What could make morality objective?

[henry quirk]

No.

that's okay...I already gave myself one...

[Sculptor]

• 1. Moral objectivist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong objectively.
  
  2. Moral relativist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is not morally wrong.

BS.
1 Moral relativist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong, unless he gives consent.

2 Moral objectivist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong, EVEN IF HE ENJOYS IT.

[Veritas Aequitas]

• 1. Moral objectivist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong objectively.
  
  2. Moral relativist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is not morally wrong.

BS.
1 Moral relativist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong, unless he gives consent.

Your above is really from a very depraved and sick mind.

2 Moral objectivist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong, EVEN IF HE ENJOYS IT.

You are wrong on the above.
What is objective with morality is independent of the individuals' feelings, opinion, and beliefs.

So.
Moral objectivist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong PERIOD!!

[Atla]

• 1. Moral objectivist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong objectively.
  
  2. Moral relativist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is not morally wrong.

BS.
1 Moral relativist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong, unless he gives consent.

Your above is really from a very depraved and sick mind.

2 Moral objectivist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong, EVEN IF HE ENJOYS IT.

You are wrong on the above.
What is objective with morality is independent of the individuals' feelings, opinion, and beliefs.

So.
Moral objectivist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong PERIOD!!

Here's a question for you Veritas:

A Muslim suicide bomber somehow smuggles a nuclear bomb into your town. He shouts that, in the name of Allah, he will detonate the bomb in 10 seconds, and kill countless people. The only way to stop him is to shoot him in the head. Is it objectively morally wrong to kill him? Would you shoot him?

[Sculptor]

• 1. Moral objectivist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong objectively.
  
  2. Moral relativist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is not morally wrong.

BS.
1 Moral relativist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong, unless he gives consent.

Your above is really from a very depraved and sick mind.

ROTFL
DO you deny that some people absolutely enjoy sodomy?

2 Moral objectivist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong, EVEN IF HE ENJOYS IT.

You are wrong on the above.
What is objective with morality is independent of the individuals' feelings, opinion, and beliefs.

So.
Moral objectivist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong PERIOD!!

Morals simply cannot be independant of people's feelings, since it is exactly feelings that are the driving force behind all morality. We are no robots.

[henry quirk]

A Muslim suicide bomber somehow smuggles a nuclear bomb into your town. He shouts that, in the name of Allah, he will detonate the bomb in 10 seconds, and kill countless people. The only way to stop him is to shoot him in the head. Is it objectively morally wrong to kill him? Would you shoot him?

if I take him at his word, then he aims to kill a whole whack of people...he may believe he has good cause to do so...ten seconds, however, ain't enough time to plumb those particular depths, so -- becuz defense of self or others justifies violent action up to and includin' killin' the offender -- I'd unload both barrels into his chest

[henry quirk]

Sodomizing, torturing then killing...is morally wrong.

Sodomizing, torturing then killing...is not morally wrong.

sodomy, if all parties involved are in agreement, is not a moral issue

sodomy, if forced, is a moral issue

torture, if all parties involved are in agreement, is not a moral issue (but may be is a mental health issue)

torture, if forced, is a moral issue

killin' in defense of self or other, or to redress offense, is a moral issue

killin' without just cause is a moral issue

[Belinda]

BS.
1 Moral relativist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong, unless he gives consent.

Your above is really from a very depraved and sick mind.

ROTFL
DO you deny that some people absolutely enjoy sodomy?

2 Moral objectivist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong, EVEN IF HE ENJOYS IT.

You are wrong on the above.
What is objective with morality is independent of the individuals' feelings, opinion, and beliefs.

So.
Moral objectivist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong PERIOD!!

Morals simply cannot be independant of people's feelings, since it is exactly feelings that are the driving force behind all morality. We are no robots.

Yes, Sculptor. I agree. And the reason is that people who for neurophysiological reason are deficient in feelings are unable to reason. Or in other words sympathy is part of the set of abilities that together comprise reasoning.

[Veritas Aequitas]

BS.
1 Moral relativist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong, unless he gives consent.

Your above is really from a very depraved and sick mind.

2 Moral objectivist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong, EVEN IF HE ENJOYS IT.

You are wrong on the above.
What is objective with morality is independent of the individuals' feelings, opinion, and beliefs.

So.
Moral objectivist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong PERIOD!!

Here's a question for you Veritas:

A Muslim suicide bomber somehow smuggles a nuclear bomb into your town. He shouts that, in the name of Allah, he will detonate the bomb in 10 seconds, and kill countless people. The only way to stop him is to shoot him in the head. Is it objectively morally wrong to kill him? Would you shoot him?

In the above circumstances I will definitely have to shoot him in the head without hesitations.

But in principle killing another human in whatever the circumstances is still morally wrong which is a deviation from the objective moral standard.
I have always insisted the objective moral standard [derive from moral fact] is ONLY to be used as guide for moral actions.

Within the moral framework and system, the moral standard must be maintained, and since the moral standard had been compromised in the above situation, corrective actions must be taken in striving to maintain the objective moral standard -in this case - no killing of another human.

