Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

[Age]

We have to distinguish between types of "rightness" here.

What the above definition indicates is instrumental 'rightness,' which is only the utility of an option in attaining one's goal. But if that goal is "maximal murder" or "effective embezzling," then it's not a 'righness' that is moral. It's effective, but for an evil end.

Nothing about instrumental rightness guarantees moral rightness. A guillotine is the "right" instrument for removing many heads in a short time, perhaps; it might "help a person attain their highest goal more than every other choice that was available to them at the time". But is chopping off heads "morally right" merely because it works? Or is chopping off heads still objectively morally wrong?

I think you're going to say the latter, are you not?

You can make the word "right" more abstract by making it relative to a goal that is not necessarily the highest goal.

For example, you can say the word "right" means "an attribute of the choice that helps some person attain some goal more than every other choice that was available to them at the time."

You can, then, talk about different types of rightness depending on the chosen goal. You can, for example, say that moral rightness is relative to a goal that is captured by the statement, "Inflict the least amount of damage to other living beings." That's all perfectly fine.

The problem is that the purpose of life is to attain one's highest goal ( regardless of what that highest goal is. ) Every decision maker has a goal that is at the highest position in the hierarchy of goals. Otherwise, he has no basis upon which to make decisions and is therefore not a decision maker. And all decisions are ultimately made with the aim to attain the highest goal. In other words, all other goals that decision makers are pursuing are freely chosen sub-goals that they hope will help them attain the highest goal.

So the most important type of rightness would be the one that pertains to attaining the highest goal -- I call that type of rightness "absolute rightness". Thus, if what is morally wrong is absolutely right, then doing what is morally wrong is absolutely right, i.e. it's what the person should do. Others may like it or not, but that's simply the reality of it.

In reality, taking care of other people is not merely morally right, but also absolutely right, so it's not really an issue that many people make it out to be.

If 'it' is, supposedly, not really issue, then why can you not formulate 'it' into a 'sound and valid argument', here?

[Age]

If we just put X there, most people (including me) will agree in three seconds that X can be seen as objective. Not much to add to that, case closed. Imo not really a theory that needed years of your attention.

As I said, you're a presumptive imbecile.

You've joined the ranks of Skepdick and Age.

I will not challenge 'this one' to name just one presumption that I have, supposedly, made, here, and which is not the actual Truth of things, because 'this one' could not do it. As it would prove so, for me, if I asked it to.

[Age]

Every "ought" statement has an equivalent "is" statement.

For example, "Humans ought to eat" is equivalent to "The best decision for humans is to eat".

Given that every "is" statement, insofar it is a proper statement, describes something that exists, it follows that "ought" statements, insofar they are proper statements, do the same -- they describe reality.

( A statement is said to be proper if it's propositional, i.e. if it has a valid reference to a portion of reality and if it's representing that portion of reality with a meaningful symbol. )

Still, "ought" statements can only be statements of value, i.e. statements about what is good for one or more people. They cannot be statements of something that is not a value, e.g. statements such as "The pot is hot."

The distinction between factual and value statements remains but only in the sense that so-called factual statements are merely non-value statements. If by "fact" we mean "something that is the case", both types of statements represent facts.

Still, we can make a distinction between objective and subjective facts. A fact is said to be objective if it's mind-independent. Otherwise, it is subjective.

Once again, A fact is said to be objective for other reasons, as well.

Just like absolutely any thing can be 'said to be' absolutely any thing.

One day you might soon recognize and realize 'this'.

We can also make a distinction between objective and subjective statements. An objective statement is a statement about objective facts. The opposite is a subjective statement.

But, once more, what you say is 'said to be' an objective fact may not be an 'objective fact' at all to another nor even '
everyone else.

Factual statements can be objective or subjective. That's obvious. But what about value statements? They too can be objective or subjective. It all depends on whether we're talking about what is good for an actual person or what is good for a possible person. If a value statement is about an actual person, it's necessarily mind dependent. What's good for an actual person depends on the highest goal of that person, which is in the mind of that person, so it's mind dependent. On the other hand, if a value statement is about a possible person, it's necessarily mind independent. What's good for a possible person does not depend on any existing mind, so it's mind independent.

The reason you are not getting agreement, here, because you, still, can not see the error of 'your way', here.

[Age]

We have to distinguish between types of "rightness" here.

What the above definition indicates is instrumental 'rightness,' which is only the utility of an option in attaining one's goal. But if that goal is "maximal murder" or "effective embezzling," then it's not a 'righness' that is moral. It's effective, but for an evil end.

