"Morality isn't anything other than how people feel, whether they approve or disapprove, etc. of interpersonal behaviour that they consider more significant than etiquette." — S
I am not allowed to disagree with that? — Rank Amateur
'Universal' doesn't necessarliy mean 'objective'. — ChrisH
There is enormous unity regardless of culture or situation on many things most humans would consider morally wrong. Now you can chalk up that near universal consistency to evolution, God, or something else, but it exists and it is not coincidence.
What is the difference then between near universal agreement and nearly objective? — Rank Amateur
Incredulity is not argument, and obviously not very effective on me. I am open to reason if you would care to take a deep breath and actually address the point. — Rank Amateur
What is the difference then between near universal agreement and nearly objective? — Rank Amateur
There is near universal agreement about what we feel. Most people feel that they shouldn't murder someone and they feel that they should ostracise, or somehow discourage anyone who seems like they should murder people. So our feelings on many matters of moral judgment are similar. That means it is 'close to' an objective fact that most people feel that way. — Isaac
So, for the one person who doesn't feel that way, what bearing does this objective fact (that most people think otherwise) have on your objective judgement of his moral feeling? All you can say objectively is that it is at odds with the majority. That doesn't require him to act any differently without some further link which you have not provided. I dread the day that being at odds with the majority position places on us a duty to change our behaviour accordingly. — Isaac
I undersatand that, but it does not answer how we as human beings have near universal moral judgments on many things, if there is not some things with a high degree of objectivity- do you have a theory? — Rank Amateur
So anyway, I prefer cheese and onion flavour crisps and raping babies to ready salted flavour crisps. How about you? — S
I think that is my point. Believing in high degrees of subjectivity in moral judgments reduces them to preference — Rank Amateur
And? — Terrapin Station
You've lost me. What does "it" refer to above?'Universal' doesn't necessarliy mean 'objective'.
— ChrisH
I undersatand that, but it does not answer how we as human beings have near universal moral judgments on many things, if — Rank Amateur
"Objective" doesn't have anything to do with commonality or agreement. "Objective" simply refers to whether something occurs independently of persons.
I don't think that anyone is arguing the relative commonality of any stances. No one disagrees that the vast majority of people think it's wrong to murder, for example. — Terrapin Station
It's frustrating that you can't get folks to follow through on a line of questioning about this stuff, because that could help them understand the other view. It seems almost like they're afraid to "go down the rabbit hole" though. So whenever it looks like they're getting too close to the rabbit hole, they back off. — Terrapin Station
Because, from my point of view, morality is inherent in man — Brett
And so far no one has been able to say what morality is, — Brett
The question was why is there such unanimity, and is there some pragmatic difference between near universal agreement and objectivity.
It seems what you really want to argue is if morality has a is a human or supernatural origin. I am not arguing that, I am happy to say that you can have a very large degree of objective morality without any supernatural origin. — Rank Amateur
In any event, there's not much 'universal' about attitudes to abortion, homosexuality, animal rights, social welfare, health provision etc, etc. Doesn't seem to me to be any evidence of an objectively correct solution to these thorny moral issues. — ChrisH
I didn't say all, I said some. — Rank Amateur
↪S
It's frustrating that you can't get folks to follow through on a line of questioning about this stuff, because that could help them understand the other view. It seems almost like they're afraid to "go down the rabbit hole" though. So whenever it looks like they're getting too close to the rabbit hole, they back off. — Terrapin Station
I am happy to go down any rabbit hole you want.
I am not sure either you or s even understand the point I am making. And I have yet to see it addressed in a complete thought.
Most of what I am hearing is you are wrong and you don't understand.
I keep asking what I think is a reasonable and logical issue, That either you can not, or will not address reasonably and logically. — Rank Amateur
Or are all these equal and valid opinions on the item in question? — Rank Amateur
So it shouldn't be a mystery that the vast majority of people think that murder is wrong either, — Terrapin Station
I am happy to go down any rabbit hole you want.
I am not sure either you or s even understand the point I am making. And I have yet to see it addressed in a complete thought.
Most of what I am hearing is you are wrong and you don't understand.
I keep asking what I think is a reasonable and logical issue, That either you can not, or will not address reasonably and logically. — Rank Amateur
It is imperative to my point for you to try and identify why we all feel that way, and not just keep dismissing it. Why do we all feel that way ? — Rank Amateur
If you're talking about the unanimity thing, we have addressed it. Our bodies don't develop randomly, do they? You're not addressing that. You're not supporting the notion that there shouldn't be widespread commonalities if moral stances only occur in individuals. — Terrapin Station
Can you take a second to tell me in your words what you understand my point to be? — Rank Amateur
Your point that I addressed is your false equivalence. But you seem to be in denial that I even addressed your point. What don't you understand about why your point was fallacious? — S
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.