Thus the rational strategy is to trace the root causes of why there is a killing of another human. The question is whether the root cause from by the killer or from the person-killed while trying to commit genocide.

To cut the point short, the root cause of the above person trying to exterminate a large group of humans and make the land poisonous to humans is the inherently-evil-laden-Islam.
If humanity got rid of Islam - there would be no Islamic-Muslim attempting to commit nuclear genocide on humanity in the name of Islam.

As such the moral objective standard of 'no human ought to kill another' is maintained.

Thus if there is no Islam, then, I would not be put in a position to kill a Muslim trying to commit genocide of humanity in the name of Islam.

The critical point here is, if there is no objective moral standard as a guide, no would be no effective means to trigger corrective actions to prevent killings of humans in any form in the future.

___________
ps. It is likely some 'smart' guy will question, if no-Islam, humans will still kill humans.
Because there is the objective moral standard [justified from moral facts] humanity must trace the root causes of the killing and progressively prevent killings of humans by humans in the future.

[Veritas Aequitas]

BS.
1 Moral relativist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong, unless he gives consent.

Your above is really from a very depraved and sick mind.

ROTFL
DO you deny that some people absolutely enjoy sodomy?

You are trying to be rhetorical and deceptive in the above.
I did not make 'anal-sex' the issue here.
"Sodomy" implied 'force' is used against the victim's will.

What about the 'torturing' and 'killing' I mentioned above which are more morally serious.

[/color]

2 Moral objectivist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong, EVEN IF HE ENJOYS IT.

You are wrong on the above.
What is objective with morality is independent of the individuals' feelings, opinion, and beliefs.

So.
Moral objectivist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong PERIOD!!

Morals simply cannot be independant of people's feelings, since it is exactly feelings that are the driving force behind all morality. We are no robots.

The issue is 'what makes morality objective'.

Note the General Definition of What is Objectivity;

• In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.

You claim morality is not objective, thus dependent of personal feelings, beliefs and opinions. This point is very stupid and based on ignorance. How could you accept such a claim??

What you are ignorant in this case is the fundamentals of morality is objective thus is independent of the individual's personal feeling, beliefs and opinion.

It is not "feelings" that are the driving force of morality. Note what is 'feeling'.

• Feeling is the nominalization of the verb to feel.[1] Originally used to describe the physical sensation of touch through either experience or perception, the word is also used to describe other experiences, such as "a feeling of warmth"[2] and of sentience in general. In Latin, sentire meant to feel, hear or smell. In psychology, the word is usually reserved for the conscious subjective experience of emotion.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeling

Your "moral" view is that of Hume which differentiated conscious thinking & reasoning from 'moral' actions that are driven from instincts, the passions. But Hume in his best within the 18th century was relatively ignorant of the many 'advance' knowledge we have in our 21st century.

Hume in his ignorance [which he logically admitted] simply and blindly categorized whatever he thought is not 'reason' as passions.
But in truth whatever is not conscious reasoning is comprised of a wide range of complex activities that are instinctual and beyond normal consciousness.
Reasoning is not merely conscious reasoning but there are significant unconscious reasonings in the brain that is primal. There is a lot of fundamental complex computational activities going inside the brain that is beyond normal conscious thinking.

It is from this very primal unconscious complex computational activities and codes that objective moral standards are set.
It is these objective codes that subsequently trigger the feelings and other emotions that drive moral actions.

I don't blame Hume given his time but you in the 21st century is still stuck with Hume's default ignorance on the issue of morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, Sculptor. I agree. And the reason is that people who for neurophysiological reason are deficient in feelings are unable to reason. Or in other words sympathy is part of the set of abilities that together comprise reasoning.

I had the same views after reading Antonio Damasio's books [Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain] and that was his 1994 book plus other authors of his time but by now a lot have changed and there are loads of new discoveries that expanded on Damasio's views. Damasio also warned his readers to read his book with a "tablespoon" of salt given the current exponential expansion of knowledge within neuroscience.

In the early days of neuroscience, the approach was liken to faulty generalization, e.g. the general inference was the amygdala [implied the whole] was responsible for fear.
Now with better technology, it is discovered the amygdala despite its smallness [with millions neurons and pathways] is a very complex brain organ that is responsible and related to more functions than fear.
In addition the linkage is not confined to the amydala but linked to many parts of the primal brain.
It is the same with other parts and organs of the brain.

Thus at present there are lot of new discoveries related to feelings and reasoning within the brain and this is still the tip of an iceberg.

You are at least reasonable current but the likes of Sculptor, Peter Holmes and Pantflasher are still grounding and stuck with 18th century knowledge of the brain specific to moral issues.

[Peter Holmes]

Yes, Sculptor. I agree. And the reason is that people who for neurophysiological reason are deficient in feelings are unable to reason. Or in other words sympathy is part of the set of abilities that together comprise reasoning.

I had the same views after reading Antonio Damasio's books [Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain] and that was his 1994 book plus other authors of his time but by now a lot have changed and there are loads of new discoveries that expanded on Damasio's views. Damasio also warned his readers to read his book with a "tablespoon" of salt given the current exponential expansion of knowledge within neuroscience.

