dshimel

Killing animals for sport or food is wrong.

Most people don't think so, but because my mind is made up, they are wrong. How do I prove they are wrong? Well, if there were objective morality, then I could use appeal to authority.

Killing animals for sport or food violates the observable objective morality, therefore, killing animals for sport or food is wrong. Wow, it fits my besired belief, therefore, must be true.

Morality can't be subjective. If morality is subjective, then killing animals for sport or food might be okay. It is not okay, therefore, morality can't be subjective.

So, not only have I proven morality is objective, I've proven it isn't subjective.

Taffsadar

Tell that to the lions...

dshimel

Lions are not capable of rational thought, and therefore are not moral agents. They behave without regard for the concepts of right and wrong.

Humans, being capable of rational thought (well, we like to think so) are moral agents. We can understand right from wrong, and are therfore, under obligation to behave in a moral manner.

(This one is take almost word for word from someone that tried to prove objective morality based on the common sense existance of animal rights. The initial post of this thread was highly simplified, but retains the heart of her argument for subjective morality.)

braces_for_impact

Hmmmmfff...interesting thought.

<Puts down his burger to add more catsup, then picks it up and begins to read some more>

Shadowy Man

Prove it.

tronvillain

The actual " straw-man argument for objective morality" appears to be this:

If morality is subjective, then killing animals for sport or food might be okay. It is not okay, therefore, morality can't be subjective.

If we actually lay the argument out in subjective terms, the problem with it is obvious:

If morality is subjective, then killing animals for sport or food might be okay from certain perspectives. It is not okay from my perspective, therefore, morality can't be subjective.

It simply does not follow.

dshimel

The whole point of the thread was to demonstrate in simple terms, the problem with trying to prove objective morality.

In most cases, the proponent has a well defined sense of right and wrong, but most people don't agree with that person just what is right, and just what is wrong. The porponent of objective morality looks to objective morality to give their "morality" more credibility than everyone elses morality. After all, they know they are right, and they need some way to prove it to us fools that don't agree with them.

Wanting something to be, doesn't make the thing (or idea) be. Needing something to be true to justify your POV, doesn't make it true.

dshimel

The point that the lady was trying to make was that killing animals for sport or food (or clothing or product testing or medical research...) is ALWAYS immoral. Since subjective morality makes it okay from some prospectives, subjective morality must be false.

tronvillain

Well, if she is correct as that killing animals for food or sport is always wrong, rather than simply being wrong from her perspective, then subjective morality is false. *chuckle*

dshimel

And, she did know, just as strongly as she knew her own name, that killing animals for sport or food was wrong in all situations, and therefore, knew morality was objective.

She was one of the "meat is murder" T-shirt wearing types. She could see absolutely no difference between killing a cow for steak and killing a human to creat organ donors. Both were equally worng, and she couldn't imagine how anyone would be against one (killing a human to harvest its organs for transplant) yet support the other (eating beef).

Whatever.