What could make morality objective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:53 am No amount of non-moral observations could lead inductively to a moral conclusion - a 'general principle'.
If you can't make any moral observations then what is this "morality" you are speaking about.

How did you learn about it?
How did you get the idea that murder; or rape is wrong?
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Peter Holmes claimed:
1 A non-moral premise or premises can't entail a moral conclusion, because a deductive conclusion can't contain information not present in the premise or premises of an argument. If it does, then the argument is a non sequitur fallacy.
If, as God-believers claim, human nature is and always has been a thing originated by God, then a human action that is not consistent with human nature is morally wrong.

Darwin's theory of natural selection put the theory of enduring human nature into the category of dead paradigms; that was why Darwin's theory evoked such opposition. Most educated people now believe there is no such thing as enduring human nature, except insofar as laws of engineering and physics disallow departure from endoskeleton and lateral symmetry.

The absence of any enduring human nature implies the absence of enduring moral laws. However evolutionary biology shows that human cranial development implies there will be moral law as is consistent with very social animals who are also intelligent.

My conclusion shows my non-moral premises entail a non-moral conclusion as to nature of morality: the human is a moral animal.

Particular moral codes such as the post Axial Age codes , all of them well researched and known , originate in means of subsistence i.e. climate, weather, seasons, terrain, and pestilence.These latter are non-moral facts and they directly caused specific and particular moral codes.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:41 am Peter Holmes claimed:
1 A non-moral premise or premises can't entail a moral conclusion, because a deductive conclusion can't contain information not present in the premise or premises of an argument. If it does, then the argument is a non sequitur fallacy.
If, as God-believers claim, human nature is and always has been a thing originated by God, then a human action that is not consistent with human nature is morally wrong.
Not so. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. It just doesn't.

Darwin's theory of natural selection put the theory of enduring human nature into the category of dead paradigms; that was why Darwin's theory evoked such opposition. Most educated people now believe there is no such thing as enduring human nature, except insofar as laws of engineering and physics disallow departure from endoskeleton and lateral symmetry.

The absence of any enduring human nature implies the absence of enduring moral laws. However evolutionary biology shows that human cranial development implies there will be moral law as is consistent with very social animals who are also intelligent.

My conclusion shows my non-moral premises entail a non-moral conclusion as to nature of morality: the human is a moral animal.
So, it's not a moral conclusion.

Particular moral codes such as the post Axial Age codes , all of them well researched and known , originate in means of subsistence i.e. climate, weather, seasons, terrain, and pestilence.These latter are non-moral facts and they directly caused specific and particular moral codes.
So: facts about our environment and evolution have led to our development of moral codes. No argument - but there's no moral assertion here.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:59 am Not so. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. It just doesn't.
What does that have to do with anything?

If the moral conclusion is true, but the argument is flawed then you are committing the fallacy fallacy.

If you dismiss the wrongness of murder because my argument is fallacious then you are just an idiot.

Logical fallacies are lesser evils than moral failures.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 11:13 am If the moral conclusion is true, but the argument is flawed then you are committing the fallacy fallacy.
No, he's correctly pointed out a fallacy.
If you dismiss the wrongness of murder because my argument is fallacious then you are just an idiot.
He may very well argue against murder without accepting that it is objectively wrong. We all, to varying degrees try to make the world the way we would like it, and since for many, and I can include PH in this given his position on certain acts, this includes compassionate and empathetic desires for how the world would be for us and others, he is likely an ally in reducing murders.
Logical fallacies are lesser evils than moral failures.
So, they should be easily acknowledged. Then you can focus on the other issue.

It's a philosophy forum. You can shout assertions from a balcony if you just want people to hear your opinion and you don't give a shit about logic.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Sat Jun 25, 2022 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 11:43 am So, they should be easily acknowledged. Then you can focus on the other issue.
If you derail any moral discussion away from the wrongness of murder and towards demanding fallacies be acknowledged you are as big of an idiot as PH.

You know how we can focus on the other issue? By NOT being deralied by idiot-philosophers with fallacies.

If you agree with the moral conclusion but you insist on pointing out the logical fallacy YOU are committing the fallacy fallacy! You hypocrite!
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 11:43 am It's a philosophy forum. You can shout assertions from a balcony if you just want people to hear your opinion and you don't give a shit about logic.
Logic is invented and therefore contingent. ALL logic is subject to choice.

So if you were to choose between two logics (A and B) such that:

Logic A leads you to conlcude that murder is right.
Logic B leads you to conclude that murder is wrong.

Your CHOICE of logic is itself subject to moral scrutiny.

If you chose logic A over logic B you have made an immoral choice.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 11:46 am If you derail any discussionaway from the wrongness of murder and towards demanding fallacies be acknowledged you are as big of an idiot as PH.
The thread is about 'what could make morality objective. That's the fucking topic of a thread in a philosophy forum. A thread he started and his response was clearly on topic.
YOU are committing the fallacy fallacy! Stop doing it
I

The fallacy fallacy is when one argues that if an argument is wrong then the claim is false.
I haven't done that.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 11:52 am The fallacy fallacy is when one argues that if an argument is wrong then the claim is false.
I haven't done that.
Great! So you DO agree with the claim that murder is wrong?