Nothing about instrumental rightness guarantees moral rightness. A guillotine is the "right" instrument for removing many heads in a short time, perhaps; it might "help a person attain their highest goal more than every other choice that was available to them at the time". But is chopping off heads "morally right" merely because it works? Or is chopping off heads still objectively morally wrong?

I think you're going to say the latter, are you not?

You can make the word "right" more abstract by making it relative to a goal that is not necessarily the highest goal.

"Highest"? Well, if you invoke that term, it invites the question, "highest in what scale?" It implies that "high" is already established, and that everybody agrees what the "highest" goal is...

But do they? What evidence do you have that people all regard the same goal as "highest," or that they use the same scale?

For example, you can say the word "right" means "an attribute of the choice that helps some person attain some goal more than every other choice that was available to them at the time."

Well, I don't. You did, of course, as the words are your own: but I wouldn't. I was pointing out that such a definition is merely instrumental, not moral.

You can, then, talk about different types of rightness depending on the chosen goal. You can, for example, say that moral rightness is relative to a goal that is captured by the statement, "Inflict the least amount of damage to other living beings." That's all perfectly fine.

But people don't agree that's the goal, or that it's the "highest" value. Some thing the "collective good" is so high that it justifies inflicting confiscation, torture, gulags, and death on other people. Some say that extending the realm of "Allah's" authority is higher than any bad to be found in killing infidels. So people don't at all agree that what you and I might take to be "highest" is really the "highest" sort of moral goal.

...and all decisions are ultimately made with the aim to attain the highest goal...

Well, relative to SOME goal, at least, if not the highest one. But we're still left with the problem of proving that what we regard as a "high" goal really, objectively, is the "highest." And how do we go about that?

... taking care of other people is not merely morally right, but also absolutely right,...

But again, people are far from agreed on this point. You and I might accept it, but we owe anybody else a rational explanation of why we're right. Because plenty of people think that "taking care" of others might involve things you and I deplore, like, say, "purifying the race" (Nazism) or "eliminating the genetically inferior" (Social Darwinism) or encouraging potential mothers to murder their babies in the womb (abortion)..or taking their enfeebled elders out of the world (euthanasia).

Why did you presume, and/or believe, that "magnus anderson" 'deplores' what you do, here?

[Magnus Anderson]

Did Age just wrote 10+ responses to what I wrote?

What's wrong with this guy?

[Immanuel Can]

Did Age just wrote 10+ responses to what I wrote?

What's wrong with this guy?

I haven't decided. Either he's actually a compulsive, antisocial, delusional teenager, or else he's got a serious personality problem and an IQ around room temperature.

Either way, what he writes is not worth anybody's time. There's never anything to it.

[promethean75]

So nobody in a room with Age would ever complain about it being too hot in there, I gather.

[Age]

Did Age just wrote 10+ responses to what I wrote?

No.

What made you presume and/or believe such a thing?

What's wrong with this guy?

Here is another prime example of 'trying to' deflect by just not answering and clarifying some clarifying questions posed, and asked to it.

Again, 'this one' will not just answer question and clarify openly and honestly because 'deep down' it knows if it did, then it would have to present its own contradictions, here.

[Age]

Did Age just wrote 10+ responses to what I wrote?

What's wrong with this guy?

I haven't decided. Either he's actually a compulsive, antisocial, delusional teenager, or else he's got a serious personality problem and an IQ around room temperature.

Either way, what he writes is not worth anybody's time. There's never anything to it.

Here 'we' have 'another one' who is just way too closed to be able see what it calls 'any thing'.

See, 'these people' really hated their twisted and distorted beliefs being exposed for what they really are. So, this is why they would 'try' absolutely any thing to deflect, and deceive, here.

[Magnus Anderson]

From another thread. Of course, you can't expect Age to stay on topic, can you?

If you are too weak and/or just too scared to present the actual definition/s, which you are using, then do no whinge, whine, nor complain when others just keep not understanding you, here.

you complained and complained that absolutely no one was agreeing with you in one of your other threads. I explained to you why others were not agreeing with you, but, again, because of your incessant beliefs you could not hear, and comprehend, and so instead just kept on whinging.

"If you're too weak" and "If you're just too scared" are personal attacks. They have no place in serious discussions.

The terms "whinge" and "whine" are excessively combative, and as such, they too have no place in serious discussions.

I have already addressed your claim as to why a number of people, including yourself, have responded in this thread the way they did. It has nothing to do with me not defining the key terms. I have defined the key terms in the opening post of this thread. It has to do with them being excessively combative, hyper critical, lazy, impatient and stubborn,

You're trying too hard to defend yourself by accusing the other of your own guilt.

[Age]

From another thread. Of course, you can't expect Age to stay on topic, can you?

