• Philosophim
    2.8k
    I have never said that there is a moral fact.MoK

    But you have replied in a way that indicates there is one. A person can claim that plants don't need water to live, but then proceed to water their plants during a drought saying, "I do it to make them more comfortable, they'll die if they're not comfortable." Its not saying, "Plants need water to sustain life," but implicit in the action and belief there is the understanding that they'll die without it. After all, you're not playing them music for comfort. =P

    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. If morality truly has no facts, then no amount of reason can justify any good or evil action. At that point, good and evil don't exist. 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.

    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.

    Pain is a subjective experience so it could be good for a masochist and evil for normal people.MoK

    There is a condition that a person can have where they feel no pain. Many of them die early, and have terrible scars and disfigurements the longer they live because the lack of pain doesn't allow them to detect when they're injuring themselves. For example, as kids they'll put their hand on a hot stove and burn their flesh away not realizing the damage they're causing. If a person with this condition wouldn't like the feeling of pain, isn't it still good to have pain as a warning that something is hurting your body? The objective answer is: Yes. It is irrelevant to whether a person likes it or not.

    As I mentioned good and evil are features of our experiences and have nothing to do with right and wrong.MoK

    Then what is right and wrong? Generally what is right is synonymous with a good action, while wrong is synonymous with a wrong action.

    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

    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.

    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

    But we've already demonstrated the problem with 'good = what I want". It leads to contradictions and anything is allowed. At that point, how do we handle a conflict of likes without moral facts? I could kidnap my neighbor, torture him because he dared start building a fence 1 inch on my property, then kill him 30 days later after inflicting as much pain as possible on them. And no one could say I was factually wrong, just, "I don't like that you did that." And if I didn't like that they said that, I could do the same to them as well and no one could reasonably say I was wrong to do so either.

    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.
  • MoK
    972
    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 already mentioned that the Bible is not a reliable source for morality. You mentioned Ten Commandments and I mentioned Numbers 31:17-18.

    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 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?

    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
    I don't think that Kant is right in this instance.
  • MoK
    972
    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
    Very correct.
  • MoK
    972
    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
    No, I am saying that morality is not based on any moral facts since 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
    Correct. We cannot justify any action if there is not any moral fact.

    At that point, good and evil don't exist.Philosophim
    Good and evil exist even if there is not any moral fact.

    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
    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.

    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 evil person who commits these actions does not think they are wrong.

    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 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.

    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
    The very existence of conflicts between people for their rights is an indication that there is no moral fact.

    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
    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.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    No, I am saying that morality is not based on any moral facts since there is not any moral fact.MoK

    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. So if a person murdered your friends and loved ones reasonably, what they did was good on their part. If you conflict, all they have to do is end you and they are ultimately right. Might and emotional desire make right basically.

    Correct. We cannot justify any action if there is not any moral fact.MoK

    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.

    Good and evil exist even if there is not any moral fact.MoK

    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.

    The evil person who commits these actions does not think they are wrong.MoK

    Of course not, but if I think that a magical rain dance made it rain, it doesn't mean I'm correct.

    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

    Alright, we're getting somewhere now. How do we know what we should or shouldn't do? You noted:

    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

    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.

    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

    Again, this is summarized as feelings. Not reason. Not facts. Just how we feel that day. So if I feel like killing someone this morning its good? Tomorrow I don't so its evil? I feel like staying married today so I don't divorce my wife, but tomorrow I feel tired of her so its good for me to divorce her without consideration of the real consequences for tomorrow? What separates your claims of good and evil from the actions of a child?

    The very existence of conflicts between people for their rights is an indication that there is no moral fact.MoK

    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

    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

    What you think isn't philosophy or a reasoned discussion. That's just a belief. Like me believing the pink elephant dancing in the corner of my room's name is Fred. We all think we're correct in our own beliefs. Philosophy and reason is about putting those beliefs out there and being open to challenging them, questioning them, refining them, and sometimes changing them. "I think I'm correct therefore I am," is not thinking, that's feeling.
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    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 am not saying the Bible is the reliable source for morality. I am saying that many current morality is based on the Bible.

    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
    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 don't think that Kant is right in this instance.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?

    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. But you don't agree with Kant. Why don't you agree with his theory? Would you need moral fact to judge that is morally wrong?
  • MoK
    972
    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.

    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
    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.

    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
    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?

    Alright, we're getting somewhere now. How do we know what we should or shouldn't do?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.

    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.

    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? :DPhilosophim
    Of course, there is a last cookie. You however have your own interests and that is the source of conflict.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    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

    All you've replaced is personal emotion with group emotion. 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.

    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

    I nuke them, and there is nothing rational that forbids me from doing that. If its all emotions, rationally nothing is forbidden.

    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

    All the time. Social conflict is not always about good and evil, but wants and needs and the denial of those wants being fulfilled. Currently if what you like is good, then an argument with a partner over which move to see is a battle of good and evil. :) The argument that you have a different opinion on what is good or evil suddenly makes there be no fact of good or evil is the same as saying I have a different opinion on whether that's a tree or a bush, therefore there is no tree or bush. That doesn't invalidate the terms good and evil any more than the terms tree and bush.

