"NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

[Immanuel Can]

If any moral objectivist here can show how to falsify a moral claim, please do so, enlighten us all, and end this debate.

It was in my last message.

Sorry, I missed it. Was it that a moral assertion can be falsified by showing that, if a god thinks it's false, then it's false?

To reprise, then, you wrote...

The problem with believing there are moral facts, independent of opinion, is that anyone can think their moral opinions are facts, and nobody can prove them wrong - that their moral assertions are false.

My answer was...

This is true, and would be a necessary concern, IF not objective basis for morality exists. Then a "moral opinion" is just that...a mere opinion.

But if your assumption is not objectively true, and morality is actually grounded in the objective standard of the character of God, then a "moral opinion" is only good if it is more proximate to that ideal than the contrary opinion is. Opinions, then, could be better or worse...especially moral opinions...and could be judged objectively.

You continued...

For example, if the claim 'involuntary euthanasia is right' is factual, how could it be falsified?

And I added...

It would be falsified because God objectively both gives and assesses the value of a human life. The people pre-emptively taking such a life would be guilty of usurping the function and authority of God (or, as we say, "playing God"), and thus would be morally reprehensible...whether it was their opinion that they were or not.

In other words, in form it would be stated as a fact, but in value it would be objectively morally wrong. The fact is that it would be evil.

[Univalence]

It would be falsified because God objectively both gives and assesses the value of a human life. The people pre-emptively taking such a life would be guilty of usurping the function and authority of God (or, as we say, "playing God"), and thus would be morally reprehensible...whether it was their opinion that they were or not.

In other words, in form it would be stated as a fact, but in value it would be objectively morally wrong. The fact is that it would be evil.

So if one God decrees that murder is right (humans are worthless), and another God decrees murder is wrong (humans are precious).

Which God should we elect to be our "One True God"?

[surreptitious57]

The moment you draw the subjective / objective distinction - you are arguing for dualism

If morality is in my head . And the contents of my head are empirical facts then morality is objective
Morality is an actual object . Arrangement of neurons

Because that is what objective means . Empirical testable and falsifiable

The contents of your head are not empirical facts as you have previously stated that only you can know what is inside your head
But if you communicate to me what is inside your head and I think you are telling me the truth then we can compare moralities
You would have to think I was telling you the truth as well as only I can know what is inside my head

We would then find some point of difference on morality because we both have free will and therefore do not think exactly the same
A point of difference demonstrates subjectivity so morality is subjective - but this does not contradict the objective fact that it exists
So its existence is objective but it is different for everyone from a subjective perspective

Your dualism argument does not reference this subtle distinction and so it is therefore false
Dualism is the mental / physical distinction of mind / body so is nothing to do with morality

The subjective / objective distinction pertains to the nature of morality NOT to the fact that it exists
Everyone accepts that it exists so it is an entirely non controversial point that is not even up for debate

[Peter Holmes]

It was in my last message.

Sorry, I missed it. Was it that a moral assertion can be falsified by showing that, if a god thinks it's false, then it's false?

To reprise, then, you wrote...

The problem with believing there are moral facts, independent of opinion, is that anyone can think their moral opinions are facts, and nobody can prove them wrong - that their moral assertions are false.

My answer was...

This is true, and would be a necessary concern, IF not objective basis for morality exists. Then a "moral opinion" is just that...a mere opinion.

But if your assumption is not objectively true, and morality is actually grounded in the objective standard of the character of God, then a "moral opinion" is only good if it is more proximate to that ideal than the contrary opinion is. Opinions, then, could be better or worse...especially moral opinions...and could be judged objectively.

You continued...

For example, if the claim 'involuntary euthanasia is right' is factual, how could it be falsified?

And I added...

It would be falsified because God objectively both gives and assesses the value of a human life. The people pre-emptively taking such a life would be guilty of usurping the function and authority of God (or, as we say, "playing God"), and thus would be morally reprehensible...whether it was their opinion that they were or not.

