Philosophy Now Forum

Morality would require majority consensus from moral philosophers using the rigour of the scientic method for it to be like science
This is not possible even if there were universal agreement that it was subjective because it is not actually capable of observation

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 10:52 pm Morality would require majority consensus from moral philosophers using the rigour of the scientic method for it to be like science
This is not possible even if there were universal agreement that it was subjective because it is not actually capable of observation

There is already tacit agreement.

Dead moral philosophers don't concern themselves with rigour, science, observations, agreements, disagreements, majority consensus, minority consensus etc.

All those messy human pursuits are only for living moral philosophers.

All the living moral philosophers who disagree are welcome to die in a vote of protest against objective morality.

An abstract concept such as morality that cannot be empirically or logically demonstrated cannot by default be objective
But instead of arguing whether morality is objective or subjective why not simply proceed according to majority consensus

That is far more practical and so the default position for now is that murder and genocide are morally unacceptable
Morality actually advances over time so it is not possible that in the future a position such as that could be reversed

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 11:16 pm But instead of arguing whether morality is objective or subjective why not simply proceed according to majority consensus

That is PRECISELY what we are doing. It's precisely what objectivity means. Majority consensus. Like in science - so in society.

Murder and genocide are wrong!

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 11:16 pm Morality actually advances over time so it is not possible that in the future a position such as that could be reversed

That's precisely the point. There is no point in future where we might go and say "OK, murder and genocide are fine now!"
Objectively that WOULD be a moral regress!

Is there anything that would convince you that we should morally regress? If yes - tell us what it is!

Majority consensus in science comes from application of the scientific method
Majority consensus in morality comes from open debate but that is not as rigorous as the scientific method
It is important that this distinction is recognised because morality is way more complicated than science is

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 11:41 pm
There will be no moral regression in the future with regard to murder and genocide barring extenuating circumstances

So it's true and it can't be falsified even by the scientific method? (barring extenuating circumstances)

That sure sounds like an objective moral truth to me!

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 7:56 pm Give me an example where murder and genocide are right.

Here's how the relativist, if he were honest, should answer...

Since morality is a fiction, murder (the unjustified killing of a person) is a fiction and genocide (murder on a grand scale) is a fiction.

Since morals are just what folks think they are, since morals have no grounding in anything other than opinion, any notion of justified or unjustified is just opinion too.

Pretty much you get to do whatever the hell you want to.

All you have to worry about are 'laws', which are just codified opinion. If a law bugs you (like those prohibiting rape or murder or slavery) just change the 'laws' (might have to grease a few palms). Once you do that, you can go to town with the raping, murdering, and enslaving (not to mention the thieving).

Very well put Henry. Subjective morality and its ability for manipulation only exists because our ability over time to experience objective morality or objective conscience has become atrophied in the majority of humanity. Laws takes its place

Friedrich Nietzsche — 'How good music and bad reasons sound when one marches against an enemy.'

Oh how true. All one needs is the right subjective attitude and the demand for genocides will become morally reasonable and considered a demand from God.

Subjective morality and its ability for manipulation only exists because our ability over time to experience objective morality or objective conscience has become atrophied in the majority of humanity. Laws takes its place

Oh, I disagree. It ain't atrophy, it's a deliberate blunting (of that marvelous compass, conscience, by those lookin' to rule).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 2:54 am Subjective morality and its ability for manipulation only exists because our ability over time to experience objective morality or objective conscience has become atrophied in the majority of humanity. Laws takes its place

Oh, I disagree. It ain't atrophy, it's a deliberate blunting (of that marvelous compass, conscience, by those lookin' to rule).

I've dragged my previous post over here since it is essential for what I mean by apathy. It is normal for our species to experience conscience as it is to experience consciousness. Both can be distorted. Conscience as understood by Plato was our means to feel objective value in relation to our source. But like any muscle, if it isn't used it atrophies. The defense of the dignity of man separating from its source takes its place making all morality relative resulting in the absurdity we call normal

There are two sides to this question. The first was taken by Plato where he encouraged awakening to objective values. He asserted that objective values including morals lie outside the individual and not determined by the perception of individuals or their beliefs.

