A Critique on Objective Morality

[Hobbes' Choice]

At one time, nobody agreed that that the outer planets exist...that didn't imply they didn't pre-exist our knowing about them.

False analogy. Planets are concrete objects. Morality is a set of values which needs a mind to sustain them. The idea that they are objective an only be achieved like all other objective things through agreement. Objectivity is only to be achieved when the human community making the claim agree to a set of criteria upon which to judge subjective information.
All claims of objectivity rest on this. QED Objectivity cannot pre-exist a human community as I said.

??? Agreement doesn't make something objective.

Read more carefully please.

[Hobbes' Choice]

When you have the balls to define morality and objectivity, and who they might relate to each other then come back. Until then you are still a waste of oxygen.

How could I possibly decline the privilege of further conversation with one who is being so erudite and eloquent.

And yet, I think I will forego the pleasure.

Bye, Hobbes.

Yeah. Run away, run away from your obligation to back up your ridiculous claims.

[Immanuel Can]

Hobbes 'wins' an argument:

[Terrapin Station]

False analogy. Planets are concrete objects. Morality is a set of values which needs a mind to sustain them. The idea that they are objective an only be achieved like all other objective things through agreement. Objectivity is only to be achieved when the human community making the claim agree to a set of criteria upon which to judge subjective information.
All claims of objectivity rest on this. QED Objectivity cannot pre-exist a human community as I said.

??? Agreement doesn't make something objective.

Read more carefully please.

Sorry, I misread you as saying that made them objective.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Hobbes 'wins' an argument:

And you just ignore anyone who can call you on your bullshit. That's SO much better. You are a smug piece of shit.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes 'wins' an argument:

All you have to do is define what you mean by "Objective Morality" before any sort of "Critique" can be made. Until then you can maintain your fantasy that no one can assail your position.
Because no one can assail a position that does not exist.

[Hobbes' Choice]

??? Agreement doesn't make something objective.

Read more carefully please.

Sorry, I misread you as saying that made them objective.

No Problemo.
But in a sense that is also true. "Objective" things are human interested because they imply that humans have identified matters of importance that they need to understand regardless of individualised opinions. Those things then become "objective" to those that have their interest and have decided the appropriate criteria upon which to decide their objectivity.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes 'wins' an argument:

Answer me this. What is a "fact".
Now tell me what the difference is between a fact and an objective fact.

Now tell me if "a thing is bad "is a fact or an opinion. Give examples if you must.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes 'wins' an argument:

And shall continue to do so

Until you address this:"

You really need to unpack your assumptions about the nature of morality and the meaning of objectivity. I find you evasive and hence somewhat dull over these issues, and feel that you avoid them for the simple reason that they form in you are sort of impenetrable belief system with not relationship to reality and the actuality of these concepts as they are understood and mobilised in social discourse.

Put up or shut up

[Prisoner of Love]

Or perhaps, ... the idea that morality is objective needs some proof, ......if you've got it.

The original assertion was her/his denial of objective morality, not anyone's the assertion that it existed. The burden of proof is on the asserter: (s)he made the claim.

The one disputing a position (a claim of objective morality existing) does not carry the burden of proof. The burden of proof here is with the people who claim that there is such a thing as objective morality. You're trying to invert the burden of proof. This is analogous to someone saying that "God does not exist" and you then retorting that "you have the burden of proof to show that God does not exist". Of course not. The one who makes a positive claim of existence (God, objective morality etc.) is the one with the burden of proof. Not the one who disputes such a claim.

There is no evidence of objective morality existing but there's lots of evidence to suggest that morality is a product of evolution and as I think we probably agree, nature does not obligate anyone to do anything. Trying to derive objective morality from nature is completely futile. All we have are certain adaptations that are specific to human beings. If objective morality is to exist, it will have to be sought outside nature. That kind of morality might exist - I'm not denying it - but I am denying that we have any evidence of such a thing.

[RWStanding]

Not being a philospher I like to keep ethics simple.
It is indeed a temptation to begin with ones own self, empathy or not, and suffering.
But that puts the cart before the horse.
Empathy indicates we have feelings from sensations to sentiments.
But to assume that suffering is good or bad, or that anything can be categorised in that way is an assumption based on a moral attitude that has already been adopted.
In any case 'things' and 'acts' cannot be justified in themselves, only by reference to fundamental values.
The populist values of today are such as freedom and equality - I wonder why?
Surely where the exercise must start is with the simple values themselves and how they relate together.
The values are not intrinsically good or bad, but their relationship provides what may be termed end-values between which we must choose, or which choose us.
In point of fact we are all born or at least soon have prejudices, ansd they will be consonant with the end-values.
To what degree we then choose ethically and politically is another question.

[RWStanding]

In reply to my own question.
Values are our descriptions of sapient man, and social man, as interrelated, ulimately involving the whole universe or existence, of which god is the basis.
A person or group, may decide they want something – land – and take it. This is a moral act, with land as the mere object, but which has to be defined by moral values. They may espouse freedom as their one value, but this immediately raises intractable questions that can only be answered in conjunction with many and all other values. For whose and what benefit is there this freedom.
Values, such as freedom, are defined for everyday purposes by any dictionary. But a philosophically refined definition can only be provided when it is related to other values, so as to provide logical end values. The purposes that may be served.
Present day populist ethicists and politicians like to talk in positive terms about right and wrong. With a value such as freedom simply defined in opposition to tyranny. They then entirely muddy the water with a linear political opposition between current political parties of left and right. As if political theories were values, rather than fashionable combinations of values.
Realistically, simple values have their antonyms, but then and quite critically they are related to values that qualify them. Freedom is qualified by values that define its ethical purposes and limitations.
End values are just that, and it is obvious that practically society will be a fudge.
Also, critically, the end values themselves are not absolutes but compromises of sorts.

[RWStanding]

Antonyms
There appears to be a tendency to take a value like freedom, and define its opposite - tyranny, authoritarianism - and then employ the pairing almost in isolation. Any further definition is in the things we like to do in their name. Pragmatism.
It is assumed the opposite of a word - social value - is another simple value.
But any absolute opposite may be logically assumed as being opposed in both meaning and category.
The opposite of a simple value is therefore an end-value.
An end value being defined initially by simple values.
The pairing does not stand alone, which would be absurd since we as humans are not in fragments.
All values relate together. Some will be consonant with each other, or exist in the same dimension, the one necessitating the other.
It is only the resulting end-values that can be defined in pragmatic terms.

[surreptitious57]

That burden of proof is on those making the claim

That would be true only as long as you make no claim

You have to provide a burden of proof regardless of anything else

And so whether another person makes a claim is of zero relevance

[Hobbes' Choice]

Unless you believe in God, of a certain sort, then the question of the existence of objective morality is absurd.