Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

Ridiculous claim: morality is exactly like gravity, because both have observable effects, but neither is observable.

Justify your claim of 'ridiculousness'

Chalk is also exactly like cheese, because both are physical substances. They really are!

False analogy. Chalk and cheese are observable. At the very least their locations in spacetime can be distinguished. And more than that you have other empirical ways to discriminate: taste, texture, chemical composition.

Gravity and morality are not ostensive. That which you call "evidence" for the existence of gravity is indirect evidence.

You "believe in gravity" because things falling to the ground when dropped is evidence for gravity.
You "believe in morality" because __________ is evidence for morality.

Fill in the blank.

Possible reactions when your argument is refuted: ignore the refutation and stick to your conclusion as an article of faith; abuse the person who refuted your argument; or change your mind.

EXACTLY! I have refuted your argument. Go ahead and change your mind. If you don't change your mind, I'll continue "abusing" you by pointing out the fact that you are irrational, peddler of double standards.

What or where is gravity? Show it to me.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Please produce a definition of morality that doesn't mention rightness and wrongness, propriety and impropriety, or goodness and badness (or evil). Every definition you've produced so far mentions one or more of these things - so I'm puzzled.

If your invention 'morality-proper' doesn't involve rightness and wrongness, and so on, but merely involves consistency with programming, then you're not talking about morality at all. In itself, consistency with programming has no moral implication. It's just obeying orders.

I have already presented my definition of what is morality proper a "1000" times.
Here again,
Definition of morality Proper
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799
defined in terms of 'good' and 'evil'.

Generally morality proper is striving for what is 'good' and avoiding 'evil.'

Morality-proper is definitely about alignment with "programing" i.e. doing good and avoiding evil, just as one must align with one's inherent 'program' of the oughtness to breathe.
It is very stupid [lack of intelligence] and stooping very low to say that aligning with one's inherent 'program' naturally is merely obeying orders.

So here's your absurd argument.

P1 Morality-proper is alignment with programming.
P2 Humans are programmed to do good and avoid evil.
C Therefore, morality-proper is doing good and avoiding evil.

As usual your thinking is too dogmatic and constipated with confirmation bias and generate your own absurd strawman.
My argument is definitely not the above.

Note my argument;

• 1. Morality-proper [an inherent drive] is about doing good and avoiding evil - empirical evidence of human behaviors.
  2. Doing good and avoiding evil is programmed within ALL humans - empirical evidence
  3. Morality-proper [inherent drive] is programmed within ALL humans.

What is good is not-evil.
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799

But humans are programmed to kill hostile outsiders and anti-social insiders. We've been doing it for millennia, and we're still doing it. So the empirical evidence for this 'humans-ought-to-kill-some-humans' programming is overwhelming.

I had stated human are programmed with 'killing of living things' for food to sustain survival but not for killing humans. This has nothing to do with morality-proper.
This is overridden by the specific 'programmed' moral inhibition of 'not to kill humans'.
Why humans killed hostile outsiders is because the programmed moral inhibitions has failed in both attackers and defenders in those circumstances.

Given this, your P2 states that killing hostile outsiders and anti-social insiders is good - because what counts as 'good' is alignment with programming.

You are relying on deception.
What is good is 'not evil'. see my definition above.

Truth is, your criterion for what is good - alignment with programming - is very obviously immoral, bad, wicked or evil.

You are relying on deception.
What is good is 'not evil'. see my definition above.

Alignment with programming need not be judged or felt as "good" but merely acting accordingly with one's inherent nature.
When humans breathe humans don't normally and generally regard that as "good" except if they are restraint in breathing then be able to breathe normally, they may feel 'good'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have already presented my definition of what is morality proper a "1000" times.
Here again,
Definition of morality Proper
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799
defined in terms of 'good' and 'evil'.

Generally morality proper is striving for what is 'good' and avoiding 'evil.'

