What could make morality objective?

[surreptitious57]

Which is why your claim that scientists subscribe to the subjective consensus theory of truth is ridiculous

Inter subjective consensus is a principle of the scientific method - scientists use it all the time - it is literally what they do
Also science does not deal in truth but in the study of observable phenomena and its properties so nothing to do with truth

[Immanuel Can]

Oh, and meanwhile, we're still waiting for a moral objectivist here to produce even one example of a moral fact...

Thou shalt not commit murder. Moral fact.

Done. What's the big deal?

[Dubious]

...except when you're commanded to kill by the giant Yahoo in the sky at which time all moral facts are suspended with exclusion of You shall have no other gods before me, that being unsuspendable by divine decree.

[surreptitious57]

Is abortion murder - some say yes and some say no - so how does the fact that murder is apparently a moral fact solve this conundrum
Not very well given how there is no objective methodology that can be employed to determine the answer to this question either way

And so the apparent acceptance of murder as absolutely objectively immoral now seems less absolute and objective and immoral
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin - enquiring minds would like to know - and so if you do know then please do tell

[RCSaunders]

Thou shalt not commit murder. Moral fact.

There's no murder?

[Immanuel Can]

Thou shalt not commit murder. Moral fact.

There's no murder?

That would be an empirical fact. Pete asked for a moral fact.

Moral facts are about the objective value status of choices. In choices, one always has at least two options, but the objective moral value of each choice is not the same.

In sum: you have option, and the power, to murder somebody; but you will objectively be a bad person if you do. That's a moral fact.

[Immanuel Can]

Is abortion murder

Yes.

[gaffo]

Morality is objective because it is a product of man the social animal via evolution.

all other social animals have thier "morals" too.

they nor we would exist if thier/our morals were not "right" and "objective"

evolution is the great kullar. social animals without the instinct of their species general population do not survive.

[gaffo]

Is abortion murder

Yes.

only after 24 weeks, prior to it is the same as squishing an ant.

[gaffo]

In sum: you have option, and the power, to murder somebody; but you will objectively be a bad person if you do. That's a moral fact.

A soldier in all wars - from any side - in al ltimes:

has freewill: - can refuse to allow being conscripted (or welcome it) - freewill, but at a price, a high one if one lives in a dictatorship (result is paying the price of either death or torchure or jail).

what percentage of soldiers -since recorded history of all wars and times - of the concripted were willing to pay that price? (i think maybe 1-percent) - the other 99 pussied out and thought "I dont agree with this war, but will kill an another for wearing the other uniform" because i was ordered to (or too brainwashed to thing for myself and so welcome war - WW1 anyone?).


the price of life for such the 99 percent is low, its lower than the risk of death or jail for refusing to kill (murder - its the same thing). one is just State sanctioned legalized murder by the elites (CCR - "fortunate one" song anyone?) who order pleab fools to do the killing for them using slogans/etc.

i have little respect for solders - esp in wars that do not matter (all of them except ww2)

i have more respect for the snakes (because they know there are suckers born every minute to serve as canon fodder) that ordered the fools to kill and die for them.

[Immanuel Can]

In sum: you have option, and the power, to murder somebody; but you will objectively be a bad person if you do. That's a moral fact.

A soldier in all wars - from any side...

This is all immaterial, g.

We can argue cases...is this, or that, really "murder." But if there is ANY such thing as a clear case of murder -- say, like smothering your child to death with a pillow -- and if that case is objectively wrong for a person to do, then there is a real, objective fact that murder is wrong.

The difficult or borderline cases won't change that fact. All it will do is allow us to argue over HOW the objective moral standard is to be understood, but will already concede that such a standard DOES, in fact, exist.

If ANY murder -- any at all -- is objectively wrong, then the statement "murder is objectively wrong" is true. And it's a fact that murder is wrong.

[gaffo]

In sum: you have option, and the power, to murder somebody; but you will objectively be a bad person if you do. That's a moral fact.

A soldier in all wars - from any side...

This is all immaterial, g.

disagree - its CORE Life is Life - and to take it because the guy or gal is wearing the wrong unform and nothing more (not raping your kid etc...) - just affirming "i was just following orders" mentality of a bot.

are you a Bot Mr Kant?

you have a problem killing a clump of cells, but not the pregant women on the field of battle?

for your "Dear Leader" ordered you too, and you allowed yourself to remove your own brain to be concripted in a dumb war.........


so it ok!!!!!!!!!!!

oh but that clump of cells!!!!!!!!!!! oh no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

such hypocrisy!

We can argue cases...is this, or that, really "murder." But if there is ANY such thing as a clear case of murder -- say, like smothering your child to death with a pillow -- and if that case is objectively wrong for a person to do, then there is a real, objective fact that murder is wrong.

and extreme cases where euthasia may be the moral thing to do?

I read about this horrific case of a 13 yr old girl that was burned alive - after being torctured, a hunter found her - 90 percent burned - skin sloffing off her body. he of course found aid, and of course she died a couple of days later - no hope for more - 2 days of futile pain.

do you think you would do the same as that hunter, or you put a bullet in her to end her pain?

if you did the latter would that be an act of evil or mercy?

The difficult or borderline cases won't change that fact.

there is nothing borderline about dumb wars nor dumb soldiers that partake and kill others that they do not know nor offended them.

Iraqnam and Veitnam were to such wars - dumb solders killing others they have no grievence toward (other than wearing the other's uniform)

but if you think dumb wars and being a bot and following orders from folks that get 5 deferals and sit fat and happy trillions of miles behind the lines...................you are bot, more robot than man.

[henry quirk]

Actually, Pete: you're the only one waitin'...

[Veritas Aequitas]

Proposition: moral subjectivism is ultimately just a concealed nihilism.

Can anyone prove that wrong?

I would say that moral subjectivism is like a chicken without head running blindly.
It is also like a rudderless ship attempting to navigate in a storm and surrounded by rocks.

What I propose as most effective is secular objective moral model grounded on empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.

The theistic moral objectivity model is pseudo-morality and is based on absolute objectivity of a God which is delusional.

I agree the theistic moral objectivity leveraged on enforcement via a threat of Hell for non-compliance do work to an extent but it has its side effects of enabling potential terrible evils as in the case of the Islamic theistic moral model.

The Christianity's theistic moral model is also good to an extent but has its own fixed limitations of lesser evil laden elements, e.g. slavery, tribalism, us versus them, etc.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And the claim of moral nihilism - that nothing is objectively morally right or wrong - is trivially true and so inconsequential.

Do you see what that means? It means there's no reason to fret about moral nihilism, because it doesn't mean 'whatever anyone thinks is morally right or wrong actually is morally right or wrong'. Nothing actually, factually, objectively is morally right or wrong. Only deluded moral realists and objectivists think that. And they can't meet their burden of proof anyway.

Moral subjectivism is not only viable. It's the only rational moral position, because what it claims about morality is actually true.

So you agree the subjective moral impulses of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others who had committed genocides, mass murders, and terrible evils and insist their acts are "good", "virtuous" from their POV are morally rational?

Humans [subjects] are inherently moral beings with a faculty of morality within their brain. Thus there are secular objective moral oughts i.e. relative-objective within their psyche.
Because humans are subjective, ultimately whatever is objective intertwined with humans are fundamentally subjective.

I suggest you read Hume's Treatise and Enquiry re Morals to get an idea of what is relative objective moral facts.