99Percent

Thanks for the defense, but that is why we have multiple moderators, so other moderators can objectively edit out attacks and abuse directed to fellow moderators who are participating as normal users, if necessary. (which I don't think its the case here).

Thanks all for the responses. I will get back to everyone's arguments tonight, I am currently busy IRL.

Gurdur

The single fallacy that destroys all this is that you cannot derive a "should" from an "is".

Merely calling something an "undeniable objective moral factor" simply does not make it one.

My own observation is that there are certainly ethical potentials in most humans (though not, just for example, sociopaths), however you cannot derive from that that then these are "objective morals", since some person will be sure to come up with an opposing ethic, and live by it. So much for universality, without even needing to point out the huge cultural differences.

Moreover, elements underlying morality resulting from evolutionary psychology can be directly opposing, and in fact what you have is bundles of elements, some diametrically opposed, which come into play at different times.

heh, didn't we do this to death already a year and a half ago ?

Gurdur

I'll also add:

The very fact you try deriving a "should" from an "is" illustrates the poverty of the argument and the futility of the enterprise;

Were in fact chosen factors "universal objective morals", there would be no need to derive them, no need to stress them, no need to debate them --- everyone would simply agree.

The very fact of genuine disagreement shows the impossibility of the enterprise.

99Percent

RED DAVE: I read your post several times yet I could not find something coherent that directly addresses any one of my arguments. Its merely a series of assertions that don't seem to bearing to anything I wrote.

Particularly mystifying is how you just dismiss my whole arguments as "RELIGIOUS THINKING!!!" when in fact there is nothing religious in what I said but totally the contrary as I am basing my arguments on reason itself, not faith.

Adrian Selby: Courts of law have no difficulty seeing the truth when its there. If there are five witnesses that person X pulled a pistol and shot person Y and then ran of with person X's wallet, its pretty clear person X murdered person Y. Its the interpretation of lots of subjective "laws" and "definitions" that make many current court decisions difficult (but thats another topic).Yes. You have nailed one of the weaknesses of this argument. I have now modified it somehow where absolute value is one own happiness (even above life itself) which must be objectively true. You can still lie and cheat and kill when faced with violence initiated by someone else though because it ceases to be moral situation when your free will has been undermined withthe immediate threat of violence or violence itself. That is your subjective interpretation of what is "enough" shelter. Fact remains that each person has their own definition of what they need and as long as they work for what they want you have no right to assume that they "already have enough" so you can go ahead and take the "extra" they make for yourself.
Your question of inherited property and therefore also land is an important one. When one receives property freely from others it is still a task to determine the appropiate usefulness of these properties and its best economic allocation. Only the self interest of individuals can determine this, not some outsider who claims thinks knows better. As to the historical question of ancestral land theft, its unfortunately not practically resolvable, because we haven't lived a libertarian government forever. There must be a limit, which can be previously agreed democratically, for making acusations of theft (and other crimes).

Kind Bud: We don't need any kind of realm shifting. We are already talking on the human realm of reality and therefore morality. Its exactly these types of realm shifting that causes unnecesarry confusions, because if we did so we could never establish the realm we are talking about. For example subjectivists can claim that a rock or a chair don't exist, they are merely a bunch of atoms, but this is patently absurd because we are discussing thing in the realm of human understanding of reality where I can say a chair is of sitting down and you will understand what I am saying.Like which ones? Examples would be nice. Also I am not merely sugesting survival anymore (the argument as you can see is a bit dated and I have slightly modified it now), but also happiness. The individual's happiness depends on his means of acquiring the material products of his happiness if he decides to work himself to get them so he must have a certain assurance that whatever he obtains through his work is agreed by others to be his.No, happiness is not a "value" that can change from individual to individual, its an absolute value, which is why its objective. What does change is how to achieve that happiness, and the perceived needs to achieve it. For example, for a masochist his happiness is to feel pain. Every individual has a driving life force which is to achieve happiness through his own means.
No, not from scientific observations, but from philosophical thinking.No, the definition of happiness here is not based on emotion. The feelings of exhilaration for example does not necessarily translate to the happiness I am reffering to, but to the self-realization of consciously achieving the objective goals you have set to achieve is what makes you happy because you are a self determined individual that is sovereign to your decisions and actions. Of course some people are perfectly happy not to have any property or very minimal ammount of property but thats because they choose to live that way. It does not follow that because you think property is not fundamental to happiness it gives you right to take away the property produced by others by force.

