Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can I've explained why, by definition, moral judgements aren't objective. That you refuse to acknowledge that is your problem. And I was merely showing why you want and need to defend moral objectivism - although you haven't actually done so here. And, by the way, an ad hominem fallacy is w...

Immanuel Can Your theism explains your desperation to defend moral objectivism, contrary to the accepted definitions of the words 'objective' and 'subjective' - the irony being that, if moral judgements are factual, their source, human or divine - like that of factual assertions - is irrelevant. And...

Thanks, Belinda. That gives me a clearer picture.

In 2 I should have written 'Human nature', not 'That nature'. I apologise for the lack of clarity.

I'll mull over what you say.

Immanuel Can.

Like the others, I give up. This became silly some time ago. Hope springs eternal, I suppose. Mine seems to have dried up.

Moral objectivism is irrational and dangerous. It's irrational because it makes a category error, failing to distinguish between factual assertions about what is, and moral assertions expressing judgements about what ought to be. And it's dangerous because mistaking a moral judgement for a fact is w...

Immanuel Can I apologise for butting in, but what you say here is ridiculous. It's as though you've taken no account of repeated explanations of the nature of subjectivity. The point is that even today, subjectivists are rationally forced to conclude that slavery was also right, on the basis that th...

Hi, Belinda. So, if I've got it right, your argument is as follows. 1 All humans have the same nature, because it's innate to our species. 2 That nature is inherently altruistic. We naturally have a disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others. 3 Immorality is something we may lea...

The problem with moral objectivism is very deep. It claims that there is such a thing as the 'Good' or 'Goodness'. And that's a metaphysical claim, which, like all such claims, mistakes an abstract noun for a thing which, therefore, does or doesn't exist. So we're already down the rabbit hole, furkl...

Thanks, Belinda. I still you're making unjustified claims. I am wary of claims about human nature. I don't believe in God as provider of revealed moral law but I do believe in St Augustine's dictum that good is the default, so that lack of altruism such as ritualistic killing, or Nazism, or colour p...

What I wrote about levels of maturity was backed by scientific evidence at the time when I learned it about thirty forty years ago, and may now be superseded. I think that this theory was from Piaget and that there was ample linguistic evidence from children of different ages. Piaget's judgement is...

Belinda By the definitions of 'subjective' and 'objective', moral judgements must be subjective and can't be objective. So a theistic argument from objective morality must be unsound, because the premise morality is objective is false. That so far no one has shown the existence of a god - or anythin...

God as the maker and revealer of the moral law legitimises the view that morality is objective; but this legitimation pertains only to persons who have not matured further than the insight that law and morality are the same. There is the same level of legitimation, that the law is absolutely right,...

Thanks, Judaka. I think what you say is thoughtful and thought-provoking. Your explanation of why we want to believe our moral judgements are factually true makes a lot of sense, at least to me. Following our discussion, here's my summary. 1 Factual assertions express falsifiable claims about featur...

The question is this: whose "judgment" of these (moral) matters is definitive? If the "judgments" in question are being made by mere humans, there's no reason to privilege one human -- or even one group of humans -- over another, by selecting their "judgments" as ultim...

From the fact that a rapist thinks rape is right, it doesn't follow that rape is right, Why not? The fact that you think it wrong doesn't make it wrong. It's subjective, remember? The subject in this situation (the rapist) enjoys violence against women.[/quote] Sorry - haven't got the hang of this ...