3
   

There are no objective moral truths.

 
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Oct, 2006 11:59 pm
RexRed wrote:
If you think that murder is "right" than will you be the first volunteer to let some blood thirsty low life murderer to take your own life?

Your proposition sounds like pure anarchy to me. Mutual consent and maturity side on caution and principle and not just emotion.

There are the consequences and "the cost" to take into consideration when deciding what is right and wrong.

These are not just social constructs they are rules for survival and civilization not something to be just taken lightly.

As people mature they (for the most part) move from the purely emotional adolescents toward highly intellectual adults.

That takes stopping and thinking about things before one blindly follows into foolhardy and reckless behavior.


Do you support the death penalty Rex? "Yes" or "no" will do.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 12:31 am
Eorl wrote:
RexRed wrote:
If you think that murder is "right" than will you be the first volunteer to let some blood thirsty low life murderer to take your own life?

Your proposition sounds like pure anarchy to me. Mutual consent and maturity side on caution and principle and not just emotion.

There are the consequences and "the cost" to take into consideration when deciding what is right and wrong.

These are not just social constructs they are rules for survival and civilization not something to be just taken lightly.

As people mature they (for the most part) move from the purely emotional adolescents toward highly intellectual adults.

That takes stopping and thinking about things before one blindly follows into foolhardy and reckless behavior.


Do you support the death penalty Rex? "Yes" or "no" will do.


Definitely yes I support the death penalty.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 03:31 am
Re: There are no objective moral truths.
agrote wrote:
Guilt is not the same as wrongness. Somebody with a very strict religious upbringing might feel guilty whenever they have sex, but that does not mean that sex is wrong.

I would interpret this as their religion leading them to misperceive the facts of morality. It doesn't surprise me at all that religion would do that. After all, religions have frequently led people to misperceive facts of reality, too. For some examples, just remember the Galilei case and the Scopes monkey trial.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 03:53 am
Religion does not have a monopoly on people misconstruing ideas.

People would just find another reason to hate and fear.

Religion is used to mirror what they would do anyway even without religion. Religious people are not the only sector of society capable of hate and bigotry.

People by nature impose their own will on others out of low self esteem.

They act all egotistical to cover up their innate human weaknesses.

They hide behind religion in it's many convoluted forms and if religion was not there it would not extinguish their unbalanced motivations.

It is not religion leading them but them leading religion into the mire.
They choose religion, religion generally does not choose them, that is, in free societies.

The elusive definition of religion is actually, "philosophy".

and the definition of philosophy is man's (or human) wisdom...

Truth is, "God's wisdom" exclusively...

So, religion is a product of human design

Truth is a product of God's designs.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 01:18 am
Re: There are no objective moral truths.
Thomas wrote:
agrote wrote:
Guilt is not the same as wrongness. Somebody with a very strict religious upbringing might feel guilty whenever they have sex, but that does not mean that sex is wrong.

I would interpret this as their religion leading them to misperceive the facts of morality.


And joefromchicago thinks I'm "strawman bashing"!!
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 01:47 am
Re: There are no objective moral truths.
joefromchicago wrote:
No doubt books have been written around the argument that there is no such thing as morality, but I doubt that they've been written from your perspective.


The particular book I mentioned makes a similar argument to the one I intend to make.

Quote:
And what sort of dissertation is 7,500 words? Sounds more like a senior thesis than any kind of post-graduate dissertation.


It's not a post-graduate dissertation. It's a third-year undergraduate dissertation - possibly similar to what would be called a 'senior thesis' in America?

Quote:
agrote wrote:
I don't know very much about Platonic forms. Please explain what you are saying.

You plan on writing a "dissertation" on a philosophic topic and you don't know what Platonic forms are? Excuse my mild astonishment here, but what exactly are they teaching you at your school?


I'm doing a joint-honours course with Psychology, so only half of my course has been Philosophy classes. And I just haven't selected any modules that mention Platonic forms, or anything else to do with Plato, so I've never been taught anything about him. I think I've heard of Platonic forms from a couple of introductory books, but that's all.

Quote:
Now, from what I can gather here (and correct me if I am mistaken), you seem to think that the two statements ["this table is brown" and "killing is wrong" do assert the same kind of fact, i.e. that there are "moral facts" that are ascertainable in the same way that the color of a desk is ascertainable. I think that's impossible, and that you're setting up a strawman argument if you think that other people make take that position. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.


