• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

devildavid said:
Back to the too complicated argument again, eh?

Philosophical beliefs are really not much different from religious beliefs. For both, you have to believe before you can understand.
Click to expand...
:roll:

Incorrect. Philosophers never assume that their audience agrees with them 100% before cracking open a book.

In fact, one of the most prominent contemporary ethicists (Derek Parfit) included multiple essays that were critical of his positions right in the book itself (On What Matters). Or, if you bothered to peek at the book on moral realism that I linked, it would be screamingly obvious in a few pages that the author is discussing both sides of the issue, with no presumption of agreement by the reader.

Thanks, but no thanks, for the patently false claims.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Quag said:
Humans have used subjective morality throughout all of their history this is a fact not an opinion.
Click to expand...
You have presented no facts, and no awareness that there is a difference between applied and normative ethics.


No one has ever shown morality to be objective
Click to expand...
They have in fact provided arguments in favor of moral realism, you just can't be bothered to lift a finger to understand it. That is not my problem.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Visbek said:
You have presented no facts, and no awareness that there is a difference between applied and normative ethics.



They have in fact provided arguments in favor of moral realism, you just can't be bothered to lift a finger to understand it. That is not my problem.
Click to expand...

It seems to me you have not presented facts either. Just excuses.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Visbek said:
You have presented no facts, and no awareness that there is a difference between applied and normative ethics.



They have in fact provided arguments in favor of moral realism, you just can't be bothered to lift a finger to understand it. That is not my problem.
Click to expand...

An argument is not evidence. While good arguments will use evidence to support their argument, when it comes to the arguments for objective realism, no evidence have been provided in support of those arguments. That makes the arguments suspect , Arguments that start with an unprovable premise, and end up with an untestable conclusion is not convincing to rational people.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

RAMOSS said:
An argument is not evidence. While good arguments will use evidence to support their argument, when it comes to the arguments for objective realism, no evidence have been provided in support of those arguments.
Click to expand...
....and we've been over this as well. The fact that a topic is too complex for a post in a web forum doesn't mean "it's wrong!" -- especially since a genuine defense of moral anti-realism is equally as complex.

And of course, if you were genuinely interested in the topic rather than in repeating your own views, you could have certainly read up on the topic by now. (It would also be incredibly fallacious to suggest that I am the only person on the planet who sees moral realism as viable, or that no one has ever studied or discussed moral realism/anti-realism).

I.e. Your refusal to educate yourself is not my problem.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Visbek said:
....and we've been over this as well. The fact that a topic is too complex for a post in a web forum doesn't mean "it's wrong!" -- especially since a genuine defense of moral anti-realism is equally as complex.

And of course, if you were genuinely interested in the topic rather than in repeating your own views, you could have certainly read up on the topic by now. (It would also be incredibly fallacious to suggest that I am the only person on the planet who sees moral realism as viable, or that no one has ever studied or discussed moral realism/anti-realism).

I.e. Your refusal to educate yourself is not my problem.
Click to expand...

Have you ever considered that you may be wrong?
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Visbek said:
....and we've been over this as well. The fact that a topic is too complex for a post in a web forum doesn't mean "it's wrong!" -- especially since a genuine defense of moral anti-realism is equally as complex.

And of course, if you were genuinely interested in the topic rather than in repeating your own views, you could have certainly read up on the topic by now. (It would also be incredibly fallacious to suggest that I am the only person on the planet who sees moral realism as viable, or that no one has ever studied or discussed moral realism/anti-realism).

I.e. Your refusal to educate yourself is not my problem.
Click to expand...

You are assumning I don't know the arguments. I call bull on that. You are also assuming that unsupported claims are true. I call bull on that.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Visbek said:
:roll:

Incorrect. Philosophers never assume that their audience agrees with them 100% before cracking open a book.

In fact, one of the most prominent contemporary ethicists (Derek Parfit) included multiple essays that were critical of his positions right in the book itself (On What Matters). Or, if you bothered to peek at the book on moral realism that I linked, it would be screamingly obvious in a few pages that the author is discussing both sides of the issue, with no presumption of agreement by the reader.