In the early days of neuroscience, the approach was liken to faulty generalization, e.g. the general inference was the amygdala [implied the whole] was responsible for fear.
Now with better technology, it is discovered the amygdala despite its smallness [with millions neurons and pathways] is a very complex brain organ that is responsible and related to more functions than fear.
In addition the linkage is not confined to the amydala but linked to many parts of the primal brain.
It is the same with other parts and organs of the brain.

Thus at present there are lot of new discoveries related to feelings and reasoning within the brain and this is still the tip of an iceberg.

You are at least reasonable current but the likes of Sculptor, Peter Holmes and Pantflasher are still grounding and stuck with 18th century knowledge of the brain specific to moral issues.

Try again, because this is your mistake:

The moral wrongness of X is wired into us; therefore X is morally wrong.

Now, X is a variable, which means it could stand for anything. For example, it could stand for 'empathy': therefore 'empathy is morally wrong'.

Now, have a think. If you disagree with that conclusion for the value of X, that means you reject the criterion 'being wired into us'. The fact that something is wired into us doesn't entail a moral conclusion.

Try really really hard. What's the mistake in my reasoning?

[Sculptor]

Your above is really from a very depraved and sick mind.

ROTFL
DO you deny that some people absolutely enjoy sodomy?

You are wrong on the above.
What is objective with morality is independent of the individuals' feelings, opinion, and beliefs.

So.
Moral objectivist: Sodomizing, torturing then killing Peter Holmes is morally wrong PERIOD!!

Morals simply cannot be independant of people's feelings, since it is exactly feelings that are the driving force behind all morality. We are not robots.

Yes, Sculptor. I agree. And the reason is that people who for neurophysiological reason are deficient in feelings are unable to reason. Or in other words sympathy is part of the set of abilities that together comprise reasoning.

So there are robots, but only the objectivitists.

[Sculptor]

Your above is really from a very depraved and sick mind.

ROTFL
DO you deny that some people absolutely enjoy sodomy?

You are trying to be rhetorical and deceptive in the above.
I did not make 'anal-sex' the issue here.

You brought up sodomy NOT me.
If you can't defend it, then I suggest you don't mention it.

"Sodomy" implied 'force' is used against the victim's will.

No. Not if you enjoy it.
When did it get all too much for you?

What about the 'torturing' and 'killing' I mentioned above which are more morally serious.

I understand several countries validate torture as a legal practice.
Killing is quite common. It is not only legal to kill other animals but in many barbaric countries such as the USA it is perfectly legal to kill citizens.
But I still stand by my statement.
It is perfectly moral to torture and kill with consent.

[/color]


You are wrong on the above.
What is objective with morality is independent of the individuals' feelings, opinion, and beliefs.

What is OBJECTIVE. Denies peoples consent, and their feelings.
That is why I remain a moral subjectivist. And why your remain unimaginitive.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, Sculptor. I agree. And the reason is that people who for neurophysiological reason are deficient in feelings are unable to reason. Or in other words sympathy is part of the set of abilities that together comprise reasoning.

I had the same views after reading Antonio Damasio's books [Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain] and that was his 1994 book plus other authors of his time but by now a lot have changed and there are loads of new discoveries that expanded on Damasio's views. Damasio also warned his readers to read his book with a "tablespoon" of salt given the current exponential expansion of knowledge within neuroscience.

In the early days of neuroscience, the approach was liken to faulty generalization, e.g. the general inference was the amygdala [implied the whole] was responsible for fear.
Now with better technology, it is discovered the amygdala despite its smallness [with millions neurons and pathways] is a very complex brain organ that is responsible and related to more functions than fear.
In addition the linkage is not confined to the amydala but linked to many parts of the primal brain.
It is the same with other parts and organs of the brain.

Thus at present there are lot of new discoveries related to feelings and reasoning within the brain and this is still the tip of an iceberg.

You are at least reasonable current but the likes of Sculptor, Peter Holmes and Pantflasher are still grounding and stuck with 18th century knowledge of the brain specific to moral issues.

Try again, because this is your mistake:

The moral wrongness of X is wired into us; therefore X is morally wrong.

Now, X is a variable, which means it could stand for anything. For example, it could stand for 'empathy': therefore 'empathy is morally wrong'.

Now, have a think. If you disagree with that conclusion for the value of X, that means you reject the criterion 'being wired into us'. The fact that something is wired into us doesn't entail a moral conclusion.

Try really really hard. What's the mistake in my reasoning?

As expected your reasoning is wrong.
Nope X cannot be anything.
Since we are dealing specifically with morality, X must be a moral element.

• The ought-not_ness X is wired into us;
  X is a moral issue - e.g. killing another human
  Therefore the action of X is morally wrong.

In the case of empathy, in moral terms it would be an "ought-to_ness".
Therefore the action of empathy [moral-X] is morally right.

The above are merely crude models.
To be conclusive, ought-not-to-kill and ought-to-empathize must be justified empirically and philosophically to be true within a specific Moral Framework and System and not any other FSK.