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

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5423
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:40 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:37 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:23 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:14 pm

To young to know of the loony toons? You know, Bugs Bunny! Just a more polite way of calling you a moron, you know G-Rated!
I'll wait till you have something intelligent to say. Or even vaguely intelligible. But not with bated breath.
D8CC4975-7906-48E9-8B29-E3BE16B11DAA.jpeg
Oh you're so cute!

Peter, stroke your puppy, will you!

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 6363
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:40 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:40 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:37 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:23 pm

I'll wait till you have something intelligent to say. Or even vaguely intelligible. But not with bated breath.
D8CC4975-7906-48E9-8B29-E3BE16B11DAA.jpeg
Oh you're so cute!

Peter, stroke your puppy, will you!
:zzz:

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5423
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:36 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:23 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:14 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:48 pm

Charming. Well. That's sorted it all out. By the way - I guess the word you mean is 'moron'.
To young to know of the loony toons? You know, Bugs Bunny! Just a more polite way of calling you a moron, you know G-Rated!
I'll wait till you have something intelligent to say. Or even vaguely intelligible. But not with bated breath.
Thank you! I really hate bigots and slave owner wannabe's.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:41 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:36 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:23 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:14 pm

To young to know of the loony toons? You know, Bugs Bunny! Just a more polite way of calling you a moron, you know G-Rated!
I'll wait till you have something intelligent to say. Or even vaguely intelligible. But not with bated breath.
Thank you! I really hate bigots and slave owner wannabe's.
So let me get this right. You hate bigots and people who want to own slaves. Have I understood you correctly? Is that your moral position on the question of bigotry and the question of slavery? I don't want to misrepresent you in any way.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5423
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:40 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:41 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:36 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:23 pm

I'll wait till you have something intelligent to say. Or even vaguely intelligible. But not with bated breath.
Thank you! I really hate bigots and slave owner wannabe's.
So let me get this right. You hate bigots and people who want to own slaves. Have I understood you correctly? Is that your moral position on the question of bigotry and the question of slavery? I don't want to misrepresent you in any way.
I hate the ones that don't understand what "we" are. Don't get me wrong, I would never treat them any different than anyone else. I know that no human can know what it is that they don't know. But Inside I simply laugh at them, when they don't try to understand what we are or are so full of themselves, as they constantly stroke it. You see there's a difference between hating the human and hating what they have allowed their environment to shape them into, because there is a certain amount of complicity involved. It's much better for them to carefully analyze the truth of the universe before staking such a claim. And it's quite pathetic!

Peter Holmes
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:07 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:40 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:41 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:36 am

Thank you! I really hate bigots and slave owner wannabe's.
So let me get this right. You hate bigots and people who want to own slaves. Have I understood you correctly? Is that your moral position on the question of bigotry and the question of slavery? I don't want to misrepresent you in any way.
I hate the ones that don't understand what "we" are. Don't get me wrong, I would never treat them any different than anyone else. I know that no human can know what it is that they don't know. But Inside I simply laugh at them, when they don't try to understand what we are or are so full of themselves, as they constantly stroke it. You see there's a difference between hating the human and hating what they have allowed their environment to shape them into, because there is a certain amount of complicity involved. It's much better for them to carefully analyze the truth of the universe before staking such a claim. And it's quite pathetic!
So, the objectivity of morality is one of the truths of the universe. Sorted.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5423
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:05 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:07 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:40 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:41 am

So let me get this right. You hate bigots and people who want to own slaves. Have I understood you correctly? Is that your moral position on the question of bigotry and the question of slavery? I don't want to misrepresent you in any way.
I hate the ones that don't understand what "we" are. Don't get me wrong, I would never treat them any different than anyone else. I know that no human can know what it is that they don't know. But Inside I simply laugh at them, when they don't try to understand what we are or are so full of themselves, as they constantly stroke it. You see there's a difference between hating the human and hating what they have allowed their environment to shape them into, because there is a certain amount of complicity involved. It's much better for them to carefully analyze the truth of the universe before staking such a claim. And it's quite pathetic!
So, the objectivity of morality is one of the truths of the universe. Sorted.
Morality is objective when seen through the lens of the revised Golden Rule. Many cultures throughout history have coined such a rule showing commonality amongst them. Universal, thus objective!