This has become condemned by modern society which has come to favor the second option: “Humans are the measure of all things” championed by Protagoras. It supports the purpose of this thread to prove the supremacy of subjective values decided by Man.

Preserving the dignity of man determines moral value. Genocides are fine if the right people are being killed and the dignity of man is preserved. Right and wrong isn’t the issue only supporting the dignity of Man.

A person must choose. What is the source of values and proceed from there. If Plato is right, humanity must awaken to perennial objective values we are asleep to and begin to feel them as part of their conscience. If Protgoras is right all that matters is how a person judges what they do. Humans are the measure of all things so nothing can be more important than the dignity of Man. Plato is losing and Protgoras is winning so why doubt the educated winning side? Support you local politician

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 11:37 pm Majority consensus in science comes from application of the scientific method
Majority consensus in morality comes from open debate but that is not as rigorous as the scientific method
It is important that this distinction is recognized because morality is way more complicated than science is

Morality and Ethics is about right or wrong, good or evil human behaviors.
There is a distinct difference between Morality and Ethics.

Morality is the Pure perspective, i.e. via the highest logic and reason humans are capable of.

Ethics is Applied aspects of human behavior interacting with morality.

Both morality and ethics are primarily self-development activities restricted to the individuals [with assistance from the collective] and not to be enforced on others.

Secular objective moral absolute laws are justified an abstracted via reason from the best empirical evidences. Since they are derived from a moral framework, they are moral facts not scientific fact [derived from the scientific framework].

One critical point with Morality is, whatever is the inference and it must be reasoned on the basis the secular moral law is applied to each individual and universalized. It cannot be arbitrary since every individual is a generic human being.

If murder and genocide is morally right and that such rightness will be adopted by each individual and universalized, then logically and by reason, theoretically, every individual can murder and cause genocide, in which case, logically the human species will be exterminated.
As such in theory by logic and reason, murder and genocide cannot be morally right because based on evidence, the purpose of the human species is to preserve itself at all cost till the inevitable [e.g. a rogue meteor, etc.]

The justification for why murder and genocide is morally wrong is based on the highly probable fact, no sane human would want to be killed via a murder or genocide.
This can be tested by polling every human on Earth.
There is no evidence in the historical human database there is evidence any sane human has volunteered freely to be killed.

Therefore morality [PURE] cannot be subjective, i.e. left to the subjective views of individuals and groups.

On the other hand, Ethics can be subjective but constraint upon the absolute moral law.
For example, under the present conditions due to human fallibility, humans are likely to kill for various reasons which can be justified within a specific framework, e.g. killing in self defense, enacted in laws in some countries, etc.

Morality [PURE] as defined above cannot be subjective.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 4:22 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 2:54 am Subjective morality and its ability for manipulation only exists because our ability over time to experience objective morality or objective conscience has become atrophied in the majority of humanity. Laws takes its place

Oh, I disagree. It ain't atrophy, it's a deliberate blunting (of that marvelous compass, conscience, by those lookin' to rule).

I've dragged my previous post over here since it is essential for what I mean by apathy. It is normal for our species to experience conscience as it is to experience consciousness. Both can be distorted. Conscience as understood by Plato was our means to feel objective value in relation to our source. But like any muscle, if it isn't used it atrophies. The defense of the dignity of man separating from its source takes its place making all morality relative resulting in the absurdity we call normal

There are two sides to this question. The first was taken by Plato where he encouraged awakening to objective values. He asserted that objective values including morals lie outside the individual and not determined by the perception of individuals or their beliefs.

This has become condemned by modern society which has come to favor the second option: “Humans are the measure of all things” championed by Protagoras. It supports the purpose of this thread to prove the supremacy of subjective values decided by Man.

Preserving the dignity of man determines moral value. Genocides are fine if the right people are being killed and the dignity of man is preserved. Right and wrong isn’t the issue only supporting the dignity of Man.

A person must choose. What is the source of values and proceed from there. If Plato is right, humanity must awaken to perennial objective values we are asleep to and begin to feel them as part of their conscience. If Protgoras is right all that matters is how a person judges what they do. Humans are the measure of all things so nothing can be more important than the dignity of Man. Plato is losing and Protgoras is winning so why doubt the educated winning side? Support you local politician

Veritas wrote

Both morality and ethics are primarily self-development activities restricted to the individuals [with assistance from the collective] and not to be enforced on others.

