What could make morality objective?

[Belinda]

Harmony with nature is the ultimate reason for morality
Humans are wired not to be enslaved

[ Slavery is morally wrong ]

Harmony with nature is the ultimate reason for morality
Humans are wired to enslave other humans

[ Slavery is morally just ]

Harmony with nature is the ultimate reason for morality
Nobody knows what human nature is

Practical co existence with other humans is the ultimate reason for morality
Harmony with nature is a far less important reason by comparison

Slavery does not have to be physical it can be psychological too
Some human beings have a natural disposition to being enslaved
Some human beings have a natural disposition to enslaving others
Some human beings have a natural disposition for neither of these

Psychology and neuro science do not fully know what human nature is
Common traits do exist but each individual is entirely unique and complex and no two personalities are the same

Harmony with nature includes harmony with other people; humans are part of nature.

Are you raising a straw man?I never claimed slavery is limited to physical chains, or prison bars, or physical violence.

Nobody, including psychologists and neuroscientists, know what human nature is. There may not be such a thing. Human nature may be infinitely plastic for all we can know.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Both is true to some degree.
Buy if your concept of morality were true, morality would be as static as the shape of our fingernails; it is not. Whilst we have an innate propensity to act in moral ways, there is nothing in the genes to demand which direction that morality will take. As all human fingernails are much the same, it is clear from studying culture and society in the world today and throughout history that morals are DIFFERENT. Not only are they shaped slightly differently but moral rules can be the exact opposite of each other.
Holmes has the sense of it. It is pointless debating the value of this moral rule or the other by assuming its all innate. There is nothing we can do to effect innate propensity. Humans are moral animals. What is important is arguing the political and moral distinctions that plague humanity.

Your view are too rigid.

Pure projection.
This is the laugh of the week

Noises as usual.
Where is your intellectual integrity?
Provide rational counters to my argument.
You cannot because that is beyond your ken.

[Sculptor]

Both is true to some degree.
Buy if your concept of morality were true, morality would be as static as the shape of our fingernails; it is not. Whilst we have an innate propensity to act in moral ways, there is nothing in the genes to demand which direction that morality will take. As all human fingernails are much the same, it is clear from studying culture and society in the world today and throughout history that morals are DIFFERENT. Not only are they shaped slightly differently but moral rules can be the exact opposite of each other.
Holmes has the sense of it. It is pointless debating the value of this moral rule or the other by assuming its all innate. There is nothing we can do to effect innate propensity. Humans are moral animals. What is important is arguing the political and moral distinctions that plague humanity.

Your view are too rigid.

Pure projection.
This is the laugh of the week

I asked for one simple example. Just one. You have failed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your view are too rigid.

Pure projection.
This is the laugh of the week

I asked for one simple example. Just one. You have failed.

Surely you are not a simple-ton?
If the issue of Morality is that simple, we would not have stretched it to 267 pages and so many other threads.

[Sculptor]

Pure projection.
This is the laugh of the week

I asked for one simple example. Just one. You have failed.

Surely you are not a simple-ton?
If the issue of Morality is that simple, we would not have stretched it to 267 pages and so many other threads.

It's complicated because morality is relative and subjective, idiot.
That's your problem, everyone else here seems fine with the reality of it.

PS
267 pages of you saying rubbish, people telling you its rubbish and you ignoring them and repeating yourself is not that hard to understand, actually.

[surreptitious57]

If the issue of Morality is that simple we would not have stretched it to 267 pages and so many other threads

The issue of morality from a very fundamental perspective only asks one question is it objective or subjective ?
All other questions about it arise from this one but although its a deceptively simple question there are no such things as simple answers
No one can agree on the origin of morality which would answer the question and whether one type is or is not superior to any other type
For this reason it is very subjective and as such not possible to get universal agreement on it at any time so it is a subject eternal in scope

[Sculptor]

If the issue of Morality is that simple we would not have stretched it to 267 pages and so many other threads

The issue of morality from a very fundamental perspective only asks one question is it objective or subjective ?
All other questions about it arise from this one but although its a deceptively simple question there are no such things as simple answers
No one can agree on the origin of morality which would answer the question and whether one type is or is not superior to any other type

No . this would not answer the question.
The question is bogus. It's like asking is water dry. Morality is a contingent set of ever changing rules imposed by social pressure to make norms for people to follow. These are unavoidably the source of personal, sectional and experiential interpretation. There has never been a moral code that did not have codisils and cultural and historical changes. There is no basis for it being objective. It has to be relative and subjective else it is a meanig less and irrelevant set of rules based on nothing important.

For this reason it is very subjective and as such not possible to get universal agreement on it at any time so it is a subject eternal in scope

A objective fact has to be obvious to all who hear it. If there were a single irrefutable objective moral rule then it ought to submit to be stated.
Yet nothing of the sort has been offered.

[henry quirk]

A objective fact has to be obvious to all who hear it.

A man belongs to himself.


If there were a single irrefutable objective moral rule then it ought to submit to be stated.

It's wrong to leash (enslave) a man.

[surreptitious57]

There is no basis for it being objective

Those who believe it objective would disagree with this
To them there is equally no basis for it being subjective
So the question remains unresolved like many philosophical questions do

The best one can do therefore is to make the most logical argument for their own position and leave it there
But the validity or soundness of any argument only depends on the argument anyway not on how popular it is

[Peter Holmes]

There is no basis for it being objective

Those who believe it objective would disagree with this
To them there is equally no basis for it being subjective
So the question remains unresolved like many philosophical questions do

The best one can do therefore is to make the most logical argument for their own position and leave it there
But the validity or soundness of any argument only depends on the argument anyway not on how popular it is

Nope. Those who claim morality is objective - that there is a moral reality about which there are moral facts - have to back up the claim with evidence and sound argument. So far: nothing, zero, nada, tipota. And while that may not mean they're wrong, it does mean there's no reason to think they're right - and they shouldn't either.

And if claims about moral rightness and wrongness aren't objective, then they must be subjective. It's one or the other.

[Sculptor]

There is no basis for it being objective

Those who believe it objective would disagree with this
To them there is equally no basis for it being subjective

I think not. Since they always fail to offer a suggestion for that basis. As far as it being subjective, that only requires people to disagree with any or all moral rules.
It is a completely zero sum game for the objectivists, and its all in favour of the subjective.

So the question remains unresolved like many philosophical questions do.

No, again.
The question is not even a question. Saying morality is objective is not even wrong it is simply a misconception of reality. Like asking how dry is water.

The best one can do therefore is to make the most logical argument for their own position and leave it there
But the validity or soundness of any argument only depends on the argument anyway not on how popular it is

That is the point. When VALUES are concerned logic might be helpful but not conclusive since all moral precepts, propositions and assumptions are values laden and subjective.
Sadly objecitivism relies wholly on the popularity of whatever moral proposition you start with.
Subjectivity simply does not.
This is not a case of symmetry here.

[Skepdick]

I think not. Since they always fail to offer a suggestion for that basis. As far as it being subjective, that only requires people to disagree with any or all moral rules.
It is a completely zero sum game for the objectivists, and its all in favour of the subjective.

Disagreement is all it takes to flip the table, eh?

Objectively you don't want me to shoot you in the face. Sign all the indemnity forms necessary and I'll gladly help you win the argument.

Real stakes cure sophistry.

[Sculptor]

I think not. Since they always fail to offer a suggestion for that basis. As far as it being subjective, that only requires people to disagree with any or all moral rules.
It is a completely zero sum game for the objectivists, and its all in favour of the subjective.

Disagreement is all it takes to flip the table, eh?

Objectively you don't want me to shoot you in the face. Sign all the indemnity forms necessary and I'll gladly help you win the argument.

Real stakes cure sophistry.

The fact that I do not want you to shoot me in the face is purely subjective, idiot.

[Skepdick]

The fact that I do not want you to shoot me in the face is purely subjective, idiot.

Subjective fact.



Indeed. You are a fucking idiot.

[Sculptor]

The fact that I do not want you to shoot me in the face is purely subjective, idiot.

Subjective fact.



Indeed. You are a fucking idiot.

F0ck off to the dictionary moron.
You are just making an arse of yourself