daemon

Seeing as I've never been a big participant on this forum, and am unsure of the relevant arguments that have occurred on this topic, I've started this thread to respond to the arguments Ginseng raised in the thread <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000113&p=5" target="_blank">Vegetarianism – Simplified (page 5)</a>.
You have given me no evidence that your assertion is true, however. In response to whether I think stonings are right, my answer is no. However, this does not in any way constitute proof of objective morality, as my statement is true regardless of the specific nature of morality.

So, you have told me it is wrong, they assert it is right. You respond that they are in error; I would assume they would say that you are in error. Given that, how am I to determine what this objective morality is from two conflicting claims about it?
You have not given me any criteria for determining the veracity of your claims, and I refuse to accept them merely on your personal authority. Please give some form of argument and/or evidence for your stance.
It might.
"We"? I doubt any group that I am volutarily a part of would, but I don't know what "we" you speak of. Assuming you mean the US government, then I would say that it might.
Well, I wouldn't--nor would I support any group of people that did--because I think it's wrong. I do not presume to speak for other people.

The AntiChris

As a relative newcomer to these forums, I have to say I find many of the discussions here start out promisingly but too often degenerate into the standard subjectivist v objectivist debate.

Whilst I do think such a debate is vitally important, I find it frustrating that just about every single-issue topic raised degenerates into a debate about word definitions. I can't help feeling that some subjectivists trap unwary non-subjectivists (in this I include people who've never encountered moral subjectivism before) merely for sport and to impress with their intellectual prowess.

Can I make a suggestion?

Whenever a subjectivist responds to the statement "X is wrong/immoral" or the question "is X wrong/immoral", it would be more productive to skip the obvious "define wrong/immoral" and make some assumptions.

If, as a subjectivist, you personally do not find activity X unpalatable, simply answer "No". Give reasons if you wish.

If you do find activity X unpalatable, answer "For me, yes". In addition, and this is where the debate could become more interesting, explain, with reasons, why you do/do not feel strongly enough to persuade/coerce others to refrain from activity X.

Taking this approach, it just might be possible for subjectivists and non-subjectivists to move on from the initial stumbling blocks and have a meaningful discussion about the issue in question.

Just a thought.

Chris

shamon

What percentage of the human population would have to agree for it to be considered “objective” morality?

Rational Ag

100%

Objective morality is just that, objective. If some culture or people disagree with a moral that you state, it is obviously not objective.

-Rational Ag

tronvillain

Actually, even one hundred percent agreement wouldn't make it objective in the sense proponents of objective morality seem to want.

pug846

Actually, if no one in the population agreed on the truth of x, x could still be objective. There are lots of truths that people disagree with. Just take a look at the Creation-Evolution forum. And this is probably an unimportant side note, but 'cultures' don't disagree or agree with anything.

shamon, if you think you can establish something as true merely by human agreement, then you have completey misunderstood the nature of what it is to be a fact. At best, you can establish an intersubjective consensus on an issue.

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: pug846 ]</p>

Tom Piper

And, contrary to what Rational Ag has said, the fact that the not all of the world's population subscribe to a particular proposition, moral or otherwise, in itself, shows nothing about the status-- objective or subjective.

Tom

shamon

Can we at least agree that if 99% of the population of humans agree on a certain moral issue then it’s objective (at least for humans)? The 1% percent that doesn’t agree could easily be insane or have a learning disability or whatever.

Objective in my sense means the same for all sane humans of our species. It may be subjective in the sense that it only applies to humans, but it’s objective FOR humans.

Agree?

Bill Snedden

As Tronvillian implies, being "objective" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "agreement".

"Objective" is defined as "existing independently of mind". Most of us would probably agree that trees, rocks, insects, animals, and other components of the physical world would exist regardless of whether or not there were any humans to contemplate their existence. That is because most of us agree that reality is objective.

So, in order to demonstrate the existence of an objective value (or morality), one must be able to demonstrate a value or moral principle that exists independent of the mind.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

shamon

So what you all are saying is that there isn’t any way you’re going to EVER consider objective morality for humans? Is that any way to start a discussion?

“Intersubjective”? We don’t really need this jargon nor will I ever argue a point about jargon. We all know what subjective and objective means. Objective will mean the same for all sane humans.

Agreed?