I didn't say anything about "killing is wrong" implying that the wrongness of killing is a fact that can be percieved through the senses. Some people do talk of conscience being a 'sense' of right and wrong, but that isn't something that I have mentioned so far.

You imply that there are different kinds of facts. What are these different kinds of facts? Do you just mean facts that we can percieve, and facts that we can't percieve?

I am not arguing that saying "killing is wrong" implies that we can percieve some fact that killing is wrong. I am arguing that it implies that there is some fact that killing is wrong (just as there is some fact that "philosophy is an academic subject") - some fact that exists whether or not we percieve in it or believe in it.

For example, a Christian might believe that "God says that it is wrong to kill, and therefore it is wrong even for an atheist to kill" or something like that. They seem to be making an assertion that "it is factually true that it is objectively wrong to kill". It looks to me like such people believe in moral facts, or hold beliefs that imply the existence of moral facts. Such people are not made of straw.

Quote:
If by "moral facts" you mean a statement based on a deductive argument, like "killing is wrong, then I think you're right -- there are such "moral facts." But if that's the case, then you're going to have to make a much more convincing argument than simply saying "there are no such facts," since, as I pointed out above, such an argument would also suggest that there are no deductive facts at all. And I'm not sure if you're willing to sacrifice the truth of "2 plus 2 equals 4" so that you can eliminate the truth of "killing is wrong."


You're right that I don't want to reject all deductive facts. And I know that a more convincing argument is required. I'll have to come back to this point.

Quote:
agrote wrote:
Lots of people believe in moral facts, or they at least use language which implies that there are moral facts. So my argument that there are no moral facts is not a case of strawman bashing.

People believe a lot of silly things.


So you admit that lots of people do believe in moral facts, then. So you no longer think I am strawman bashing?

Quote:
Why people believe those things, however, is a matter for psychologists, not philosophers.


I'm not asking why people believe in moral facts. I'm just saying that they do, and that the believe is incorrect. And I am a Psychologist (sort of). AND plenty of philosophers have adressed questions of why people believe what they do, such as Hume in his Treatise of Human Nature, and Dennet in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, who actually adresses the question of how morality may have evolved.

Quote:
If, then, you think that "moral facts" are perceptible in the same way that the color of a desk is perceptible, then one is entitled to ask whether you espousing something like Platonic forms.


Okay. I don't think I am espousing something like Platonic forms. See above.

Quote:
agrote wrote:
If a behaviour is neither right nor wrong, what is it? Can't I use the word "okay"? I don't think that "it is okay to do x" is the same as "it is right to do x".

If a behavior is neither right nor wrong, then it is morally indifferent. A morally indifferent act would be just as ok to do as not to do, so saying that it is ok to do something that is morally indifferent is telling us nothing that we did not already know. You can still say it, but I don't understand why you'd bother.


Okay, I'm happy to use the term "morally indifferent" if it makes things clearer.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 03:18 am
Re: There are no objective moral truths.
agrote wrote:
Thomas wrote:
agrote wrote:
Guilt is not the same as wrongness. Somebody with a very strict religious upbringing might feel guilty whenever they have sex, but that does not mean that sex is wrong.

I would interpret this as their religion leading them to misperceive the facts of morality.


And joefromchicago thinks I'm "strawman bashing"!!

On re-reading, I notice an analogy that answers your point even better: Seeing is not the same as the truth, either. People might see a near object as being larger than a remote one, but that doesn't actually mean the near object is larger.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 08:22 am
Re: There are no objective moral truths.
agrote wrote:
The particular book I mentioned makes a similar argument to the one I intend to make.

Then you may want to reconsider your topic.

agrote wrote:
It's not a post-graduate dissertation. It's a third-year undergraduate dissertation - possibly similar to what would be called a 'senior thesis' in America?

I suppose so.

agrote wrote:
I'm doing a joint-honours course with Psychology, so only half of my course has been Philosophy classes. And I just haven't selected any modules that mention Platonic forms, or anything else to do with Plato, so I've never been taught anything about him. I think I've heard of Platonic forms from a couple of introductory books, but that's all.

Then I'm glad I could help remedy that lacuna in your education.

agrote wrote:
I didn't say anything about "killing is wrong" implying that the wrongness of killing is a fact that can be percieved through the senses. Some people do talk of conscience being a 'sense' of right and wrong, but that isn't something that I have mentioned so far.

You imply that there are different kinds of facts. What are these different kinds of facts? Do you just mean facts that we can percieve, and facts that we can't percieve?