Thanks, but no thanks, for the patently false claims.
Click to expand...

So this philosopher has a position, just like religious people do. Showing that others don't share his position does not change the fact that he believes in his position, same as a religious person presenting other religious views that disagree with theirs. I don't see the difference.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

RAMOSS said:
You are assumning I don't know the arguments. I call bull on that. You are also assuming that unsupported claims are true. I call bull on that.
Click to expand...
I've seen absolutely no evidence that you are familiar with the arguments in favor of moral realism. E.g. you haven't discussed cognitivism, or Moore's "Open Question" argument, or criticisms of the "Argument from Relativity," or Shafer-Landau's non-naturalistic views, and so on.

Nor did I ever say, in any way shape or form, that "unsupported claims must be true." I'm pointing out that a full and proper explication of both moral realism, and moral anti-realism, are beyond the scope of a web forum. In turn, I'm encouraging y'all to do a little reading on your own, and have seen no indication whatsoever that anyone has even considered doing their own research.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Visbek said:
I've seen absolutely no evidence that you are familiar with the arguments in favor of moral realism. E.g. you haven't discussed cognitivism, or Moore's "Open Question" argument, or criticisms of the "Argument from Relativity," or Shafer-Landau's non-naturalistic views, and so on.

Nor did I ever say, in any way shape or form, that "unsupported claims must be true." I'm pointing out that a full and proper explication of both moral realism, and moral anti-realism, are beyond the scope of a web forum. In turn, I'm encouraging y'all to do a little reading on your own, and have seen no indication whatsoever that anyone has even considered doing their own research.
Click to expand...

Have you read Michael Ruse’s argument against moral realism? Do some research.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Visbek said:
You have presented no facts, and no awareness that there is a difference between applied and normative ethics.
Click to expand...
I have shown that morals as used by humans IS subjective.
No one has shown any non subjective morals to exist.



They have in fact provided arguments in favor of moral realism, you just can't be bothered to lift a finger to understand it. That is not my problem.
Click to expand...

The arguments all fail with the same flaw, the basis of the arguments are subejctive.
I have explained this already but you would rather use the cop out that the basis is too complex to deal with in this forum.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

devildavid said:
So this philosopher has a position, just like religious people do. Showing that others don't share his position does not change the fact that he believes in his position, same as a religious person presenting other religious views that disagree with theirs. I don't see the difference.
Click to expand...
:roll:

By your logic, scientists are "just like religious people," as they are often motivated by a belief, and search for evidence of that belief.

How many anthropologists present positions that they don't believe? How many doctors follow a course of treatment that they don't believe will have any benefit for the patient? How many engineers construct bridges based on principles they don't think will work? How many historians write books that they themselves believe are inaccurate representations of events?

Your "criticism" here is absurd. It's also patently false. I don't need to agree with Plato, or Hegel, or Kant, or Parfit, in order to understand their philosophies. Aristotle undoubtedly understood and disagreed with Plato's ideas. Kant understood and disagreed with Hume. Russel understood Frege's positions, and sympathized with his views, and disproved Frege's claims anyway. The critics Parfit included in On What Matters understood and disagreed with Parfit's views. Parfit included their essays as a way of encouraging readers to think critically about his work.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Quag said:
I have shown that morals as used by humans IS subjective.
No one has shown any non subjective morals to exist.





The arguments all fail with the same flaw, the basis of the arguments are subejctive.
I have explained this already but you would rather use the cop out that the basis is too complex to deal with in this forum.
Click to expand...

The King's New Clothes.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

zyzygy said:
Have you read Michael Ruse’s argument against moral realism? Do some research.
Click to expand...
lol

I'm familiar with arguments similar to what Ruse presented. I have no problems spending a little time reading up on Ruse (and criticisms of his position) before presenting my own assessment, nor do I have any problems whatsoever with studying both sides of the debate.