    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

    Once again, you can sum that all up as 'feelings'. MoK, can I believe something and realize its wrong? Of course. What you're noting is that we can believe whatever we want and it can never be wrong. What I like is good because I like it, so therefore its good. You're saying no one can ever make a mistake as to what is good and evil, and that there is no rational way to handle conflicts, that anyone who disagrees with what you want is a hinderance, you don't like it, therefore they're evil.

    According to you, I'm evil because I'm holding a position you don't want. If you couldn't convince me, and that annoyed you, rationally you could come shoot me while humming and there would be nothing wrong with that. Is that the type of morality you think works in the world? Is that the morality you follow in your own life? If you come up with a philosophical argument that you yourself don't live by, that's an indicator its not a very good argument.

    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

    And my point is that you asserted one.
  • MoK
    972
    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.

    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
    Even if you can nuke the group your action from their perspective is evil.

    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
    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?

    Once again, you can sum that all up as 'feelings'. MoK, can I believe something and realize its wrong?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.

    And my point is that you asserted one.Philosophim
    Where?
  • MoK
    972
    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
    Correct.

    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
    I mentioned that moral facts are a set of facts that we can derive from whether an action is right or wrong.

    Why don't you think Kant is right in this instance?Corvus
    Because I think that morality cannot be objective.

    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.

    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
    Could you give a reason why an action is universally and objectively wrong?
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    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
    Obviously his moral sense doesn't exist. Why should you care his thoughts make sense?

    Could you give a reason why an action is universally and objectively wrong?MoK
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    Why don't you think Kant is right in this instance? — Corvus

    Because I think that morality cannot be objective.
    MoK
  • MoK
    972

    Ok, let's focus on his first formulation of categorical imperative since the second formulation is derived from the first one. From Wiki: "The moral proposition A: "It is permissible to steal" would result in a contradiction upon universalisation. The notion of stealing presupposes the existence of personal property, but were A universalized, then there could be no personal property, and so the proposition has logically negated itself." I think this formulation does not consider two aspects of a property, namely the right to have a property and the ability to have a property. I think universalizing stealing negates the right to have a property but not the ability to have a property. A person could be strong enough to steal a property and keep it for himself/herself. Therefore, saying that "there could be no personal property" does not follow hence his argument fails.
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    Therefore, saying that "there could be no personal property" does not follow hence his argument fails.MoK

    It is not about personal property. It is about the action i.e. stealing.
  • MoK
    972
    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.
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    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

    Stealing is universally regarded as morally wrong. No one in the world would think stealing is morally right regardless the property were personally or publicly owned. Stealing shouldn't be permitted in any circumstances by universal law.
  • MoK
    972
    Stealing is universally regarded as morally wrong.Corvus
    By whom? A person who is hungry and steals food does not think so. And where is the argument for that?
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    By whom? A person who is hungry and steals food does not think so. And where is the argument for that?MoK

    The universal moral law will say stealing is wrong. The hungry folk should have asked for some food explaining his / her situation from those around him. Without doubt some charitable folks out of sympathy would have offered the hungry fellow man with hot food and drinks.

    Under the universal and objective moral law which is residing in all human reasoning, stealing is morally wrong.
  • MoK
    972

    What is the argument for that?
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    What is the argument for that?MoK

    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.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    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

    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.

    Even if you can nuke the group your action from their perspective is evil.MoK

    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?

    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

    Feelings are indicators of our needs, they are not the needs themselves. Remember the people who cannot feel pain? They still need to not hurt themselves, they're just lacking a tool to minimize harm. Even if you're not hungry or thirsty, if you don't eat or drink you'll eventually die. Feelings are digests of a situation that compel us to act or not act. They are not focused reading or studying of the situation. Feelings are very useful for general application and impetus but do not produce thoughtful actions or discoveries alone. Cell phone technology was not discovered on a whim, but through careful application of math, science, and rational study.

    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

    I'm an atheist MoK. I don't believe in an afterlife. I'm much more concerned about morality for how it impacts the short time we are conscious beings on this planet. I agree we have both reason and feelings, but so far all I've seen from your assertion of subjective morality is feelings. If you've recently freed yourself from a religion or someone who imposed a moral order on you from their subjective viewpoint, I can understand the resistance.

    A real objective morality is not about controlling people MoK. Its a freeing idea that allows us to rationally, not emotionally, not for status, not for dominance or misery, to analyze actions and come to a rational conclusion of what would be more beneficial to reality. An objective morality requires rational argumentation, allows debate, and is always open for questioning. It does not insist that it be followed or you will receive eternal punishment. It does not insist on a reward that no one is really getting. Its a note about how to function best as an emotional and rational human agent in the world.