Pug846: Its the typical subjectivist way to justify lying but unfortunately its still immoral. The truth is an absolute value, you can not make it relative to other values as in your example. You owe it to yourself to make your relationship with your grandmother a truthful one by communicating your true feelings. This does not mean that you must be blunt and harsh everytime you communicate these feelings though, we can also be tactful and diplomatic by employing our natural empathy. In your example you are not evaluating your grandmother's feelings, because its something you can't really evaluate since you aren't feeling them yourself. You are in fact misevaluating and evading your own possible feelings when you have to see your grandmother's reaction when you tell her the trurth. However your grandmother can certainly appreciate the truth when you express your own feelings. Its all might lead to much healthier and productive relationships (for example you will stop getting hideous t-shirts you will never use) if it doesn't then well, they weren't really relationships to begin with.

Gurdur: Thats right. Just because I say something does not mean its a fact. You will have to think them out for yourself and understand what I am saying and derive these moral factors yourself.
No, objective morality is derivable through reason. Its not a physical entity that everyone simply perceives. It requires actual thinking and therefore reason. Unfortunately we are required to think, we cannot merely hobble along by following the dictums of others.

tk

I'm somewhat surprised by your response. The distinction between "reason" -- a mathematical process of deriving truths from other truths -- and "what seems reasonable" -- the stuff which you just "think about" and "know" to be true -- is an important one, and is what I was getting at.

Even so, I'm not seeing any attempt to distinguish between these two.

pug846

99 percent said:

What does it mean for something to be an absolute value? (This is especially confusing since you’ve admitted in the past that it is acceptable to lie in certain situations.)

As a matter of fact, I don’t hold truth as an absolute value. What ought I value truth absolutely?

But why?

Sure I’m evaluating my grandmother’s feelings. She’s very old and probably won’t live much longer. She will be happier if she knows that she got me a gift that I absolutely love and can’t wait to wear as opposed to a shirt that I don’t particularly want to wear, no matter how diplomatic in trying to explain that to hear. (Especially if I have particularly strong feelings about the hideousness of the shirt; since I have to value truth absolutely, I can’t soften the blow too much otherwise I would be lying.) You go on to say what my grandmother ought to react to the situation, but that’s silly. I know her and I know how she would react. In fact, I think any grandmother in her situation would want to hear that this is a really awesome gift. How I treat my grandmother in this one specific situation isn’t going to change the way I treat my grandmother in other areas of my life.

Again, I would appreciate it if you would expand on why I ought to always tell the truth because I really can’t find an argument for that anywhere. It would be helpful if you were to write it out in premise, premise, conclusion type form. I think that would clear away a lot of the confusion.

I still don’t see how you derive an “ought” from an “is.”

JerryM

No system of morals is absolute, and they all rely, to some extent, on subjective entities such as values and preferences. But I can envision a basis for moral rules that has a degree of objectivity. By objective, I mean that which can be observed or demonstrated, and on which most people will agree. Of course, I know this implies consensus, but that is how anything is known objectively--it must be seen or demonstrated so that it is accepted as true by a consensus of observers.

The objective basis for morals lies in what we know about human evolution. Humans evolved as social animals. A societal structure is necessary for the survival success and proliferation of our species. Certain actions, such as murdering or injuring our fellows or stealing food or other person's necessities for survival obviously are detrimental to a successful social order. Lying, certainly if widespread, prevents the reliable transfer of information, which is also necessary for a functioning society. Going beyond the basics, I think a study of history will show us that the best societies generally do not oppress their members, provide at least some care and protection for those unable to care for themselves, and allow for reasonable freedom of action. What I'm saying is that by studying history, and sociology, and human behavior, we can have a more objective basis for determining moral standards. Our goal is a healthy and thriving society, the drive for which I believe is part of our biology. It's not totally objective, but more so than other proposed moral foundations.

dshimel

Argument against objective morality.