Irrespective of whatever fallacious argument, rationalisation or justification anyone makes in order to arrive at that conclusion.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 11:54 am Great! So you DO agree that murder is wrong?

Irrespective of whatever fallacious argument anyone makes in order to arrive at that conclusion.
So, you can't acknowledge that you make a logical error.
You can't admit that PH and I were on topic in the thread and you were wrong about derailing
You can't admit that I did not assert that because your argument was fallacious, the conclusion must be wrong.

Just to see the collection of lack of integrity over a very short time, but you want to get answers anyway.

I don't believe in objective morals. I support legislation against illegal killing and in fact generally want MORE types of killing in included in that category (illegal killing) than most people.

If you stay on topic and mount an argument that shows me that objective morals exist, my behavior won't change, my input on legislation and the actions of myself and others won't change, and the very strong negative feelings that come up around murder won't change either. But, I would acknowledge your argument and then use it to convince others who I now agree with, but wouldn't then.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:01 pm So, you can't acknowledge that you make a logical error.
IF you assert that I am making a logical error (which I have to acknowledge) YOU would be making a logical error (which you have to acknowledge).

That is how the fallacy fallacy works.

So you have successfully derailed us into acknowledging fallacies instead of acknowledging the correctness of the conclusion.

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:01 pm You can't admit that PH and I were on topic in the thread.
You can't admit that I did not assert that because your argument was fallacious, the conclusion must be wrong.
I am also on-topic.

Roses are green and violets are bitter therefore murder is wrong.

Do you agree with the conclusion; or do you want to commit the fallacy fallacy?
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:06 pm IF you assert that I am making a logical error.. YOU are making a logical error.

That is how the fallacy fallacy works.
No, you're incorrect. Pointing out logical errors/fallacies in arguments is not a fallacy fallacy. Assuming that because you made that error or used fallacious reasoning your conclusion is incorrect is the fallacy fallacy.
If P, then Q.
P is a fallacious argument.
Therefore, Q is false.[5]

Thus, it is a special case of denying the antecedent where the antecedent, rather than being a proposition that is false, is an entire argument that is fallacious. A fallacious argument, just as with a false antecedent, can still have a consequent that happens to be true. The fallacy is in concluding the consequent of a fallacious argument has to be false.

That the argument is fallacious only means that the argument cannot succeed in proving its consequent.[6] But showing how one argument in a complex thesis is fallaciously reasoned does not necessarily invalidate its conclusion if that conclusion is not dependent on the fallacy.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:01 pm You can't admit that PH and I were on topic in the thread.
You can't admit that I did not assert that because your argument was fallacious, the conclusion must be wrong.
I am also on-topic.
Lovely. But you said we were derailing the thread and you were incorrect. Pointing out that we were on topic does not rule out that you were, it's countering your assertion.
Roses are green and violets are bitter therefore murder is wrong.
The conclusion is not wrong.
As PH said it doesn't follow from the earlier assertions. It doesn't follow. Could be right, but it doesn't follow.
The thread was made by PH to see what could make morality objective. Thus he will likely be critical of arguments that do not show this.

You can always start your own thread if you think focusing on that is derailing what you want.

And that's enough time for me to exchange with somone who can't acknowledge his errors.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:17 pm No, you're incorrect.
Have you heart the expression "One person's modus ponens is another's modus tollens?" This is what's happening here...

You are incorrect about me being incorrect. Thus you are committing a fallacy.

The moment you acknowledge you are incorrect about my being incorrect we can continue discussing.

Otherwise you are just wasting our time.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:17 pm Lovely. But you said we were derailing the thread and you were incorrect.
You don't seem to understand English very good.

The topic is morality. Objectively correct moral claims.

When I make the moral assertion that murder is objectively wrong (because roses are blue and violets are bitterr) and YOU keep derailing the discussion away from the correctness of the moral claim and towards the correctness of the logic YOU are derailing the discussion away from morality and towards logic.

If the moral conclusion is correct the correctness of the logic is irrelevant and unimportant.

Thus I am correct about you derailing the thread. And you are incorrect in accusing me of derailing the thread.

Morality came way before logic. You have your activities confused.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Oh, yes, I just realized a (poor) assumption you may be making. Yes, it is true, I don't believe in objective morals. My lack of belief was not caused by you or a fallacy in your argument or by any of your arguments. I stopped believing in them a long time ago. I did mention that Someone's argument (or my own mulling or a philosophical epiphany) may change my mind at some point. But your arguments did not lead me to this position. The fact that it was fallacious did not lead me to the conclusion that there are no objective morals. The fact that your argument was fallacious does not entail that your conclusiion is false, nor have I said it does.

I do leave open the possibility someone will mount an argument that is convincing and sound.

That doesn't make your inablity, so far, to do that causal of my belief, nor does it make your conclusion false.

Concurrent with that, I don't believe in objective morals. At the same time and going back in time that has been the case. No causal connection.

Not that this should even have to be said, since to think I meant otherwise and was making the fallacy fallacy was just grabbing after nothing and avoiding dealing with your own mistakes.
Post Reply