In other words, in form it would be stated as a fact, but in value it would be objectively morally wrong. The fact is that it would be evil.

This amounts to claiming a god's moral opinions are facts, which begs the question - moral objectivists tend to think the same.

You haven't shown how to falsify a moral assertion. It doesn't matter who makes the assertion. (The source of a factual assertion is irrelevant. It's either true or false.)

[Univalence]

The contents of your head are not empirical facts as you have previously stated that only you can know what is inside your head

Sure they are. When it comes to values/preferences there are ways and means.

Suppose a shop owner sets up a survey and asks all his customers "do you prefer vanilla or chocolate icecream?" and 80% of his customers answer "vanilla" on the survey. But then - he checks his books at the end of the month and 80% of customers bought chocolate, not vanilla.

So you have a problem. Do you believe what people SAY or do you believe what people DO?

Economist call this stated vs revealed preferences.

But if you communicate to me what is inside your head and I think you are telling me the truth then we can compare moralities
You would have to think I was telling you the truth as well as only I can know what is inside my head

It's not as simple as that. I don't think you know what's inside your head. You might tell me what's on your mind at this very moment, but that's not all that's in your head.

Actions speak louder than words and all that...

We would then find some point of difference on morality because we both have free will and therefore do not think exactly the same
A point of difference demonstrates subjectivity so morality is subjective - but this does not contradict the objective fact that it exists
So its existence is objective but it is different for everyone from a subjective perspective

Or. We both agree that murder is wrong. And then you murder somebody.

Or when your wife tells you that "everything is fine" but you know it means something else...

Your dualism argument does not reference this subtle distinction and so it is therefore false
Dualism is the mental / physical distinction of mind / body so is nothing to do with morality

The mind/body distinction is the same as the subjective/objective distinction.

If morality is wired in your brain and it's empirically verifiable. It's objective. Because that's what "objective" means.

The subjective / objective distinction pertains to the nature of morality NOT to the fact that it exists
Everyone accepts that it exists so it is an entirely non controversial point that is not even up for debate

It's not up for debate? So it's dogma then.

Here's the pertinent question: can you change your morality? If you believe murder is wrong, could you change your belief to murder is right?
If you answer "yes" - I'd like to see some evidence...

[Univalence]

The source of a factual assertion is irrelevant. It's either true or false.

That's a false dichotomy.

It's true, false, true until falsified or false until truified.

"Earth is flat" was true. "Earth is round" was false. Then it changed.

So exact same problem then.

"Murder is wrong" could be true. "Murder is right" could be false. And it could change.

Perhaps what you are really looking for is some system of morality in which murder is wrong and remains wrong? We have that already.

[surreptitious57]

Here is the pertinent question : can you change your morality ? If you believe murder is wrong could you change your belief to murder is right ?

Morality changes over time but your basic moral code is more grounded because its the foundation of all your moral values
You could however go from thinking murder is wrong to thinking it right but it would have to be entirely justifiable though
You could not simply convince yourself it was right just because you wanted to murder someone as that is not how it works
Not a very good example anyway because even murderers know that murder is wrong unless they happen to be psychopaths

[Univalence]

Morality changes over time

OK, show me where it changed. When in the history of humanity did murder change from being right to being wrong?

[surreptitious57]

Its a bit more subtle than that unfortunately - more shades of grey than black and white

As far as I know murder has never been perfectly legal at any time but the further back in history
you go the more brutal human existence was and the more acceptable murder was compared to today
That is in times past you could be legally killed for something you would not be legally killed for today

In many countries the death penalty has been abolished and so you cannot be legally killed for anything at all
So this is the best time to live in because the more advanced that civilisation becomes then the less brutal it is

[Immanuel Can]

This amounts to claiming a god's moral opinions are facts,

No, obviously not. God doesn't have "opinions," manifestly. He would simply know what the right action or function for everything He created is. That wouldn't be opinion, but certainty on His part. And it's a certainty He could convey to us. To achieve the purpose intended by God is "moral," and to act contrary to that is "immoral." And that would be objective, not subjective. It would be objectively wrong to, say, "murder," whether we liked that or even whether or not everybody agreed it was.

