dshimel

Sure it makes sense. Let's assume there is some action that you are 100% absolutely sure is totally wrong, in any possible situation, yet the wrongness of the action can't be proven using the golden rule.

In this example, the "absolutely wrong" action is killing animals for food. The typical "meat is murder" position. Could be something else that doesn't directly involve harming a human like cutting down 100 year old trees, allowing an endangered species to go extinct, whatever....

In a case where you are positive that the action is wrong, then there must be something outside of their own mind, that they have discovered, and now they just need to get everyone else to see to get them to agree. The only thing that could be outside of their mind, that would determine morality, is some objective morality that they have found.

If we all weren't so dumb, and would just listen to them, then we too would discover this objective morality and see just how obviously wrong the action is. It simply can't be that she thinks eating meat is wrong, and I don't, and we're both equally entitled to our opinion.

Theli

I'm not sure this is the problem with the argument. P2 is clearly presupposed.

1. You just shifted the burden of proof. She is the one making a claim regarding objective morality, so it is her lot to seek evidence for it.
2. To say that an absolute "right" is to be found outside our minds is to presuppose the existence of objective morality. The subjective morality does come from external causes, but those causes are not objective "rights" themselfs.

The argument also suggests special pleading, as it is only argues her opinion. It could just aswell be mirrored, and just as (un)successfully proving my opinion to be the absolute right. Hence, it cannot prove anything.

JerryM

Re. killing animals for food or sport:

I'd have to agree that whether the above is moral or immoral is mostly a subjective determination. But, I think that question is somewhat derivative of a more basic moral position:

It is wrong to inflict pain unnecessarily.

I think this has both an objective and subjective component. It can be demonstrated that all sentient creatures will act, in most (though not every) circumstance to avoid pain or noxious stimuli. This is "hard wired" into all animals that possess sensation. There is a biological basis for saying that pain is bad, is something which should be avoided. And I think this provides an objective foundation for the moral statement that inflicting pain is bad. But, of course, there is much more to it. It may be necessary to inflict pain, such as for protection of self or others, or to provide food, or medical care. How to decide when provoking pain is "necessary" is highly subjective. Killing animals for food may be a biological necessity for survival in some circumstances, which I think would be an objective justification. My point is that moral positions, though frequently subjective, may have an element of objectivity.

Theli

JerryM...

I don't think "unnecessarily" is a word that can stand alone like that. I mean, what is necessity for the individual?
This claim doesn't solve anything, it merely pushes the problem forward. If morality would have a set "goal", as the better for people, or the better for society then a choice can be judged to be good or bad by it's probability to gain such goals.
But if we are talking about personal necessity, then there is no objectiveness.

It's an argument that has been made by alot of vegetarians, that we don't have to eat meat to stay alive. What strikes me as strange is that the person saying that has already decided about my necessities, as if I couldn't decide that myself.

dshimel

I think you are still widly missing the point. Is there any belief that you have, that is so obvious to you that you can't imagine how anyone else could feel differently? If so, than thinking about that belief may help you understand what I'm trying to say. She was SO sure that killing for food was wrong, she was convinced that this subjetive opinion was actually some higher Moral Truth that she had discovered. If she could just demonstrate this higher moral truth to us too stupid to see it, then we'd all suddenly agree with her and stop eating meat. To her, eating meat was not subjective opinion to be debated, it was absolute objective morality to be pushed on those too stupid to see it for themselves.

Yes, this proof is flawed. It uses a subjective assertion in an attempt to prove an absolute conclusion. I'm using this clearly flawed proof to demonstrate the problem with thinking of morality as being objective.

If you think we decide, not discover, morality, then move along. If you think we discover morality, then why does her discovery that eating meat is immoral not prove that eating meat is immoral?

tk

No! No! No! It's because the people who don't think so have simply not sufficiently thought about the question themselves. They keep asking for evidence that my statement is true. That can only mean one thing: they're too lazy to think, and want me to show them everything! But philosophical issues can't be explained to other people: everyone must discover philosophical truths by themselves! If they had thought hard enough at the issue, they'll realize that killing animals for sport or food is wrong!

Feather

Well, somebody took his sarcasm pills this morning.

long winded fool

Are you saying that morality is absolutely guided by the golden rule, or that it ought to be? Are you saying I can't force my morality on others, or that I shouldn't?

If I shouldn't force my morality on you, then you shouldn't force your morality on me. Now hold still while I poke you in the eye, and don't try to force your anti-eye-poking morality on me.

If I believe morality is objective, then all I have to say is "She's wrong." She thought she discovered morality but she didn't. If morality is objective then I can logically say this and I can prove it by pointing out her flawed argument.

tk

Now, by my mother's son, since when do you get the moral right to command me to stand still? Let me just cut you to pieces before you can poke me in the eye...

long winded fool

I've always wanted to do that.

If morality is objective, then it is possible for one person to be morally right and another to be morally wrong. Since the person in question used an unsound argument to prove her vegetarian morality is right, she really didn't prove anything. It may not be morally wrong to be a vegetarian, but she hasn't shown that it's morally wrong to eat meat either. If morality is objective, then I can assume she's wrong in her irrational assumption. If it is subjective, then she can't be wrong, but she also can't force anyone else into her vegetarian morality... unless her subjective morals tell her she should... then no one else can force their morality on her... but then again... :banghead:

But my morality says that I can and should poke you in the eye. If you disagree, that's fine, just as long as you don't stop me from following my own personal morals. You don't have the right to do that to me because morality is subjective. Be tolerant of me and my ways! I'm tolerant of yours!