, that's not the point... Sure, you can take someone's word for it and heed their warning about it, but when you trace back through the genealogy of humanity, we only 'know' that fire causes pain because somebody somewhere down the line EXPERIENCED that pain through their sensory experience.

So?

The bolded shows why it ISN'T different from sensory experience... They are both experiences... Experience, by definition, is "practical contact with and observation of facts or events." ... In both ways, people are learning objective truth through experience.

And "all learning" would include moral experience... right?

An older child doesn't feel moral shame, but rather they feel embarrassment because the vast majority of people their age don't wet their diaper (they want to "fit in" with other people). Their thought process isn't "I feel shame because it was morally wrong for me to wet my diaper", but rather, "I feel shame because I'm different than the vast majority of people. I'm still wetting my diaper yet, and most people my age aren't, and those people will make fun of me for it".

Those are two different "shame" feelings...

Sensory reactions are not learned, they are built in from birth. Morality is not. It's really that simple.

Someone feels shame when they do something that they have learned is inappropriate for their age. If they don't learn it, they will continue to wet themselves without feeling shame. It is dependent on brain development.

devildavid · Jul 13, 2018

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

Angel said:
Oh, that this too, too sullied flesh would melt,
Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew,
Or that the Everlasting had not fixed
His canon 'gainst self-slaughter!
Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 2

Feeling suicidal?

Angel · Jul 14, 2018

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

devildavid said:
Angel said:

Oh, that this too, too sullied flesh would melt,
Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew,
Or that the Everlasting had not fixed
His canon 'gainst self-slaughter!
Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 2

Click to expand...

Feeling suicidal?

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?

Quag said:
...

RAMOSS said:
...

gfm7175 said:
...

LaylaWindu · Jul 14, 2018

gfm7175 said:
This topic comes up often in other threads, so I've decided to create a separate thread dedicated to discussing the topic of morality.

Here is The Moral Argument for God:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Soooooo, is morality objective? Is it subjective? Is it absolute? Is it relative? How do you support your position?

To start the brainstorming, consider this moral question... Is it ever okay to painfully torture babies for fun?

Also consider this example...
Dad: "Did you steal a hammer from that man?"
Son: "Yes, dad, but he was going to hit me with it!"

Doesn't it seem like both father and son intuitively know that it’s never acceptable to steal “for the fun of it”? The action of stealing seems to require proper justification before anyone finds it to be morally acceptable.

I think it's obvious what my position is, especially if you've seen my comments in other threads, but what's yours (and why do you think that is so)?

That's not an "argument" at all. It just unsupported feelings claimed as fact and trying to be sold as rational. Also where does this come up often? I doubt there's many that think morals are anything but subjective for it to come up often. Here on planet earth the fact is morals are subjective. I have believes that are mine and they will be confirmed or denied when(if) I met my maker but that won't impact morals being subjective here on earth.

devildavid · Jul 14, 2018

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

Angel said:
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?

A quote from a fictional work by a fictional character is not evidence of an objective moral principle in real life. So you have not produced anything but the opinion of a fictional character, which is even further removed from reality. Will you please stop appealing to Shakespeare as some kind of authority about life?

Angel · Jul 14, 2018

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

devildavid said:
A quote from a fictional work by a fictional character is not evidence of an objective moral principle in real life. So you have not produced anything but the opinion of a fictional character, which is even further removed from reality. Will you please stop appealing to Shakespeare as some kind of authority about life?

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

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

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

RAMOSS

devildavid

Phlegmatic

Quag

gfm7175

gfm7175

RAMOSS

gfm7175

RAMOSS

gfm7175

gfm7175

Quag

Quag

gfm7175

gfm7175

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Angel

RAMOSS

gfm7175

devildavid

Phlegmatic

devildavid

Phlegmatic

Angel

LaylaWindu

One with the Force

devildavid

Phlegmatic

Angel