Once again, what 'we' have, here, is another prime example of one allowing their already obtained beliefs and presumptions to distort their ability to see and hear, absolutely clearly, and so another example of 'confirmation bias' at work, and at play, here.

If you are too weak and/or just too scared to present the actual definition/s, which you are using, then do no whinge, whine, nor complain when others just keep not understanding you, here.

you complained and complained that absolutely no one was agreeing with you in one of your other threads. I explained to you why others were not agreeing with you, but, again, because of your incessant beliefs you could not hear, and comprehend, and so instead just kept on whinging.

"If you're too weak" and "If you're just too scared" are personal attacks. They have no place in serious discussions.

Okay, so then just do not discuss 'them'.

If you, really, want to 'try to' keep 'them' out of the 'limelight', as some might say, then just do not discuss 'them' at all.

The terms "whinge" and "whine" are excessively combative, and as such, they too have no place in serious discussions.

Again, then, if you like, just ignore 'them', completely.

I have already addressed your claim as to why a number of people, including yourself, have responded in this thread the way they did. It has nothing to do with me not defining the key terms. I have defined the key terms in the opening post of this thread.

Which most respondents explained to you why your definitions would not work. But, like the above things, here, which you claim have no place in serious discussions, you are, seriously, did not want to discuss what was also being shown and pointed out, to you, 'there', as well.

It has to do with them being excessively combative, hyper critical, lazy, impatient and stubborn,

Which are all absolutely nothing that you, "yourself", do, right?

Also, if you class and claim 'the above' are so-called 'personal attacks', then are 'these' also 'personal attacks', as well?

Or, when 'you' do, more or less, the exact same thing, to others, is 'it' then 'different'?

You're trying too hard to defend yourself by accusing the other of your own guilt.

If you say and believe so, then okay.

But, then again, if only 'you' knew "magnus anderson". If only 'you' knew.

[Jori]

I am a moral absolutist, who believes that objective moral truths exist. However, I am also a moral skeptic in that I don't know what are the absolute moral truths. I simply have a moral code which seems highly reasonable, without knowing with certainty that they are true. I am open to change, but meanwhile, I assume they are true until proven false.

[SpheresOfBalance]

In the ontological sense, the word "objective" means "existing independently of minds". To say that a thing exists independently of minds is to say that it would exist even if minds ceased to exist. The question of this thread, then, is "Would morality continue to exist if all minds ceased to exist?"

If the universe has no mind, then in the universe, there is no good or evil, there is no right or wrong, there is no up or down, there is no left or right, there is no forward or backward, etc, etc.

Everything human, depends upon minds. And morality is all about humans.

But it's an easy call.

Because we humans never caused us to exist, that was the work of the universe, it's all about our fears, needs, desires, instincts, emotions; that which is innate, that creates that which is subjective and objective. I see that, that which is seen by the individual is subjective and that which is seen by the entire human collective is objective, so goes our form, our physiology and ability to have a psyche is both objective and determined. This is how we have free will, the individual decisions we make, because we have a brain and can think. Determinism comes into play in all that came before and caused our existence, the universe and all it's physics. Free Will starts in our minds after our particular environment (experiences) creates the particulars of our psyches, 90% of which is created in the first year of life, the remaining 10% from age 1 to 5. So despite our psychological differences, our subjectivity, our objectivity, as it's called, is all that we have in common. And that has to start with the understanding of my revision of the old "Golden Rule" that in some form is common to all cultures, that I've named "The fundamental Social Axiom":

"Treat others as you would have others treat you, to the extent, that all parties knowingly agree, at that time."

This is the best that I could come up with that considers the concerns of past philosopher critiques. The results of course would yield both subjectivity as well as objectivity.
Morals are completely human and should ever bind us together in all that we agree that we share in common.

[popeye1945]

Morality is only objective when created as a biological extension, a biological expression of the nature of humanity, which is used to reflect on the societies of individuals. So, this form of objectivity is a subjective creation. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and as a node in the net of relational reality, its reactions lend cohesion to the whole, think, systems within systems. There is nothing objective to a subjective consciousness, for apparent reality is a readout of biological changes made upon it by the energies of the outside world. The biological subject does not experience the objective, but it's altered biology as its experiences. The world the subject knows is not actuality but relational interpretation/s between energies and the altered body.

[Age]

Did Age just wrote 10+ responses to what I wrote?

What's wrong with this guy?

I haven't decided. Either he's actually a compulsive, antisocial, delusional teenager, or else he's got a serious personality problem and an IQ around room temperature.

Either way, what he writes is not worth anybody's time. There's never anything to it.

Of course some one who has absolutely failed every time to just counter what I have pointed out and said, let alone been able to actually refute what I have pointed out and said, would claim such a thing as this.