I have never said that there is a moral fact. — MoK
Pain is a subjective experience so it could be good for a masochist and evil for normal people. — MoK
As I mentioned good and evil are features of our experiences and have nothing to do with right and wrong. — MoK
Are you asking whether taking their own life is "right"? In my view, that is not based on any moral fact; any person has all right to his/her life. — MoK
A serial killer is evil to us since the act of killing is not pleasant to us. Killing to a serial killer is good since he gets pleasure from it. — MoK
I already mentioned that the Bible is not a reliable source for morality. You mentioned Ten Commandments and I mentioned Numbers 31:17-18.It is the moral code still the base of the most moral right or wrong. You need to read the 10 commandments, and reflect on the many moral rights and wrong now. They are all related, and originated from the code. — Corvus
I have already defined moral facts in OP. How can we say that an act is right or wrong if we cannot derive the rightness or wrongness of it from a set of facts?I have not heard of Moral Facts before, hence I am not sure what it is, and why its non existence is the reason for moral subjectivity. Maybe it doesn't exist, because it has never existed in the first place? — Corvus
I don't think that Kant is right in this instance.And as Kant said, we know what moral good and bad are by simply reflecting on the human actions by our practical reasoning which is universal and objective. — Corvus
Very correct.Yes, of course. They learn that in Sunday school and just keep repeating it, because it sounds right, feels right and gives them some reassurance that, if only they try hard enough to deserve his favour, God will make everything all right. Most of the Christians I've met - sincere, half-hearted or cynical - haven't read very much of their holy book. Or else, they wave off the nasty bits of their religion's underpinnings with 'interpretation': "It doesn't mean what it says; it's metaphorical or allegorical or lost in translation...." — Vera Mont
No, I am saying that morality is not based on any moral facts since there is not any moral fact.Silly analogy aside, reason relies on facts. If you say that morality is determined partially by reason, then you by consequence are saying it relies on facts. — Philosophim
Correct. We cannot justify any action if there is not any moral fact.If morality truly has no facts, then no amount of reason can justify any good or evil action. — Philosophim
Good and evil exist even if there is not any moral fact.At that point, good and evil don't exist. — Philosophim
These actions look evil to the majority of people and people who think otherwise try to avoid them because of social constraints yet these actions are not right or wrong perse.If this is a fact, then reasonably every action is permitted, and no action is restricted. The concentration camps were not evil, kicking a baby and laughing at its cries of internal bleeding and pain are fine to celebrate. — Philosophim
The evil person who commits these actions does not think they are wrong.Be careful to really understand that an armchair conclusion is not the same as a real world decision. Would you actually behave in real life as if good and evil were simply opinions, or would you think it was a fact that a person of sound mind is evil and should be stopped who laughed at killing innocents, raping women, and blowing up property for fun? Because there is not a single person in the world across all cultures who wouldn't call that man evil. — Philosophim
The right action, good or evil, is what we should do and the wrong action, good or evil, is what we should not do. We punish our children when they do something wrong. Punishment is evil since it is not pleasant to parents and kids yet it is right. I have to say that our conclusion that the punishment in certain situations is right is not based on moral facts but on our conscience, belief, and the like.Then what is right and wrong? Generally what is right is synonymous with a good action, while wrong is synonymous with a wrong action. — Philosophim
The very existence of conflicts between people for their rights is an indication that there is no moral fact.Did you know that rights are moral assertions? A right is a statement that no one else has moral justification in taking something away from you. Freedom of speech for example is a considered good, or what should be, because the exchange of ideas in a free and comfortable area allows a situation to be thought through on all sides, encourages creativity, helps solve solutions most effectively, and lets societies grow. All of this is a moral assertion that such things are good. There are lots of individuals who don't like the freedom of speech. They say, "I don't like when someone insults me or my favorite politician. That's wrong because I don't like it, and should be thrown in jail." If your assertion is there is no moral fact, then there are no rights. — Philosophim
I have been thinking about morality for a very very long time and I think I am correct in saying that there is no moral fact therefore morality is subjective.Everything else is a repeat. Think about this for a while and don't respond immediately if you don't mind. All good philosophy is about considering with seriousness anything that could counter our initial beliefs. Try to prove that I'm right, then if you see contradictions if I am right, point them out. — Philosophim
No, I am saying that morality is not based on any moral facts since there is not any moral fact. — MoK