Particular moral precepts, then, would be verified or falsified based on God's revelation of His character. That which suits God's intention is good. That which does not is evil.

Of course, if God does not exist, then there is no answer to what a thing is "for," because nobody intended anything by a particular kind of thing existing. Chaos has no opinions -- moral, or otherwise. So then, a moral axiom wouldn't merely be unfalsifiable; it would be incoherent. How could anything be "right" in a random universe?

And, of course, how could anything be "wrong" either -- even in some personal, instrumental or social sense? For the indifferent universe doesn't owe us anything personally, does not care about collectives, and does not have any opinion about whether or not our projects "work". So Egoism, Social Constructionism and Pragmatism would fail too.

[henry quirk]

You wrote: "The problem with believing there are moral facts, independent of opinion, is that anyone can think their moral opinions are facts, and nobody can prove them wrong - that their moral assertions are false. For example, if the claim 'involuntary euthanasia is right' is factual, how could it be falsified?"

You're right.

But, as I say, in the context of the thread: 'Now, we can't currently 'know' what kind of reality we're in. We are, as you might say, left to our own devices. All the more reason to -- as I say -- err on safety's side, and act as though reality has a bonafide moral dimension, one that's firm and true and unwavering. Even if a fiction, presuming 'personhood' for the unborn can't be a bad thing.'

[RCSaunders]

No, the argument stands. If it is wrong to ever interfere in the life of another, it is without exception.

There is not a single human being on this planet who believes that. Not even you.

It wouldn't matter to the argument that if anything excuses interference in the life of others, then there is no principle that all interference is wrong.

Nevertheless, that all interference in the life of anyone not harming or threatening me is wrong is what I believe and practice.

Ok, then #1 is rejected unanimously. Show me a person who sits idly and watches their parents be murdered. Show me a person who sits idly and watches their daughter be raped.

Interfering my life is using force to hurt or harm my person, my property, or those that matter to me.

Did you leave out "the protection of family" on purpose? What about the prevention of never-ending blood feuds?

I included a small number of examples of those things that the self-righteous meddlers use as excuses to meddle in others lives. Those members of one's own family that matter to one may be defended, because the one doing the harm has already interfered in their life.

Then you would have to explain how this this happened.
You are certainly not naive enough to think that 70 per 100000 murder rate is the same as 1 per 100000 murder rate.
Or are you as statistically-challenged as Peter?

Nobody is a statistic and no statistic pertains to any individual. No law protects me, nor should it. It is my responsibility to protect myself.

[henry quirk]

You wrote: "I want to re-state the moral argument against moral objectivism. The problem with believing there are moral facts (independent of opinion) is that anyone can think their moral opinions are facts, and nobody can prove that they're wrong, by falsifying their moral assertions."

Let me state the argument against moral subjectivism: The problem with believing there are no moral facts (independent of opinion) is that anyone can think their moral opinions are facts, and nobody can prove that they're wrong, by falsifying their moral assertions.

[RCSaunders]

By the way, are you comfortable with a law that requires people to report to the government any violation of a government law?

The purpose of laws is not to be perfectly enforced ....

You'd be hard pressed to convince me that laws have any other purpose than to accrue power and wealth to those who make them and use them to control others.

You also evaded a specific answer to the question. You don't have to answer it, of course. I'll be disappointed if you don't but I can live with disappointment.

[Univalence]

You'd be hard pressed to convince me that laws have any other purpose than to accrue power and wealth to those who make them and use them to control others.

Well, if you can't be convinced otherwise - then why engage you further? You admit to your dogma...