Or perhaps you believe that all moral realists should just give up completely, after reading Ruse?
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Visbek said:
I've seen absolutely no evidence that you are familiar with the arguments in favor of moral realism. E.g. you haven't discussed cognitivism, or Moore's "Open Question" argument, or criticisms of the "Argument from Relativity," or Shafer-Landau's non-naturalistic views, and so on.

Nor did I ever say, in any way shape or form, that "unsupported claims must be true." I'm pointing out that a full and proper explication of both moral realism, and moral anti-realism, are beyond the scope of a web forum. In turn, I'm encouraging y'all to do a little reading on your own, and have seen no indication whatsoever that anyone has even considered doing their own research.
Click to expand...
I will notice you acknowledge that not even moral realists will agree with each other. And the reason I didn't talk about Moore's open question is that it's based on 'begging the question', and is a logical fallacy.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

It must be wonderful being infallible. Gosh we are impressed.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

RAMOSS said:
I will notice you acknowledge that not even moral realists will agree with each other.
Click to expand...
lol

Guess what? Moral anti-realists disagree with each other, too. I never said that all moral realists (or anti-realists) adhere to one highly specific set of positions. Why do you think that is significant?


And the reason I didn't talk about Moore's open question is that it's based on 'begging the question', and is a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
Or, not. Consider the following:

- If we can demonstrate that "bravery is good" is analytically true, then the question "Is it true that bravery is good?" is meaningless.
- The question "Is it true that bravery is good?" is not meaningless.
- Therefore, it is not analytically true that "bravery is good."

- If we can demonstrate that "all bachelors are unmarried" is analytically true, then the question "are all bachelors unmarried?" is meaningless.
- The question "are all bachelors unmarried?" is meaningless.
- Therefore, it is analytically true that "all bachelors are unmarried."

The 2nd premise in both of these syllogisms does not beg the question; it illustrates the point. Unless, of course, you can prove that "it is true that bravery is good?" is analytically true.

There are valid objections to the OQA, but allegations that it begs the question clearly falls flat, and is not one of them. Of course, the OQA is just a tiny part of the discussion around moral realism, and even a full discussion of the OQA may be a bit much for a web forum. (E.g. a quick overview takes DeLapp around 8 pages.)
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Visbek said:
lol

Guess what? Moral anti-realists disagree with each other, too. I never said that all moral realists (or anti-realists) adhere to one highly specific set of positions. Why do you think that is significant?



Or, not. Consider the following:

- If we can demonstrate that "bravery is good" is analytically true, then the question "Is it true that bravery is good?" is meaningless.
- The question "Is it true that bravery is good?" is not meaningless.
- Therefore, it is not analytically true that "bravery is good."

- If we can demonstrate that "all bachelors are unmarried" is analytically true, then the question "are all bachelors unmarried?" is meaningless.
- The question "are all bachelors unmarried?" is meaningless.
- Therefore, it is analytically true that "all bachelors are unmarried."

The 2nd premise in both of these syllogisms does not beg the question; it illustrates the point. Unless, of course, you can prove that "it is true that bravery is good?" is analytically true.

Nor, does the open question show that 'morality is objective'. And, I happen to disagree. If we can demonstrate that 'All bachelors are unmarried', the question is not meaningless, but has a precise answer.. and it can be states the the answer to the question "are all bachelors unmarried' is YES.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

This is going nowhere fast...

My advice?

Take 2 philosophy classes and don't call me in the morning.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

There are actions, inaction and interpretations of those.
All interpretations are subjective.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Visbek said:
:roll:

By your logic, scientists are "just like religious people," as they are often motivated by a belief, and search for evidence of that belief.

How many anthropologists present positions that they don't believe? How many doctors follow a course of treatment that they don't believe will have any benefit for the patient? How many engineers construct bridges based on principles they don't think will work? How many historians write books that they themselves believe are inaccurate representations of events?