Correct. We cannot justify any action if there is not any moral fact. — MoK
Good and evil exist even if there is not any moral fact. — MoK
The evil person who commits these actions does not think they are wrong. — MoK
The right action, good or evil, is what we should do and the wrong action, good or evil, is what we should not do. — MoK
These actions look evil to the majority of people and people who think otherwise try to avoid them because of social constraints yet these actions are not right or wrong perse. — MoK
I have to say that our conclusion that the punishment in certain situations is right is not based on moral facts but on our conscience, belief, and the like. — MoK
The very existence of conflicts between people for their rights is an indication that there is no moral fact. — MoK
I have been thinking about morality for a very very long time and I think I am correct in saying that there is no moral fact therefore morality is subjective. — MoK
I am not saying the Bible is the reliable source for morality. I am saying that many current morality is based on the Bible.I already mentioned that the Bible is not a reliable source for morality. You mentioned Ten Commandments and I mentioned Numbers 31:17-18. — MoK
I did read the OP again. Your just wrote God must know all moral facts. That is not a definition. How can God know all moral facts, if it doesn't exist? Can you give some examples of moral facts?I have already defined moral facts in OP. How can we say that an act is right or wrong if we cannot derive the rightness or wrongness of it from a set of facts? — MoK
Why don't you think Kant is right in this instance? If someone talks badly to other folks about you with false accusations and lies about you for some egotistic motives for him. Would you not reason and judge it is morally wrong?I don't think that Kant is right in this instance. — MoK
We cannot do whatever we want because of social constraints. Social constraints are however based on what the majority agree on and this agreement is due to having the same conscience, belief, interest, and the like.Then the only thing we can reason is that we can all do whatever we want to each other and no one has a reasonable way of saying what can and cannot be permitted. — Philosophim
No, we can forbid many actions because of social agreement. This agreement is possible since the majority of people have a common conscience, belief, interest, etc.You also cannot justify forbidding any action either. MoK, this is when armchair philosophy fails. You know darn well that if someone stole from you, you would want society to agree with you that it was wrong, despite what others feel. You know that even if a majority thought it was good to murder an entire group of people in a concentration camp, that would still make it wrong. I can't take a person seriously who does not consider these realities. — Philosophim
What looks good to me may look evil to others, which is the source of social conflicts. Have you ever asked yourself what is the source of social conflicts?No, because it would have to be a fact that they exist. If good and evil are not facts, they don't exist. Even if you claimed, "Good is what I like", then you are asserting that as a fact. If its not a fact, then its only an opinion, and therefore nothing anyone has to agree with. — Philosophim
The only source that we have to see what is permissible and what is not is conscience, belief, interest, and the like. But people have different consciences, beliefs, and interests and that is the cause of all struggles that we witness now and existed in the past.Alright, we're getting somewhere now. How do we know what we should or shouldn't do? — Philosophim
Yes, I think morality can be objective if there are moral facts.So you think that right and wrong have some factual basis to them, because they exist independently of social constraints or opinions. Those would be moral facts MoK. — Philosophim
Of course, there is a last cookie. You however have your own interests and that is the source of conflict.How so? That's just an assertion, not a reasoned explanation. My point that if there are no moral facts there are no rights stands. But saying that because there is conflict over something, that something cannot be a fact is absurd. If my wife and I fight over who gets the last cookie, is there no cookie? :D — Philosophim
Then the only thing we can reason is that we can all do whatever we want to each other and no one has a reasonable way of saying what can and cannot be permitted.
— Philosophim
We cannot do whatever we want because of social constraints. Social constraints are however based on what the majority agree on and this agreement is due to having the same conscience, belief, interest, and the like. — MoK
No, we can forbid many actions because of social agreement. This agreement is possible since the majority of people have a common conscience, belief, interest, etc. — MoK
What looks good to me may look evil to others, which is the source of social conflicts. Have you ever asked yourself what is the source of social conflicts? — MoK
The only source that we have to see what is permissible and what is not is conscience, belief, interest, and the like. But people have different consciences, beliefs, and interests and that is the cause of all struggles that we witness now and existed in the past. — MoK
So you think that right and wrong have some factual basis to them, because they exist independently of social constraints or opinions. Those would be moral facts MoK.