For something to be objective, it must exist outside of the mind. It must be detectable, measurable, and constant.

For example, the concept of a yard or meter is subjective. It is possible to that 2 standards have defined these units differently. It becomes objective when you make a yard stick and a meter stick.

The length of the sticks are objective. Any two people able to understand the concept of lentgh, will be able to objectivly detect and test which stick is longer. Which stick is longer is constant, regardless of who does the measuring, where or when the measuring is done, or prior conditioning and values of the person doing the measuring. Length is objective.

Until morality can be physically detected and measured, and is constant regardless of conditioning or values of the measurer, it is purely subjective.

I realize the desire of many for there to be an objective morality. You want some authority of higher reality to validate forcing your moral values on others. Unfortunatly, that authority does not exist. Desire for something does not make it so.

Morality is a trinary system. An act is either moral (treating someone they way you or they want to be treated), neutral (having no effect on others), or immoral (treating another in a way you or they do not want to be treated).

Morality can't be used to choose between multiple immoral actions. Making such a choice is purely a value judgement.

99Percent

pug846: Absolute value is that which is either true or false, valid or invalid, zero or one, exists or does not exist. There is no value judgement involved. The situations where you can lie is when it has ceased to be moral by the violence initiated by someone or by threat of violence. For example if I point a gun in your head you are no longer required to say the truth obviously. In fact you are no longer able to think correctly. If Nazi's come knocking on your door and ask you if you have Jews in the attic you can perfectly lie or tell the truth because there is a threat of violence involved.Because existence must always be true and valid. If you lie to your relatives then your undermining your relationship with them, in fact your relationship with your grandmother is not true or valid because its based on lies. I find it very obvious.You can't, because you aren't your grandmother. You don't feel her feelings, you can only have a degree of empathy. In fact you can't know her values, because your brain is separate from hers. You can only know your own values and feelings.
Lets give it a try:
1. We perceive reality because it has a logical consistency and so we can derive an objective true reality.
2. If things were to suddenly not make sense such as when a fact that you thought was true is no longer true (say that the text on your computer suddenly changed and jumbled up, or the glass of water that was full of wine is suddenly full of water instead, etc) then your perception of reality is undermined.
3. Therefore truth is an absolute value for our human minds.
For example, the Matrix explores this in great detail. We would rather know the truth even if it completely changes the paradigm of our existencial nature.
How about this:

Exitence is so existence ought to exist. You shall not make A<>A which is simply a lie.

JerryM: We do not need to base our objective morality on evolutionary theory. It rests basically on the premise that we all have free will as rational human beings. Scientifically we cannot prove we have free will as that would require us to go back in time (and even then our observations taken back in time could interfere with the "experiment"). In fact science currently seems to dictate that we don't have free will in the absolute sense as we are bound by the laws of physics. However in the practical human sense it is clear that we do have free will, it reason thats telling us, not science.

dshimel: Thanks, but I have gone through this before. Concepts certainly exist objectively, like the number zero, or a circle, even though in concrete reality you will never find zero or a perfect circle. Another difficulty with your argument is that I had already established the limits of objective morality to exist within the human realm of understanding, it has nothing to do with concrete real things like perceived physical entities purely by our senses.

dshimel

So, Objective Morality exists because you define some subjective reality in which subjective things are objective. That is circular reasoning. You can't, by definition, make subjective be objective.

You may as well define God as whatever is outside the universe, then declare there is something outside the universe, and therfore God exists.

According to Webster:
Objective: of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

By definition of objective, your dream world of "human realm of understanding" is subjective. All thoughts and ideas withtin the subjective world, are subjective. You can't redefine "objective" to fit the needs of your proof.

Again, I understand the desire for objective morality. It gives authority to what would otherwise be argumentative falacies based on "appeal to authority".

However, using an argumanative falacy does not authority make. Here, you've begun your proof with a false definition, and thus all argument based on the false definition are not strong.