Your "criticism" here is absurd. It's also patently false. I don't need to agree with Plato, or Hegel, or Kant, or Parfit, in order to understand their philosophies. Aristotle undoubtedly understood and disagreed with Plato's ideas. Kant understood and disagreed with Hume. Russel understood Frege's positions, and sympathized with his views, and disproved Frege's claims anyway. The critics Parfit included in On What Matters understood and disagreed with Parfit's views. Parfit included their essays as a way of encouraging readers to think critically about his work.
Click to expand...

And here we have a straw man, because there is a difference between science and religion/philosophy. One has physical evidence, the other two are purely conceptual.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Visbek said:
:roll:

By your logic, scientists are "just like religious people," as they are often motivated by a belief, and search for evidence of that belief.

How many anthropologists present positions that they don't believe? How many doctors follow a course of treatment that they don't believe will have any benefit for the patient? How many engineers construct bridges based on principles they don't think will work? How many historians write books that they themselves believe are inaccurate representations of events?

Your "criticism" here is absurd. It's also patently false. I don't need to agree with Plato, or Hegel, or Kant, or Parfit, in order to understand their philosophies. Aristotle undoubtedly understood and disagreed with Plato's ideas. Kant understood and disagreed with Hume. Russel understood Frege's positions, and sympathized with his views, and disproved Frege's claims anyway. The critics Parfit included in On What Matters understood and disagreed with Parfit's views. Parfit included their essays as a way of encouraging readers to think critically about his work.
Click to expand...

Scientists are not motivated by the same kind of belief that philosophers and religious are.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

late said:
This is going nowhere fast...

My advice?

Take 2 philosophy classes and don't call me in the morning.
Click to expand...

Which branch of philosophy?
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

RAMOSS said:
Nor, does the open question show that 'morality is objective'. And, I happen to disagree. If we can demonstrate that 'All bachelors are unmarried', the question is not meaningless, but has a precise answer.. and it can be states the the answer to the question "are all bachelors unmarried' is YES.
Click to expand...
It appears that you don't understand analyticity. "All bachelors are unmarried" is an analytic statement, meaning (in a far too brief explanation) the truth or falsity is based on the definitions of the term. In order to evaluate the truth of "all bachelors are married," we already have to know what a bachelor is, and part of the definition is that a bachelor is unmarried. "Precision" is not the issue. The analytic statement is "meaningless" in the sense that it does not tell us anything about the world.

In contrast, a synthetic statement is one where the truth or falsity is based on what is actually in the world. E.g. "bachelors are sad" is a synthetic statement which (if true) tells us something that is not contained in the definition of the term "bachelor," and tells us something meaningful about the world.

To put it mildly: You need to understand this distinction in order to evaluate the veracity of the OQA.

I don't see how you are in a position to know what the OQA does or does not accomplish.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

RAMOSS said:
And here we have a straw man, because there is a difference between science and religion/philosophy. One has physical evidence, the other two are purely conceptual.
Click to expand...
There are no straw men here. What we have is moving of the goalposts.

Devildavid's first objection was the factually incorrect claim that "philosophy requires that you believe before you understand." Centuries of philosophical practice demonstrate the exact opposite.

When that failed, he changed to "philosophers believe in a position." This was even more absurd, because that is the case for almost any pursuit, including scientific investigations. (Did you forget the first step of the Scientific Method?) Nor does holding a position prevent anyone from examining their own positions critically, another habit exhibited as much by philosophers as by anyone else in any other field.

When that objection failed, you jumped in with "science is based on evidence," a claim that completely misses the point. Sorry to repeat, but: Scientists have beliefs, they start their investigations based on beliefs, they rely on entire systems of belief such as empiricism, naturalism, the validity of inductions and more.

Last but not least, you don't seem to understand the nature of a "straw man" argument. It refers to a situation where someone is attributing a weak position to the opposition. What I'm doing, in contrast, is merely pointing out the errors of your own position. The weakness of the views presented to me are not, I assure you, not of my doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom