What could make morality objective?

[FlashDangerpants]

Maybe sober up and try again tomorrow., I CBA with this nonsense when you're pissed up.

[attofishpi]

OH. OK. Insist I have been drinking as an excuse not to deal with your lies and misrepresntation below:

I see you are still determined to outthink yourself. Let's start with the first step perhaps.

Well, before we get going let me just point out that you have PROVEN yourself as a LIAR with no respect of what I state, in a similar fashion to Sculptor who ended up being banned.

You have already told me there are no objective values.

That's a lie or something perhaps I have overlooked - provide evidence.

Oh FFS here's the quote.

Ethics and Morality have NO objective value - always they will be subjective to situation and circumstance.

Don't be like this.

Where am I stating there are "NO objective values" ?

The context I provided was within ETHICS AND MORALITY --- not in ANYTHING.

So go on, PROVIDE an example of an objective value within ethics and morality.

..in context that means that it isn't objectively better to be alive than dead, nor objectively nicer to drink a cool beer in the shade than to dig a ditch under the hot sun.

..all of which (premise being a LIE) renders everything else that follows as garbage (GIGO).

We all like one option more than the other because of a shared subjective view that isn't right or wrong, true or false in any objective sense.

Thus far your expressions in this matter have tended towards the people of a society arriving together via consensus of what is moral within that society.

Are we correct this far? You should probably be able to correct any errors above with straight forward meaningful sentences.

Sure, but things can be considered right or wrong in a subjective sense where a key ingredient that has formed human society for millennia is concerned, ethics.

sort yourself out

..meaning WOT?

..that as usual an ad hominem response is sufficient for the 'elite' - those that wasted their time reading philosophical books without the intellect required to CHALLENGE any of it.

[FlashDangerpants]

OH. OK. Insist I have been drinking as an excuse not to deal with your lies and misrepresntation below:

You don't fool anyone, we can all tell you are drunk.

Well, before we get going let me just point out that you have PROVEN yourself as a LIAR with no respect of what I state, in a similar fashion to Sculptor who ended up being banned.




That's a lie or something perhaps I have overlooked - provide evidence.

Oh FFS here's the quote.

Ethics and Morality have NO objective value - always they will be subjective to situation and circumstance.

Don't be like this.

Where am I stating there are "NO objective values" ?

The context I provided was within ETHICS AND MORALITY --- not in ANYTHING.

This is the ethics sub, ethics is the correct context here.

So go on, PROVIDE an example of an objective value within ethics and morality.

That would be a strange thing for a moral-anitrealist like myself to be doing. So I shan't.

..meaning WOT?

..that as usual an ad hominem response is sufficient for the 'elite' - those that wasted their time reading philosophical books without the intellect required to CHALLENGE any of it.

I made a perfectly nice attempt to wrangle your argument out into something passable as a philosophical position. You are being abusively drunk at me in return. Again.

[Atla]

Whatever is true or false is contingent upon a specific human-based framework and system.
As such, whatever is claimed to be true or false must always be qualified to a specific human-based framework and system [FS].

Erm. No. My whole point point is that something isn't or wasn't the case because I or we or all of us say it is or was. Features of reality - facts - just are or were the case.

I wonder if these two can even imagine what the other one is saying? Can VA imagine realism? Can PH imagine antirealism? Simply entertain the possibility? Usually people would have agreed to disagree like 5 years ago, after realizing that they are forever stuck at an impasse. But these guys just repeat themselves for the 300th time like it was the first time.

[promethean75]

All forum philosophers go through this stage at some point, and recovery can be a long, painful process. All we can do is be here for them and wait it out, Atla. Vampire Asparagus and Peter Groove Holmes will be fine.

[CIN]

This shit-flinging crap is so not why I come to this forum.

[Atla]

This shit-flinging crap is so not why I come to this forum.

Adam hurts Bob, which is pleasurable for Adam and painful for Bob. What is the (objective?) evaluation of this action?

Humans in the early 21st century live a hedonistic lifestyle, which is pleasurable for them. But they also destroy the planet, which is painful for humans living 100 years later. What is the (objective?) evaluation of this action?

[CIN]

Adam hurts Bob, which is pleasurable for Adam and painful for Bob. What is the (objective?) evaluation of this action?

Humans in the early 21st century live a hedonistic lifestyle, which is pleasurable for them. But they also destroy the planet, which is painful for humans living 100 years later. What is the (objective?) evaluation of this action?

Since we have no evidence to the contrary, we should assume that Adam and Bob have the same moral standing. However, by causing Bob pain in order to give himself pleasure, Adam is treating Bob as having a lower moral standing than his own. Ex hypothesi this is not the case, therefore Adam's treatment of Bob is wrong (i.e. incorrect).

A similar argument can be constructed for your second scenario.

[attofishpi]

All forum philosophers go through this stage at some point, and recovery can be a long, painful process. All we can do is be here for them and wait it out, Atla. Vampire Asparagus and Peter Groove Holmes will be fine.

Mate, if you had been paying attention I think you'll find myself and Peter Holmes are pretty much on the same page (after sorting out some oversight of his statements on my part and my clearing up where I actually stand in relation to the subject title).

Flash, as usual is consistently looking for ways to find argument where there isn't one by MISREPRESENTING my statements.

You have already told me there are no objective values.

That's a lie or something perhaps I have overlooked - provide evidence.

Oh FFS here's the quote.

Ethics and Morality have NO objective value - always they will be subjective to situation and circumstance.

Am I wrong somewhere there?

It's clearly in the quote that FDP provided of my statement that I declare there are NO OJECTIVE VALUES in Ethics and Morality...whereas his original statement above attempted to misrepresent me as stating I believe there are NO objective values (in anything).

[FlashDangerpants]

All forum philosophers go through this stage at some point, and recovery can be a long, painful process. All we can do is be here for them and wait it out, Atla. Vampire Asparagus and Peter Groove Holmes will be fine.

Mate, if you had been paying attention I think you'll find myself and Peter Holmes are pretty much on the same page (after sorting out some oversight of his statements on my part and my clearing up where I actually stand in relation to the subject title).

Flash, as usual is consistently looking for ways to find argument where there isn't one by MISREPRESENTING my statements.

That's a lie or something perhaps I have overlooked - provide evidence.

Oh FFS here's the quote.

Ethics and Morality have NO objective value - always they will be subjective to situation and circumstance.

Am I wrong somewhere there?

It's clearly in the quote that FDP provided of my statement that I declare there are NO OJECTIVE VALUES in Ethics and Morality...whereas his original statement above attempted to misrepresent me as stating I believe there are NO objective values (in anything).

This is the ethics sub you hopeless idiot.

Although, which values do you think are objective?

[Atla]

Adam hurts Bob, which is pleasurable for Adam and painful for Bob. What is the (objective?) evaluation of this action?

Humans in the early 21st century live a hedonistic lifestyle, which is pleasurable for them. But they also destroy the planet, which is painful for humans living 100 years later. What is the (objective?) evaluation of this action?

Since we have no evidence to the contrary, we should assume that Adam and Bob have the same moral standing. However, by causing Bob pain in order to give himself pleasure, Adam is treating Bob as having a lower moral standing than his own. Ex hypothesi this is not the case, therefore Adam's treatment of Bob is wrong (i.e. incorrect).

A similar argument can be constructed for your second scenario.

I agree it's wrong, however I'm a subjectivist. How can I know that (objective?) evaluation is more or less aligned with the inherent human moral sense, and not with something else? For example we could be living in a sadistic universe where maximum pain should be caused whenever possible, maybe life is here to be tortured.

[attofishpi]

All forum philosophers go through this stage at some point, and recovery can be a long, painful process. All we can do is be here for them and wait it out, Atla. Vampire Asparagus and Peter Groove Holmes will be fine.

Mate, if you had been paying attention I think you'll find myself and Peter Holmes are pretty much on the same page (after sorting out some oversight of his statements on my part and my clearing up where I actually stand in relation to the subject title).

Flash, as usual is consistently looking for ways to find argument where there isn't one by MISREPRESENTING my statements.

Oh FFS here's the quote.

Am I wrong somewhere there?

It's clearly in the quote that FDP provided of my statement that I declare there are NO OJECTIVE VALUES in Ethics and Morality...whereas his original statement above attempted to misrepresent me as stating I believe there are NO objective values (in anything).

This is the ethics sub you hopeless idiot.

So that was your reason for posting this about me: "You have already told me there are no objective values."

[accelafine]

695 pages and still no answer

[FlashDangerpants]

Mate, if you had been paying attention I think you'll find myself and Peter Holmes are pretty much on the same page (after sorting out some oversight of his statements on my part and my clearing up where I actually stand in relation to the subject title).

Flash, as usual is consistently looking for ways to find argument where there isn't one by MISREPRESENTING my statements.




Am I wrong somewhere there?

It's clearly in the quote that FDP provided of my statement that I declare there are NO OJECTIVE VALUES in Ethics and Morality...whereas his original statement above attempted to misrepresent me as stating I believe there are NO objective values (in anything).

This is the ethics sub you hopeless idiot.

So that was your reason for posting this about me: "You have already told me there are no objective values."

Normally, when sane and sober people say that there are no objective moral values it is because values aren't objective. But go on, tell me an objective value that isn't a moral value.

[attofishpi]

This is the ethics sub you hopeless idiot.

So that was your reason for posting this about me: "You have already told me there are no objective values."

Normally, when sane and sober people say that there are no objective moral values it is because values aren't objective.

PRECISELY - precisely what I was stating per the ENTIRE QUOTE that you misrepresented.

So, WHY did you mispresent what I was stating?

PS. Interesting how you feel the need to climb out of bed at 03am to deal with a post from an 'insane drunk'.