Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jul 14, 2018 10:29 am
It seems to me this question - which has emerged from discussion of my post 'Is morality objective or subjective?' - is the crux in the disagreement between objectivists and subjectivists.
This first paragraph is incorrect to assume that things are black or white. It's not Objectivists or subjectivists, it's that some things in our world are bound as objects and some are bound as subjects. Thus either objectvists or subjectivists is a false dichotomy, rather that it's that either objects or subjects is the true dichotomy in such a topic as this.
An objection to moral subjectivism is that, if moral values and judgements are matters of opinion, we can't know
if they're correct. For example, we can't know
if slavery is right or wrong, and can't therefore morally condemn those who think slavery is justifiable. That's just their opinion, and we can't say which opinion is correct
Total BS, all one has to do is ask if they'd prefer to be a slave to another, (equally human), as a master, or a master to another, (equally human), as a slave. And dependant upon the answers, conclude what is and is not moral, so as to be certain. Even if there are some case's of those possibly being subservient.
But this assumes that there is indeed something to be known: an object
of some kind that verifies the assertion slavery is wrong
and falsifies the assertion slavery is right
- or, perhaps, vice versa. But what is the object
that makes moral judgements objective - matters of fact - and therefore true or false?
See above as it's been answered.
It can't be slavery itself, because that would also be the object of the assertion slavery is right
- so we're back to square one. And it can't be the wrongness of slavery. To say the assertion slavery is wrong
is justified (shown to be true) by the objective wrongness of slavery is circular, and so no justification at all.
You're beating a dead horse, spouting ridiculous notions that aren't defendable. (Because you don't understand the topic, and are being illogical because you don't understand that invalid premises always lead to false conclusions.
So what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent of judgement, belief or opinion?
"I'll come over to your place and whip you with a Cat o' nine due to your obstinate behavior." (Now do you get it? Or shall you still feign ignorance?)
Does any moral objectivist here have an answer that doesn't beg the question?
See immediately above! (What a fuckin' maroon!)
(The claim that objective moral values and judgements come from a god's commands or a god's nature begs the question: what makes a god's commands or a god's nature objectively morally good?)
Again: "What a fuckin' maroon!"