Peter Holmes
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:26 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:05 pm

Morality is objective when seen through the lens of the revised Golden Rule. Many cultures throughout history have coined such a rule showing commonality amongst them. Universal, thus objective!
Not so. Objectivity is just independence from opinion. If everyone in the universe for all time has an opinion, it remains an opinion, and can't 'become' a fact. Nothing in the universe could show that, say, slavery is morally wrong - because 'slavery is morally wrong' expresses an opinion.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 3205
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Feb 05, 2020 4:27 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:26 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:05 pm

Morality is objective when seen through the lens of the revised Golden Rule. Many cultures throughout history have coined such a rule showing commonality amongst them. Universal, thus objective!
Not so. Objectivity is just independence from opinion. If everyone in the universe for all time has an opinion, it remains an opinion, and can't 'become' a fact. Nothing in the universe could show that, say, slavery is morally wrong - because 'slavery is morally wrong' expresses an opinion.
Note, there is a continuum from opinion, belief and knowledge as supported by the increasing degrees of justified rational arguments, i.e. objectivity.
Opinions are highly personal subjective views.
"Slavery is morally wrong" is not an opinion but rather an objective justified true belief.

It is a fact,
  • -slavery brings about terrible sufferings to the individual[s] and groups of people.
    -slavery denigrate, deprecate and erode the basic human right of the individual.
    -slavery triggers a whole range of related evil acts.
    - no normal human being would accept terrible sufferings to themselves.
If we are to do a survey of all humans in the world, no individual would want to be enslaved by another or other humans.
Would you personally agree to be enslaved by another?
Thus by the Golden Rule, no human should enslave another.

From the above, it is therefore an objective fact, 'Slavery is morally evil".
Whatever is evil and not good, i.e. morally wrong.

Therefore it is the facts within the universe that conclude 'Slavery is morally wrong' and that is objective.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:58 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 4:27 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:26 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:05 pm

Morality is objective when seen through the lens of the revised Golden Rule. Many cultures throughout history have coined such a rule showing commonality amongst them. Universal, thus objective!
Not so. Objectivity is just independence from opinion. If everyone in the universe for all time has an opinion, it remains an opinion, and can't 'become' a fact. Nothing in the universe could show that, say, slavery is morally wrong - because 'slavery is morally wrong' expresses an opinion.
Note, there is a continuum from opinion, belief and knowledge as supported by the increasing degrees of justified rational arguments, i.e. objectivity.{/quote]
I disagree. The discontinuum - the barrier - between subjectivity (dependence on judgement, belief or opinion) and objectivity (independence from opinion) is what makes objectivity what it is.
Opinions are highly personal subjective views.
This is nearly tautological, because 'subjective' means 'a matter of opinion'. And it's a mistake to identify subjectivity with individuality.
"Slavery is morally wrong" is not an opinion but rather an objective justified true belief.
This is the moot claim, so just asserting it gets us nowhere. (And anyway, the JTB definition of knowledge is hopelessly wrong.)

It is a fact,
  • -slavery brings about terrible sufferings to the individual[s] and groups of people.
    -slavery denigrate, deprecate and erode the basic human right of the individual.
    -slavery triggers a whole range of related evil acts.
    - no normal human being would accept terrible sufferings to themselves.
But try completing the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong because ...' without begging the question. Can't be done.

If we are to do a survey of all humans in the world, no individual would want to be enslaved by another or other humans.
Would you personally agree to be enslaved by another?
Thus by the Golden Rule, no human should enslave another.
'No one wants to be a slave' (factual claim) - 'so slavery is morally wrong' (moral claim). Why does the second claim follow from the first?
'Everyone wants to be a slave' (factual claim) - 'so slavery is morally right' (moral claim). Would the second claim also follow from the first?

From the above, it is therefore an objective fact, 'Slavery is morally evil".
Whatever is evil and not good, i.e. morally wrong.

Therefore it is the facts within the universe that conclude 'Slavery is morally wrong' and that is objective.
Sorry. QNED,

Skepdick
Posts: 3125
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick » Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:24 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:58 pm
This is the moot claim, so just asserting it gets us nowhere. (And anyway, the JTB definition of knowledge is hopelessly wrong.)
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:58 pm
But try completing the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong because ...' without begging the question. Can't be done.
In one sentence he purports to reject JTB (where the J stands for Justified).
In the very next sentence he tests whether the assertion can be Justified with a "because..."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I can teach anybody how to get what they want out of life. The problem is that I can't find anybody who can tell me what they want.
--Mark Twain

bike.jpg
bike.jpg (26.78 KiB) Viewed 100 times

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 3205
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:12 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:58 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 4:27 am
Opinions are highly personal subjective views.
This is nearly tautological, because 'subjective' means 'a matter of opinion'. And it's a mistake to identify subjectivity with individuality.
What tautological? What I have given is a definition of what is an opinion.
Note:
  • subjective = based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
So, how can it be wrong to identify 'subjectivity' with the individual subject?