Secular objective moral absolute laws are justified an abstracted via reason from the best empirical evidences. Since they are derived from a moral framework, they are moral facts not scientific fact [derived from the scientific framework].

Plato wrote that objective values including objective morality are objective influences essential for the functioning of our conscious universe. We can experience them existing regardless of our animal attractions under the sun, through our conscience. The human condition has further dulled this natural ability creating the dominance of the Great Beast or the grand collective to adopt this responsibility.

The reactions of Great Beast or society itself vs the GOOD of ideas or forms within our ineffable source. An ancient struggle and the great Beast is winning as the effort to experience objective conscience is lessening.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 5:13 pm Veritas wrote

Both morality and ethics are primarily self-development activities restricted to the individuals [with assistance from the collective] and not to be enforced on others.

Secular objective moral absolute laws are justified an abstracted via reason from the best empirical evidences. Since they are derived from a moral framework, they are moral facts not scientific fact [derived from the scientific framework].

Plato wrote that objective values including objective morality are objective influences essential for the functioning of our conscious universe. We can experience them existing regardless of our animal attractions under the sun, through our conscience. The human condition has further dulled this natural ability creating the dominance of the Great Beast or the grand collective to adopt this responsibility.

The reactions of Great Beast or society itself vs the GOOD of ideas or forms within our ineffable source. An ancient struggle and the great Beast is winning as the effort to experience objective conscience is lessening.

I disagree with Plato's objective things.

Re Plato's objective morality, it is merely extrapolated and generalized from his theory of forms and universals, thus do not provide sound justifications for it.

Note on the other hand, I have justified my secular objective absolute moral laws from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning. They are to be used as GUIDES only like ultimate thermostats within a heating or cooling system. As such these objective moral laws are not to be enforced at all on anyone.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 8:17 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 5:13 pm Veritas wrote

Both morality and ethics are primarily self-development activities restricted to the individuals [with assistance from the collective] and not to be enforced on others.

Secular objective moral absolute laws are justified an abstracted via reason from the best empirical evidences. Since they are derived from a moral framework, they are moral facts not scientific fact [derived from the scientific framework].

Plato wrote that objective values including objective morality are objective influences essential for the functioning of our conscious universe. We can experience them existing regardless of our animal attractions under the sun, through our conscience. The human condition has further dulled this natural ability creating the dominance of the Great Beast or the grand collective to adopt this responsibility.

The reactions of Great Beast or society itself vs the GOOD of ideas or forms within our ineffable source. An ancient struggle and the great Beast is winning as the effort to experience objective conscience is lessening.

I disagree with Plato's objective things.

Re Plato's objective morality, it is merely extrapolated and generalized from his theory of forms and universals, thus do not provide sound justifications for it.

Note on the other hand, I have justified my secular objective absolute moral laws from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning. They are to be used as GUIDES only like ultimate thermostats within a heating or cooling system. As such these objective moral laws are not to be enforced at all on anyone.

All you've done is once again reveal the inability for secular humanity to resolve a basic question in philosophy: How can person decide between higher values and morality and pragmatic concerns? Water seeks its own level and the balance will be determined by the relative quality of human being and not the the wonderful thoughts argued over and over in philosophy

We can agree that society functions better when drivers stop for red lights. Yet suppose it is 3:00 AM with no one on the road and a driver is doing something believed important. He approaches a red light? Does he stop and wait fir it to turn green? Does he stop if there re several cars on the rod or if he sees there is police r in the vicinity. We decide on these options and they are decided by the quality of human being. Water seeks its own level

All empirical evidence and moral laws leading to the debate between values and pragmatism are the result of the quality of human being. Plato offers us an awakening process of thought to deal with what we are while you are just assuming that water will somehow change its level through the intellectual arguments. It cannot happen. Pragmatic concernes will win and Plato is rejected. Since we are as we are, everything remains as it is continuing in its lawful cycles including war and peace