Morality-proper is definitely about alignment with "programing" i.e. doing good and avoiding evil, just as one must align with one's inherent 'program' of the oughtness to breathe.
It is very stupid [lack of intelligence] and stooping very low to say that aligning with one's inherent 'program' naturally is merely obeying orders.

So here's your absurd argument.

P1 Morality-proper is alignment with programming.
P2 Humans are programmed to do good and avoid evil.
C Therefore, morality-proper is doing good and avoiding evil.

But humans are programmed to kill hostile outsiders and anti-social insiders. We've been doing it for millennia, and we're still doing it. So the empirical evidence for this 'humans-ought-to-kill-some-humans' programming is overwhelming.

Given this, your P2 states that killing hostile outsiders and anti-social insiders is good - because what counts as 'good' is alignment with programming.

Truth is, your criterion for what is good - alignment with programming - is very obviously immoral, bad, wicked or evil.

He also continually assumes argumentum ad populums. It's always determined by consensus or commonality for him, but saying that consensus or commonality determines what's the case with respect to anything but what's the consensus or what's common is a fallacy.

Nah!
Scientific facts are based on consensus in a way. Do you accuse scientists of argumentum ad populums?
It is the same with other facts conditioned upon their specific FSK.

All facts from FSKs are conditioned upon consensus but ...

What is MOST critical here is whether the facts are credible or not as based on the credible process of verification and justification within the specific FSK.
Assessing the Credibility of a FSK and its Facts
viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

[Veritas Aequitas]

You say it is bad for people to kill people. You say we are programmed to NOT kill people. You say this is a natural fact, like gravity.
Apples fall from trees, and people do not kill people.

Gravity works whether you like it or not.
Sadly people DO IN FACT KILL PEOPLE.

Your attribution that morals are natural is false. Morals are cultural.

I have already justify how 'not killing humans' is natural to humans.
As evident, it works whether you like it or not, i.e. you don't go about killing humans arbitrary.
It also works in the majority of the 7+ billion people on Earth.

Yes, sadly some people do in fact kill people.
That is only because their natural moral inhibitors are not working effectively.
Malignant psychopaths' moral inhibitors are damaged, that is why they will kill humans on arbitrary impulses.
SOME 'normal' humans may kill humans in abnormal circumstances, e.g. self-defense, out of sudden passion, and the likes.

But like gravity, the natural moral inhibitors mechanisms exist in ALL humans whether they like it or not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ridiculous claim: morality is exactly like gravity, because both have observable effects, but neither is observable.

Chalk is also exactly like cheese, because both are physical substances. They really are!

Possible reactions when your argument is refuted: ignore the refutation and stick to your conclusion as an article of faith; abuse the person who refuted your argument; or change your mind.

Note Skepdic's response which I agree with.

One point is re philosophy you are sitting on a pile of shit.
In every which way you counter, your shit is ultimately exposed by those who are more philosophical knowledgeable than you.

You have made a "1000" counters to my views, show me one counter where you have put me clearly a "check-mate" position?

On the other hand I have exposed your strawman factory, the deceptions, the slides, the rhetoric, the ignorance, the bastardized philosophies [LP and classical analytic] and all of the whole pile of shit of yours.

[Peter Holmes]

Ridiculous claim: morality is exactly like gravity, because both have observable effects, but neither is observable.

Chalk is also exactly like cheese, because both are physical substances. They really are!

Possible reactions when your argument is refuted: ignore the refutation and stick to your conclusion as an article of faith; abuse the person who refuted your argument; or change your mind.

Note Skepdic's response which I agree with.

One point is re philosophy you are sitting on a pile of shit.
In every which way you counter, your shit is ultimately exposed by those who are more philosophical knowledgeable than you.

You have made a "1000" counters to my views, show me one counter where you have put me clearly a "check-mate" position?

On the other hand I have exposed your strawman factory, the deceptions, the slides, the rhetoric, the ignorance, the bastardized philosophies [LP and classical analytic] and all of the whole pile of shit of yours.