— Philosophim
Yes, I think morality can be objective if there are moral facts. — MoK
It is what it is and you cannot deny it. It is the group decision that makes something right or wrong. I am not saying that it is objectively right or wrong though.All you've replaced is personal emotion with group emotion. — Philosophim
Even if you can nuke the group your action from their perspective is evil.Meaning I could nuke a group that doesn't have the emotions I do to do what I want, and that's good. That's genocide. According to your argument, there's nothing wrong or evil with genocide. Might makes right is the end result. — Philosophim
Wants and needs are affected by feelings. You want to eat because you feel hungry. How could you have any needs if you have no feelings?All the time. Social conflict is not always about good and evil, but wants and needs and the denial of those wants being fulfilled. — Philosophim
Two things affect humans, reason or feeling. These two are fundamental. Conscience for example is a sort of feeling. Belief is based on reason and feeling. You have certain beliefs because of the reason of the afterlife. You worry about entering Hell and prefer Heaven.Once again, you can sum that all up as 'feelings'. MoK, can I believe something and realize its wrong? — Philosophim
Where?And my point is that you asserted one. — Philosophim
Correct.I am not saying the Bible is the reliable source for morality. I am saying that many current morality is based on the Bible. — Corvus
I mentioned that moral facts are a set of facts that we can derive from whether an action is right or wrong.I did read the OP again. Your just wrote God must know all moral facts. That is not a definition. How can God know all moral facts, if it doesn't exist? Can you give some examples of moral facts? — Corvus
Because I think that morality cannot be objective.Why don't you think Kant is right in this instance? — Corvus
From my perspective, he did something evil and morally wrong. He may think otherwise.If someone talks badly to other folks about you with false accusations and lies about you for some egotistic motives for him. Would you not reason and judge it is morally wrong? — Corvus
Could you give a reason why an action is universally and objectively wrong?Anyone in the world would judge the case as morally wrong because we all have practical reason which is universal and objective according to Kant. — Corvus
Obviously his moral sense doesn't exist. Why should you care his thoughts make sense?If someone talks badly to other folks about you with false accusations and lies about you for some egotistic motives for him. Would you not reason and judge it is morally wrong? — Corvus
From my perspective, he did something evil and morally wrong. He may think otherwise. — MoK
Could you give a reason why an action is universally and objectively wrong? — MoK
Accepting stealing as permissible negates the right of having a property, not the ability to have a property. A person could be politically, socially, ... strong and steal from others and keep it as his/her property.It is not about personal property. It is about the action i.e. stealing. — Corvus
Accepting stealing as permissible negates the right of having a property, not the ability to have a property. A person could be politically, socially, ... strong and steal from others and keep it as his/her property. — MoK
By whom? A person who is hungry and steals food does not think so. And where is the argument for that? — MoK
All you've replaced is personal emotion with group emotion.
— Philosophim
It is what it is and you cannot deny it. It is the group decision that makes something right or wrong. I am not saying that it is objectively right or wrong though. — MoK
Even if you can nuke the group your action from their perspective is evil. — MoK
Wants and needs are affected by feelings. You want to eat because you feel hungry. How could you have any needs if you have no feelings? — MoK
Two things affect humans, reason or feeling. These two are fundamental. Conscience for example is a sort of feeling. Belief is based on reason and feeling. You have certain beliefs because of the reason of the afterlife. You worry about entering Hell and prefer Heaven. — MoK
Where? (Did you mention a moral fact) — MoK
I already mentioned the problem within Kant's argument, first formulation. I am currently reading this article on Hume's argument on the topic. The article is however very long. Could you summarize Hume's argument?The argument is based on the logical implication from the Ethics and Practical Reasoning by Kant, and the concept of Sympathy of Hume in A Treatise of Human Nature. — Corvus
I already mentioned the problem within Kant's argument, first formulation. I am currently reading this article on Hume's argument on the topic. The article is however very long. Could you summarize Hume's argument? — MoK
By the group, I mean the majority of the human population.I can definitely deny it. :) Especially if its subjective. It only can't be denied if its objectively true. A group decision results in what action occurs, but does not determine if its right or wrong. If a group of people decide to steal a plane and fly it into the twin towers, does that mean it was good to do so? If a group decides to nuke the world and end all life, is that good to do so? No one would rationally argue it is, and a person with subjective morality doesn't care about rationality because there is none if there are no moral facts. — Philosophim