Yes. More specifically, we can talk about inductive or empirical facts and deductive or logical facts. I get the sense now that you think "moral facts" are of the latter kind, and I think that you're correct: if moral facts are anything, they can only be deductive or logical facts.

agrote wrote:
I am not arguing that saying "killing is wrong" implies that we can percieve some fact that killing is wrong. I am arguing that it implies that there is some fact that killing is wrong (just as there is some fact that "philosophy is an academic subject") - some fact that exists whether or not we percieve in it or believe in it.

For example, a Christian might believe that "God says that it is wrong to kill, and therefore it is wrong even for an atheist to kill" or something like that. They seem to be making an assertion that "it is factually true that it is objectively wrong to kill". It looks to me like such people believe in moral facts, or hold beliefs that imply the existence of moral facts. Such people are not made of straw.

OK.

agrote wrote:
So you admit that lots of people do believe in moral facts, then. So you no longer think I am strawman bashing?

I never said that you were. I said that it sounded like you were setting up a strawman argument. You should be careful about jumping to conclusions like that: that wouldn't do in a philosophy dissertation. No, that wouldn't do at all.

agrote wrote:
I'm not asking why people believe in moral facts. I'm just saying that they do, and that the believe is incorrect. And I am a Psychologist (sort of). AND plenty of philosophers have adressed questions of why people believe what they do, such as Hume in his Treatise of Human Nature, and Dennet in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, who actually adresses the question of how morality may have evolved.

When Hume was writing back in the 18th century, there really wasn't anything like "psychology," so he can be excused for blurring the distinction between it and philsophy. Dennett, for his part, is primarily interested in consciousness. That his interest has led him into evolutionary biology doesn't mean that he thinks that evolutionary biology can provide the framework for a theory of ethics. That would, in any event, likely involve an "is-ought" problem.

agrote wrote:
Okay. I don't think I am espousing something like Platonic forms. See above.

That's good.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 10:45 am
Re: There are no objective moral truths.
Thomas wrote:
agrote wrote:
Thomas wrote:
agrote wrote:
Guilt is not the same as wrongness. Somebody with a very strict religious upbringing might feel guilty whenever they have sex, but that does not mean that sex is wrong.

I would interpret this as their religion leading them to misperceive the facts of morality.


And joefromchicago thinks I'm "strawman bashing"!!

On re-reading, I notice an analogy that answers your point even better: Seeing is not the same as the truth, either. People might see a near object as being larger than a remote one, but that doesn't actually mean the near object is larger.


I agree with this. Where's the problem?
0 Replies
 
glitch417
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 11:26 pm
@agrote,
x = There are no moral truths

That would make x wrong and you're contradicting yourself..
People that believe this is hilarious to me...
What's the point in philosophy if there is no truth and there is no right and wrong?

I'm watching Clerks 2.. You never go ass to mouth... lolz
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Aug, 2009 10:31 am
@glitch417,
I may be repeating myself, but there are no moral FACTS, only moral IDEAS in the form of values. What is moral (and your culture) to you may be immoral to me (and my culture).
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 08:19 am
@glitch417,
glitch417 wrote:

x = There are no moral truths

That would make x wrong and you're contradicting yourself..

You're using "wrong" in two senses: (1) as the opposite of "correct;" and (2) as the opposite of "moral." That's a fallacy of equivocation.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 04:54 am
Quote:
I propose that there is no moral reality. Moral claims such as "it is wrong to kill" are not objectively true. They just reflect the views of particular societies, or the emotions of the speaker, or they are based on incorrect moral theories.

I'm sure by now, most of you realise that this topic was originally posted to justify Agrotes sexual tastes...though given his posts, it looks like he's advanced from just pubescent girls, to babies.

Quote:
That may be true. But I don't think that what you have just said is sufficient to conclude that "it is objectively true that it is wrong to rape babies for fun".

It could be a coincidence that all societies agree that baby-rape is wrong. You'd be better off finding some sort of explanation of what makes it wrong. It can't be wrong because everybody believes it is wrong, surely? By objectively wrong, I mean "wrong regardless of what we believe."

If it is objectively wrong to rape babies for fun, then it would still be wrong to rape babies even if all societies thought it was morally acceptable. Would you agree?

Societies are social, and protective of their young. There are some aberrations in humanity that do seek to harm the young though...but given that all humans have in common the need to see themselves as good, these aberrations seek to justify their actions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/04/2022 at 11:21:04