So, you're going for the 'counter the refutation to defend the conclusion', 'maintain civilised discourse', 'keeping an open mind' approach.

[Skepdick]

So, you're going for the 'counter the refutation to defend the conclusion', 'maintain civilised discourse', 'keeping an open mind' approach.

So you are going for the double standards, self-contradictory incoherent Philosophical contrarianism approach?

You "believe in gravity" because things falling to the ground when dropped is evidence for gravity.
You "believe in morality" because __________ is evidence for morality.

Fill in the blank.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ridiculous claim: morality is exactly like gravity, because both have observable effects, but neither is observable.

Chalk is also exactly like cheese, because both are physical substances. They really are!

Possible reactions when your argument is refuted: ignore the refutation and stick to your conclusion as an article of faith; abuse the person who refuted your argument; or change your mind.

Note Skepdic's response which I agree with.

One point is re philosophy you are sitting on a pile of shit.
In every which way you counter, your shit is ultimately exposed by those who are more philosophical knowledgeable than you.

You have made a "1000" counters to my views, show me one counter where you have put me clearly a "check-mate" position?

On the other hand I have exposed your strawman factory, the deceptions, the slides, the rhetoric, the ignorance, the bastardized philosophies [LP and classical analytic] and all of the whole pile of shit of yours.

So, you're going for the 'counter the refutation to defend the conclusion', 'maintain civilised discourse', 'keeping an open mind' approach.

Nope, what I relied upon is as I had stated many times, whatever is claimed as fact must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

Requesting you to produce an effective checkmate counter to my views is to expose your philosophical weakness, ignorance, shallow and narrow thinking, dogmatism, deception, rhetoric and the reliance upon the bastardized philosophies of the LPs and classical analytic philosophies.

[Sculptor]

You say it is bad for people to kill people. You say we are programmed to NOT kill people. You say this is a natural fact, like gravity.
Apples fall from trees, and people do not kill people.

Gravity works whether you like it or not.
Sadly people DO IN FACT KILL PEOPLE.

Your attribution that morals are natural is false. Morals are cultural.

I have already justify how 'not killing humans' is natural to humans.

But you have ignored the fact that killing is natural to humans too.

As evident, it works whether you like it or not, i.e. you don't go about killing humans arbitrary.
It also works in the majority of the 7+ billion people on Earth.

Some humans kill for no reason, others for arbitrary reasons, whilst others go to great lengths for formulate convincing arguments to kill humans; all of who you ignore so you can cherry pick evidence.

But like gravity, the natural moral inhibitors mechanisms exist in ALL humans whether they like it or not.

No. Some humans have none, and others seem to have them to more or less a degree. Gravity is not like that, it does not chose to act. Gravity acts uniformly; humans do not.

[Terrapin Station]

I have already justify how 'not killing humans' is natural to humans.

What he wound up arguing with me earlier is that he's appealing to statistical norms. But then he simply ignored that that amounts to forwarding an argumentum ad populum.

[Sculptor]

I have already justify how 'not killing humans' is natural to humans.

What he wound up arguing with me earlier is that he's appealing to statistical norms. But then he simply ignored that that amounts to forwarding an argumentum ad populum.

He would do better to embrace that and persue consent as a rubric. That is indeed what we have in objectivity where is does exist. The trouble is that he wants us all to comply with his personal opinion which for one thing totally excludes the living world outside of humanity.
I think we have moved beyond the 19thC, thankfully.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You say it is bad for people to kill people. You say we are programmed to NOT kill people. You say this is a natural fact, like gravity.
Apples fall from trees, and people do not kill people.

Gravity works whether you like it or not.
Sadly people DO IN FACT KILL PEOPLE.

Your attribution that morals are natural is false. Morals are cultural.

I have already justify how 'not killing humans' is natural to humans.

But you have ignored the fact that killing is natural to humans too.