No, I won't approve of any of these but my disapproval is biased by how I feel in such situations. My feeling is not a moral fact though.And if its all just a feeling, then its irrelevant what they feel or believe. Its irrelevant what the nukers feel and believe. Everything is irrelevant but feelings. Pump yourself full of meth and feel amazing! Shoot people with glee and abandon! This is good. Lie, cheat, steal, rob, rape, destroy, and ruin for pleasure, its is good. Do you really believe that in practice? You would approve of that for your children, your family, your friends, and even yourself? — Philosophim
Quite opposite. There would be no needs or wants without feelings. I didn't say that needs are feelings though.Feelings are indicators of our needs, they are not the needs themselves. — Philosophim
Even as an atheist, you have certain worries about your life.I'm an atheist MoK. I don't believe in an afterlife. — Philosophim
But there is no objective morality since there are no moral facts.Its a note about how to function best as an emotional and rational human agent in the world. — Philosophim
I have never mentioned that.You noted that right and wrong have some factual basis to them because they exist independently of social constraints or opinions. — Philosophim
Well, that is not an argument in favor of objective morality. The majority of the human population feels the same way in the same situations. But there is a minority that enjoys from inflicting pain on others. Therefore, the feeling cannot be a base or fact for objective morality.Sure. It is rather simple. When we see a fellow human being suffering, we want to offer help to save the folk if we can. It is out of our sympathy in our emotion which we share with all the human beings in the world.
When we see the fellow human being saved from our help, we feel moral good, that we have done something good for other human beings. It is the nature of our mind which are loaded with these sharable emotions called sympathy, Hume says. — Corvus
By the group, I mean the majority of the human population. — MoK
No, I won't approve of any of these but my disapproval is biased by how I feel in such situations. — MoK
Even as an atheist, you have certain worries about your life. — MoK
You noted that right and wrong have some factual basis to them because they exist independently of social constraints or opinions.
— Philosophim
I have never mentioned that. — MoK
Two things affect humans, reason or feeling. These two are fundamental. Conscience for example is a sort of feeling. Belief is based on reason and feeling. You have certain beliefs because of the reason of the afterlife. You worry about entering Hell and prefer Heaven.
Well, that is not an argument in favor of objective morality. The majority of the human population feels the same way in the same situations. But there is a minority that enjoys from inflicting pain on others. Therefore, the feeling cannot be a base or fact for objective morality. — MoK
They feel the same way; they establish the laws based on that and everybody has to follow the laws.If good is just a feeling, why should the majority of the human population matter? — Philosophim
There is no problem as far as there is no conflict of interest between majority and minority. But that is not always the case.If a minority feel a certain way and can act on it, who cares? — Philosophim
Because they establish the laws.Why is the majorities feelings any more important than the minorities feelings? — Philosophim
It is merely based on feeling in my case. Reason however could matter for some individuals who want to harm others for example. They are afraid of getting arrested.Is it purely based on your feelings, or do you have some reasons you put out there? — Philosophim
Yes, we could have reasons that it is wrong to follow certain feelings. Consider the previous example.Justification for that feeling? — Philosophim
Accepting that killing is permissible in such a situation, your action is wrong in the first scenario and right in the second one.As an example, I want to kill this person that I think stole from me. I have an opportunity to act, and I do. In another scenario I see the opportunity, but I want to be sure it was them first. I really feel like killing them is good, but I hold off. Five minutes later I discover it wasn't them that stole from me. Am I still a good person in the first scenario? Am I still a good person in the second scenario? Is there really no way for me to rationally say, "I behaved better in the second scenario than in the first?" — Philosophim
It is not irrational at all. Subjective morality is functional because the majority agree on it.My arguments against a subjective morality are purely because of the irrationality of its stance, and the utterly destructive outcomes it leaves in its wake in the world if followed to the letter. — Philosophim
Morality therefore is subjective if we accept that.If you are stating now that right and wrong do not exist independently from social constraints or opinions, then this particular point no longer holds. — Philosophim
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.