Philosophy Now Forum

How does one prove a moral claim is immoral? One can present an argument against a moral position, but how does one actually prove any moral position is false? Although I would like to see a basis for objective morality, I am simply unaware of any proof that morality is either objective or subjective.

Some religious most definitely spread through violence, as did many political ideologies as well, including secularism. Some religious beliefs were also used to fight against tyranny as opposed to spreading it. That's why I stated that the topic of religion is hard to sum up in a simple thought or two.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:55 pm

How does one prove a moral claim is immoral?

Discussion or debate to a consensus.

One can present an argument against a moral position, but how does one actually prove any moral position is false?

By showing that the reverse would be more moral.

Although I would like to see a basis for objective morality, I am simply unaware of any proof that morality is either objective or subjective.

The fact that you accept any moral tenant shows that they are subjective.

I know of no objective moral tenant other than perhaps, the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few. That might still have a subjective component to it though.

Some religious most definitely spread through violence, as did many political ideologies as well, including secularism. Some religious beliefs were also used to fight against tyranny as opposed to spreading it. That's why I stated that the topic of religion is hard to sum up in a simple thought or two.

True, but the overall results of the mainstream religions, intolerance, homophobia and misogyny, show clearly how immoral those religions are.

Regards
DL

How does a consensus establish a moral claim as true or false? Many people used to agree that slavery was moral, did that make it actually moral? I don't think so. This is not just true with respect to moral claims, but physical ones as well.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? That's utilitarianism and not an objectively substantiated moral claim. In fact, one could use utilitarianism for almost any moral conclusion they want to draw --- whether it be slavery, mass murder, rape, etc. This is in fact the moral reasoning of the Nazis and of many authoritarians.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:29 pm The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? That's utilitarianism and not an objectively substantiated moral claim. In fact, one could use utilitarianism for almost any moral conclusion they want to draw --- whether it be slavery, mass murder, rape, etc. This is in fact the moral reasoning of the Nazis and of many authoritarians.

Who determines what those "needs" are, should they be based on what people say they need, or what people believe. How long ago did most people believe the Earth was flat and a few still do, should that have been the basis for an objective moral claim? Did the Earth turn round because most people now believe it. I know the shape of the Earth has nothing to do with morality, but it is an example of people believing something that was wrong.

That was my point --- that merely because a group of people claim that their position is justify by their needs outweighing the needs of others, that they have no way of objectively proving this. Even if they did, that would still not necessarily make their position moral.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:27 pm How does a consensus establish a moral claim as true or false? Many people used to agree that slavery was moral, did that make it actually moral? I don't think so. This is not just true with respect to moral claims, but physical ones as well.

You are looking from a point of non-inclusion to the group.

To the S S the Nazi ideology was moral because of the consensus.

Sure, from outside we see it as awful, but from within it was a good path.

Slavery was moral in ancient days because if one did not put himself into slavery, he had no other social safety net and might/would starve to death.

Morality is subjective and subjective views are quite varied, thus the need for consensus to determine morality or not.

Regards
DL

Science Fan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:29 pm The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? That's utilitarianism and not an objectively substantiated moral claim. In fact, one could use utilitarianism for almost any moral conclusion they want to draw --- whether it be slavery, mass murder, rape, etc. This is in fact the moral reasoning of the Nazis and of many authoritarians.

If not an objective moral tenet, then show an example where it does not work or is the wrong thing to do, from within the group using it, not from without.

IOW, try to refute it.

Regards
DL

The doc wrote:

Who determines what those "needs" are, should they be based on what people say they need, or what people believe.

The doc, we are all Jock Tamson's bairns.

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:53 am I was asking about the Atheists. Would you deny them their (dis)belief as well, since it contradicts you?

Not at all. Atheists and agnostics, like myself, --- even thought I am not agnostic or atheist for the belief system I follow, I am quyite fundamental, --- reject accepting such a reality without proof.

But two differences: many agnostics ("soft agnostics," for example) hold that evidence for God is possible, but that they don't have any. And Atheists deny the "god" concept entirely, where as you make of it your own thing, but don't deny it at all.

So again, I ask: would you deny these their belief of disbelief? Are only Gnostics like yourself to be allowed to have "freedom of religion," in your view?

...proof of God's non-existence than theists do.

Give me a proof of non-existence for the Supreme Being. I'd be interested in seeing one.

God is absent and absence of evidence is a proof of non-existence.

No. "Absence of evidence" is exactly what an investigator has at the beginning of a murder investigation. "Absence of evidence" is exactly what a person has when they've not looked. "Absence of evidence" is what a person who's never been somewhere or tried something has in regard to that place or thing. But "absence of evidence" merely indicates personal lack-of-knowledge, not that that knowledge or evidence is not out there to be had.

...we definitely have an instinct and that instinct has to be in us somewhere. Most sages in ancient days dubbed what they thought was God as father.

But that begs the question, why do we have an instinct for which there is no corresponding reality? According to Darwin, "survival of the fittest" couldn't even select in favour of such a delusion, since it would have zero survival value, especially in any underdeveloped form.

The other possibility is that the ancient sages weren't entirely crazy. Maybe they were onto something there.

P.S. You are correct that I did not like what I read since I have rejected the total Oedipus Complex, as most psychiatrists have, while I do not reject the Father Complex part of it.