As evident, it works whether you like it or not, i.e. you don't go about killing humans arbitrary.
It also works in the majority of the 7+ billion people on Earth.

Some humans kill for no reason, others for arbitrary reasons, whilst others go to great lengths for formulate convincing arguments to kill humans; all of who you ignore so you can cherry pick evidence.

I am aware SOME humans killed humans.
But how can you infer that is the natural proclivity of humans in general when in reality there are only a small percentage of killers say 0.5% [>35,000,000 million] compare to >7,000,000,000 humans.
Are there even 35 million killers at present? I don't think so.

The above numbers [best estimate] should give you an idea it is not natural for humans to kill humans.

But like gravity, the natural moral inhibitors mechanisms exist in ALL humans whether they like it or not.

No. Some humans have none, and others seem to have them to more or less a degree. Gravity is not like that, it does not chose to act. Gravity acts uniformly; humans do not.
[/quote]
Nah, gravity exist everywhere only on Earth but then its effect vary from place to place and various conditions.

All humans are born with the sexual mechanism as programmed within the DNA, but in real life this sexual mechanism is not active in all humans. But the fact is that the sexual mechanisms exists in ALL humans.

Thus the moral mechanisms exist in ALL humans except it is not active or is damage in some humans.

Don't insult your intelligence with such shallow and narrow thinking.

[Peter Holmes]

Let us contemplate the 'red circle fallacy', and its relationship with moral objectivism.

Stupid but sparkly question: how can we (English speakers) show/demonstrate/prove that what we call a red circle is indeed a red circle? Aha. We can't. And yet it is indeed a red circle. (A description doesn't create or change the thing being described.)

Pari passu: how can we (English speakers) show/demonstrate/prove that what we call a morally wrong action is indeed morally wrong? Aha. We can't. And yet it is indeed morally wrong. (A description doesn't create or change the thing being described.)

Conclusion: if it can be a fact that a thing is a red circle, then it can be a fact that an action is morally wrong. The ascriptions or predications 'is a red circle' and 'is morally wrong' have the same function; so clauses containing them both have truth-value. Therefore, there can be moral facts, and morality is objective.

Does any moral objectivist here want to amend this formulation of the ... argument?

[Sculptor]

I am aware SOME humans killed humans.
But how can you infer that is the natural proclivity of humans in general when in reality there are only a small percentage of killers say 0.5% [>35,000,000 million] compare to >7,000,000,000 humans.
Are there even 35 million killers at present? I don't think so.

Morality is decided by and for communities.
100% of polities mandate killing. If not capital punishment, but warfare, and justifyable suicide.
Every single country since the beginning of time has policies for appropriate killing.
Only a minority of countries have banned the death penalty.
Don't insult my intelligence with bogus and irrelevant stats.

As we do not measure cuisine by asking how many people eat MacDonald's, moral issues are not to be decided ad populum

But if you want to go down that route you will find that the majority of the people when asked support the death penalty or a return to it were wiser thinking has previously banned it.
When executions were public they were always enjoyed by massed crowds, who would cheer and jeer and bring picnics to watch.
You are naive

[Skepdick]

Morality is decided by and for communities.
100% of polities mandate killing. If not capital punishment, but warfare, and justifyable suicide.
Every single country since the beginning of time has policies for appropriate killing.
Only a minority of countries have banned the death penalty.
Don't insult my intelligence with bogus and irrelevant stats.

And yet, human longevity continues to increase!

How come??!?

Surely, if we are such murderous creatures human life expectancy should be decreasing, not increasing?

Unless, of course you are trying to convinces that the more we murder people, the longer they live. I wouldn't put it past your level of stupid.

But if you want to go down that route you will find that the majority of the people when asked support the death penalty or a return to it were wiser thinking has previously banned it.
When executions were public they were always enjoyed by massed crowds, who would cheer and jeer and bring picnics to watch.
You are naive

And yet!

Public hangings ceased. Magic!!!