Seem you are starting with a serious degree of ignorance.
"Slavery is morally wrong" is not an opinion but rather an objective justified true belief.
This is the moot claim, so just asserting it gets us nowhere. (And anyway, the JTB definition of knowledge is hopelessly wrong.)
JTB is not seriously wrong!
Yes, there is the Gettier problem but that is insignificant to the acquisition and application of useful knowledge as in Science. Scientific knowledge is JTB, you dispute that?
It is a fact,
  • 11 -slavery brings about terrible sufferings to the individual[s] and groups of people.
    2. -slavery denigrate, deprecate and erode the basic human right of the individual.
    3. -slavery triggers a whole range of related evil acts.
    4. - no normal human being would accept terrible sufferings to themselves.
But try completing the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong because ...' without begging the question. Can't be done.
Slavery is morally wrong because of the sufferings from 1-4 above which are sufficient justifications why slavery ought not to be condoned.

'No one wants to be a slave' (factual claim) - 'so slavery is morally wrong' (moral claim). Why does the second claim follow from the first?
'Everyone wants to be a slave' (factual claim) - 'so slavery is morally right' (moral claim). Would the second claim also follow from the first?
'No one wants to be a slave' (factual claim as justified) - 'so slavery is morally wrong' (moral claim).

Re your 'Everyone wants to be a slave' (factual claim) - 'so slavery is morally right' (moral claim).
Where is your justification for this that everyone wants to be enslaved as a slave?
VA wrote:From the above, it is therefore an objective fact, 'Slavery is morally evil".
Whatever is evil and not good, i.e. morally wrong.

Therefore it is the facts within the universe that conclude 'Slavery is morally wrong' and that is objective.
I have justified the above with rational arguments.
You did not provide any justified counters at all.

At most, you would claim, 'Slavery is morally right' because God said so as in the Bible or
God is the only entity that can hand down objective moral laws, but,
Note God is an impossibility and an illusion, thus your proposition is ungrounded.

God is an impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Peter Holmes
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:02 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:12 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:58 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 4:27 am
Opinions are highly personal subjective views.
This is nearly tautological, because 'subjective' means 'a matter of opinion'. And it's a mistake to identify subjectivity with individuality.
What tautological? What I have given is a definition of what is an opinion.
Note:
  • subjective = based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
So, how can it be wrong to identify 'subjectivity' with the individual subject?
It's a (common) mistake because it misconstrues the nature of subjectivity, which is dependence on opinion - so it simultaneously misconstrues the nature of objectivity, which is independence from opinion. The number of people holding an opinion - from one individual to everyone in the world - is completely irrelevant with regard to that distinction, because it remains an opinion how ever many people hold it. By contrast, the objectivity of a claim, and its truth-value, is completely independent from opinion: if a feature of reality exists, a claim asserting it is true regardless of how many people think it's true - from no one to everyone in the world.

Seem you are starting with a serious degree of ignorance.
No, I'm pointing out a common misunderstanding.
"Slavery is morally wrong" is not an opinion but rather an objective justified true belief.
This is the moot claim, so just asserting it gets us nowhere. (And anyway, the JTB definition of knowledge is hopelessly wrong.)
JTB is not seriously wrong!
Yes, there is the Gettier problem but that is insignificant to the acquisition and application of useful knowledge as in Science. Scientific knowledge is JTB, you dispute that?
The JTB is a conceptual mess. For a start, the idea of propositional knowledge conflates what we know with what we say about it - and they're completely different things. Knowing a feature of reality is the case has nothing to do with a proposition, and so nothing to do with truth or falsehood, which are properties only of propositions. So the JTB truth condition - S knows that p iff p is true - is ridiculous. And besides, a belief isn't true or false anyway, so 'true belief' is a grammatical misattribution. The word 'true' here actually refers to an unstated factual assertion.