Well, here's the interesting point: the argument, "You Theists only believe in God because you want a cosmic Father," works equally well as, "You Atheists are only Atheists because you don't want there to BE a cosmic Father."

Freud, as you see, hated his own father, and we can read that he did in his own writings. We also can verify that so did many of the great Atheists, including the moderns -- Hitchens, for example. Maybe Hitchens was just so hateful against his own father that he became hateful against God. So Freud's "father" and "wish-fulfillment" arguments don't actually tell us anything; they work equally for and against all sides.

Consequently, Freud's argument has to be one of the poorest on offer.

Greatest I am wrote:
Morality is subjective and subjective views are quite varied thus the need for consensus to determine morality

This is a fallacious argument specifically a non sequitur as one does not follow from the other. Morality is not dependent upon
popularity. Even if it was this would still not render it true because the basis for popularity can itself be subjective. And since
it is not objective then there can be no objective basis upon which it can be determined. So this is why it is entirely arbitrary

The Nazis mass murder of the Jews is an example of utilitarianism being immoral. It's not much of a moral doctrine, because there is absolutely no way to objectively do a utilitarian calculation, so it is merely a pretext that can be used to justify any act. Especially an act by a majority against a minority.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:21 pm

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:57 pm

Not at all. Atheists and agnostics, like myself, --- even thought I am not agnostic or atheist for the belief system I follow, I am quyite fundamental, --- reject accepting such a reality without proof.

But two differences: many agnostics ("soft agnostics," for example) hold that evidence for God is possible, but that they don't have any. And Atheists deny the "god" concept entirely, where as you make of it your own thing, but don't deny it at all.

So again, I ask: would you deny these their belief of disbelief? Are only Gnostics like yourself to be allowed to have "freedom of religion," in your view?

Again. No.

We are just defining God differently. You are talking a supernatural entity and to me that is a poor definition of what God originally meant, otherwise, emperors could not have declared themselves to be Gods.

...proof of God's non-existence than theists do.

Give me a proof of non-existence for the Supreme Being. I'd be interested in seeing one.

God is absent and absence of evidence is a proof of non-existence.

No. "Absence of evidence" is exactly what an investigator has at the beginning of a murder investigation. "Absence of evidence" is exactly what a person has when they've not looked. "Absence of evidence" is what a person who's never been somewhere or tried something has in regard to that place or thing. But "absence of evidence" merely indicates personal lack-of-knowledge, not that that knowledge or evidence is not out there to be had.

...we definitely have an instinct and that instinct has to be in us somewhere. Most sages in ancient days dubbed what they thought was God as father.

But that begs the question, why do we have an instinct for which there is no corresponding reality?

I think we do have instincts. If you think we are the only animal on the planet without any then I cannot join you in the miss-guided reality you see.

According to Darwin, "survival of the fittest" couldn't even select in favour of such a delusion, since it would have zero survival value, especially in any underdeveloped form.

The other possibility is that the ancient sages weren't entirely crazy. Maybe they were onto something there.

You lost me here. You seem to be reversing what you first put.

P.S. You are correct that I did not like what I read since I have rejected the total Oedipus Complex, as most psychiatrists have, while I do not reject the Father Complex part of it.

Well, here's the interesting point: the argument, "You Theists only believe in God because you want a cosmic Father," works equally well as, "You Atheists are only Atheists because you don't want there to BE a cosmic Father."

I did not use the word cosmic. The opposite would be true.

Freud, as you see, hated his own father, and we can read that he did in his own writings. We also can verify that so did many of the great Atheists, including the moderns -- Hitchens, for example. Maybe Hitchens was just so hateful against his own father that he became hateful against God. So Freud's "father" and "wish-fulfillment" arguments don't actually tell us anything; they work equally for and against all sides.

Consequently, Freud's argument has to be one of the poorest on offer.

I cannot gage parental influence on others. I can only gage if the Father Complex makes sense and it does.

Who taught you to suckle if not some internal instinct?

Regards
DL

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2017 7:28 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Morality is subjective and subjective views are quite varied thus the need for consensus to determine morality

This is a fallacious argument specifically a non sequitur as one does not follow from the other. Morality is not dependent upon
popularity. Even if it was this would still not render it true because the basis for popularity can itself be subjective. And since
it is not objective then there can be no objective basis upon which it can be determined. So this is why it is entirely arbitrary

Human sacrifice is considered moral by some ancient tribes.

To them, as they are the majority, think it moral.

From outside that tribe, the majority/us thinks human sacrifice to be closer to murder.

That is the point I was making.

Regards
DL

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2017 7:45 pm The Nazis mass murder of the Jews is an example of utilitarianism being immoral. It's not much of a moral doctrine, because there is absolutely no way to objectively do a utilitarian calculation, so it is merely a pretext that can be used to justify any act. Especially an act by a majority against a minority.

That utilitarianism was quite moral to the Germans who helped Hitler do his dirty deeds.

To that German majority, what was good for their many outweighed the good of the Jews.

Sure, from outside Germany, we condemned his genocide, but the Allies would have used genocide themselves to eradicate Germany if they did not stop.

What was good for the Allied majority outweighed our dislike of genocide that the German minority to us was doing so we were ready to match Hitler's tactics if required to win that war.

Regards
DL