    Where? (Did you mention a moral fact)MoK

    You noted that right and wrong have some factual basis to them because they exist independently of social constraints or opinions.
  • MoK
    972
    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?
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    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

    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.
  • MoK
    972
    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
    By the group, I mean the majority of the human population.

    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
    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.

    Feelings are indicators of our needs, they are not the needs themselves.Philosophim
    Quite opposite. There would be no needs or wants without feelings. I didn't say that needs are feelings though.

    I'm an atheist MoK. I don't believe in an afterlife.Philosophim
    Even as an atheist, you have certain worries about your life.

    Its a note about how to function best as an emotional and rational human agent in the world.Philosophim
    But there is no objective morality since there are no moral facts.

    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
    972
    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
    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.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    By the group, I mean the majority of the human population.MoK

    If good is just a feeling, why should the majority of the human population matter? If a minority feel a certain way and can act on it, who cares? Why is the majorities feelings any more important than the minorities feelings?

    No, I won't approve of any of these but my disapproval is biased by how I feel in such situations.MoK

    Is it purely based on your feelings, or do you have some reasons you put out there? Let me be clear, a feeling is not a thought. So you would feel bad about it, not think about it, and act on it. Do you ever have any other thoughts? Justification for that feeling? Consider the situation prior to acting on the feeling, then act?

    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?"

    Even as an atheist, you have certain worries about your life.MoK

    I'm very well off MoK. I have everything I need, and almost everything I want in life. 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.

    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

    This was several posts back and I do not care to search through and find this again. 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.
  • Count Timothy von Icarus
    3.2k


    Does the fact that a minority of people also reject that the Earth is round, the germ theory of disease, or that the Holocaust happened also demonstrate that there is no fact of the matter on these questions? Why must knowledge of moral facts be universal and infallible?

    Historically, sentimentalist approaches to ethics, those which attempt to ground ethics in universal or common "feeling," already assumed that there were no moral facts in the way there were "descriptive facts" (and the dichotomy already assumes a difference). So, if we take them as paradigmatic ethical theories we run the risk of slipping into accidental begging the question.

    I would argue there are clearly facts related to values. Consider:

    It is bad for children to be exposed to high levels of lead.

    It is bad for a bear to get its leg stuck in a bear trap.

    Michael Jordan is a better basketball player than my toddler son.

    Garry Kasparov is a better chess player than all the kids at the local kindergarten.

    Plowing your life savings into Enron stock in 2001 or Bear Sterns stock in 2008 would have been a bad investment.

    Throwing a dart at a list of explanations for a given phenomena and deciding that whatever the dart has landed on is the correct explanation is a bad way to do science.

    The person committed to the idea that there are no facts about values is committed to the implausible position that the statements above lack any truth value, that they are, in a sense, undecidable.

    Likewise, there will be no fact of the matter about what constitutes good or bad argument, good or bad evidence, or good or bad faith vis-á-vis arguments, and no fact of the matter as to whether truth is truly preferable than falsity.

    I'd argue that moral anti-realism and nihilism only seem as plausible as they do because people try to scope it down to "moral values," making "moral good" a sort of sui generis good that is divorced from all other notions of goodness, choiceworthyness, desirability, etc. But is this a proper distinction? I don't think it is, since it is unclear what such a distinct "moral good" is supposed to consist in once it has been isolated from all other questions of value.
  • Count Timothy von Icarus
    3.2k


    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.

    And here is the objectional premise driving the slide to moral nihilism in much thought. "If something has to do with desirability or choiceworthyness it always has to do with feelings (i.e., the passions and the appetites) and never involves reason directly."

    Is this so? Why can't the desire to know the truth, or the desire to know what is truly best, be ascribed to reason? To claim that reason only deals with facts, and that facts exclude values, or that all questions of value are based on desire, and that reason is never involved in desire, might prop up nihilism, but it seems much harder to justify in itself.
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    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

    The universal and objective morality as a human nature is the principle of Ethics. It doesn't mean 100% human beings understand and practice the moral law.

    There would be real life cases where some of the minority folks' judgements and understandings get impaired due to various reasons. And there will always be some minority folks going against the human nature and the normativity also for various reasons.

    The principle cannot do anything against them apart from saying that they are morally wrong. However, the principle still stands as the normativity of morality.
  • MoK
    972
    If good is just a feeling, why should the majority of the human population matter?Philosophim
    They feel the same way; they establish the laws based on that and everybody has to follow the laws.

    If a minority feel a certain way and can act on it, who cares?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.

    Why is the majorities feelings any more important than the minorities feelings?Philosophim
    Because they establish the laws.

    Is it purely based on your feelings, or do you have some reasons you put out there?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.

    Justification for that feeling?Philosophim
    Yes, we could have reasons that it is wrong to follow certain feelings. Consider the previous example.

    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
    Accepting that killing is permissible in such a situation, your action is wrong in the first scenario and right in the second one.

    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
    It is not irrational at all. Subjective morality is functional because the majority agree on it.

    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
    Morality therefore is subjective if we accept that.
123458
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.