Gettier merely recycled the muddle in the JTB - so he contributed to maintaining the muddle.
It is a fact,
  • 11 -slavery brings about terrible sufferings to the individual[s] and groups of people.
    2. -slavery denigrate, deprecate and erode the basic human right of the individual.
    3. -slavery triggers a whole range of related evil acts.
    4. - no normal human being would accept terrible sufferings to themselves.
But try completing the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong because ...' without begging the question. Can't be done.
Slavery is morally wrong because of the sufferings from 1-4 above which are sufficient justifications why slavery ought not to be condoned.
QED. The only argument for the claim 'slavery is morally wrong' is that it entails other things that are morally wrong. Perhaps you can see that this is to beg the question.

'No one wants to be a slave' (factual claim) - 'so slavery is morally wrong' (moral claim). Why does the second claim follow from the first?
'Everyone wants to be a slave' (factual claim) - 'so slavery is morally right' (moral claim). Would the second claim also follow from the first?
'No one wants to be a slave' (factual claim as justified) - 'so slavery is morally wrong' (moral claim).

Re your 'Everyone wants to be a slave' (factual claim) - 'so slavery is morally right' (moral claim).
Where is your justification for this that everyone wants to be enslaved as a slave?
You miss my point. I'm showing that an 'is' can't entail an 'ought'. If everyone wanted to be a slave (an 'is' - a fact), it wouldn't follow that slavery is morally right. And, pari passu, if no one wanted to be a slave, it wouldn't follow that slavery is morally wrong.
VA wrote:From the above, it is therefore an objective fact, 'Slavery is morally evil".
Whatever is evil and not good, i.e. morally wrong.

Therefore it is the facts within the universe that conclude 'Slavery is morally wrong' and that is objective.
I have justified the above with rational arguments.
You did not provide any justified counters at all.

At most, you would claim, 'Slavery is morally right' because God said so as in the Bible or
God is the only entity that can hand down objective moral laws, but,
Note God is an impossibility and an illusion, thus your proposition is ungrounded.

God is an impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
Please. I'm an atheist and an anti-theist, partly motivated by my desire to show that morality can't be objective, so that the argument from objective morality to the existence of a god is unsound, because the premise is false. (That if it were true would demolish the apologetic argument anyway is an entertaining irony.)

Skepdick
Posts: 3125
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick » Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:23 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:02 am
It's a (common) mistake because it misconstrues the nature of subjectivity, which is dependence on opinion - so it simultaneously misconstrues the nature of objectivity, which is independence from opinion. The number of people holding an opinion - from one individual to everyone in the world - is completely irrelevant with regard to that distinction, because it remains an opinion how ever many people hold it. By contrast, the objectivity of a claim, and its truth-value, is completely independent from opinion: if a feature of reality exists, a claim asserting it is true regardless of how many people think it's true - from no one to everyone in the world.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:40 am
There can be many (limitless?) true factual assertions about the same feature of reality which, as you say, is what it is or was, how ever it's named or described.
In so far as it's possible to have infinite descriptions of the feature of reality called "slavery", then there is absolutely no reason to believe that "Slavery is wrong" is not not one of those true descriptions.

There is no way to draw a distinction between the "factual assertions of ALL people" and "opinion of ALL people" if all people describe slavery as "wrong".

Your dualism is playing tricks on you.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 3205
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:42 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:12 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:58 pm
This is nearly tautological, because 'subjective' means 'a matter of opinion'. And it's a mistake to identify subjectivity with individuality.
What tautological? What I have given is a definition of what is an opinion.
Note:
  • subjective = based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
So, how can it be wrong to identify 'subjectivity' with the individual subject?
It's a (common) mistake because it misconstrues the nature of subjectivity, which is dependence on opinion - so it simultaneously misconstrues the nature of objectivity, which is independence from opinion. The number of people holding an opinion - from one individual to everyone in the world - is completely irrelevant with regard to that distinction, because it remains an opinion how ever many people hold it. By contrast, the objectivity of a claim, and its truth-value, is completely independent from opinion: if a feature of reality exists, a claim asserting it is true regardless of how many people think it's true - from no one to everyone in the world.
You got it wrong and missed a critical criteria, i.e. 'justified'.
Note the most important criteria, i.e. "justified".
  • 1. Whatever is expressed by an individual subject without justifications is an opinion.

    2. If that opinion is sufficiently justified [not to the level of 3] by the individual or group, it is a belief, e.g. God exists.

    3. If the belief is justified fully as per a credible Framework that enable testing, repetitive verification, it is knowledge, e.g. scientific knowledge from the basis of the Scientific Method, peer review, etc.
There is no standalone independent facts without being subject to the above.
  • Example of Justified True Belief;
    Note, when Einstein first had a glimpse of his E=MC2, it was merely his opinion and that equation can only be an opinion from Einstein. [highly subjective]. This is the stage of abductive inference and hypothesizing.
    When Einstein had personally justified his E=MC2 on paper and is satisfied by his personal standard, then, it is a belief, i.e. based his own proofs and personal conviction. [less subjective and some objectivity]
    E=MC2 is only knowledge, i.e. justified true belief when Einstein's E=MC2 was verified and accepted by his peers and proven empirically.
Seem you are starting with a serious degree of ignorance.
No, I'm pointing out a common misunderstanding.
It is still ignorance, note my point above.
JTB is not seriously wrong!
Yes, there is the Gettier problem but that is insignificant to the acquisition and application of useful knowledge as in Science. Scientific knowledge is JTB, you dispute that?
The JTB is a conceptual mess. For a start, the idea of propositional knowledge conflates what we know with what we say about it - and they're completely different things. Knowing a feature of reality is the case has nothing to do with a proposition, and so nothing to do with truth or falsehood, which are properties only of propositions. So the JTB truth condition - S knows that p iff p is true - is ridiculous. And besides, a belief isn't true or false anyway, so 'true belief' is a grammatical misattribution. The word 'true' here actually refers to an unstated factual assertion.

Gettier merely recycled the muddle in the JTB - so he contributed to maintaining the muddle.
Where is the muddle where I claim scientific knowledge [as explained above] are Justified True Belief as conditioned upon the Scientific Framework [of scientific principles and methods, peer review, etc.]
But try completing the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong because ...' without begging the question. Can't be done.
Slavery is morally wrong because of the sufferings from 1-4 above which are sufficient justifications why slavery ought not to be condoned.
QED. The only argument for the claim 'slavery is morally wrong' is that it entails other things that are morally wrong. Perhaps you can see that this is to beg the question.
Nope. Note Wrong is the opposite of Right.
Are you saying, water is soft because it is not hard [opposite]?
It would be dumb for you to agree to the above.

In this case, 'slavery is morally wrong' is well justified and grounded empirically, thus objective.
'No one wants to be a slave' (factual claim) - 'so slavery is morally wrong' (moral claim). Why does the second claim follow from the first?
'Everyone wants to be a slave' (factual claim) - 'so slavery is morally right' (moral claim). Would the second claim also follow from the first?
'No one wants to be a slave' (factual claim as justified) - 'so slavery is morally wrong' (moral claim).

Re your 'Everyone wants to be a slave' (factual claim) - 'so slavery is morally right' (moral claim).
Where is your justification for this that everyone wants to be enslaved as a slave?
You miss my point. I'm showing that an 'is' can't entail an 'ought'. If everyone wanted to be a slave (an 'is' - a fact), it wouldn't follow that slavery is morally right. And, pari passu, if no one wanted to be a slave, it wouldn't follow that slavery is morally wrong.
Yes, if everyone wanted to be a slave [is] and IF that "is" is justified, then it can be an 'ought'.
But 'wanting to be a slave by all humans' cannot be justified as true.

Note my OP;
'Ought' from 'Is' is Possible
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245

VA wrote:From the above, it is therefore an objective fact, 'Slavery is morally evil".
Whatever is evil and not good, i.e. morally wrong.

Therefore it is the facts within the universe that conclude 'Slavery is morally wrong' and that is objective.
I have justified the above with rational arguments.
You did not provide any justified counters at all.

At most, you would claim, 'Slavery is morally right' because God said so as in the Bible or
God is the only entity that can hand down objective moral laws, but,
Note God is an impossibility and an illusion, thus your proposition is ungrounded.

God is an impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
Please. I'm an atheist and an anti-theist, partly motivated by my desire to show that morality can't be objective, so that the argument from objective morality to the existence of a god is unsound, because the premise is false. (That if it were true would demolish the apologetic argument anyway is an entertaining irony.)
My argument is 'Absolute Moral Laws" are justifiable and necessary for an efficient Moral and Ethical Framework, but to be applied as guides only. This is 90% Kantian.

Meanwhile I argue;
God is an impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
therefore there is no question of a God to issue any Absolute Moral Law to be enforced on believers via the threat of hellfire on non-compliance with God's absolute moral laws.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest