There is NO OBJECTIVE MORALITY - Proof in under 90 seconds

Not to be a dick but sorry no there isn't (from a religous stand point not scientific stand point) and I can destroy that argument in under 90 seconds

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• xxrr23
• god
• heaven
• bible
• faith
• morals
• thunderf00t
• venomfangx
• objective
• subjective
• morality
• religion
• christianity
• richard
• dawkins
• talk
• creationism
• design

[Murchad99]

@BigLundi And while some judgments appear so obvious as to be objective (swimming in lava is counterproductive to surviving), others are not so obvious and highly dependent upon perspective... just as an ape is obviously not a man. And the line that separates the obvious from the not-so-obvious is as subjective as the line that separates human from non-human, or magenta from blue.

[Murchad99]

@BigLundi ...exposes one unnecessarily to bacteria and viruses, as well as the potential for crime, and is thus incongruous with seeking health and survival (all conventions therein accepted). I could say that riding in the car builds one's immune system and provides experience on how to spot and thus avoid problems with other riders. You can reason you way to what appears to be an inescapably logical judgment as to how to proceed, but a judgment it remains.

[Murchad99]

@BigLundi ...cannot prove objectivity without absolute specificity. Remember, outside of cold logic and math... efficiency is itself a concept and value arrived at by judgment.

I asked previously whether it is objectively morally right to feed the poor. A liberal might say "of course, it's immoral not to feed the hungry" while a compassionate conservative would insist you're creating a cycle with long-term negative consequences. One might say that riding on a crowded subway car ...

[Murchad99]

@BigLundi ...against which other goals must be held for contrast. You say philosophers have said this... but are you saying it, and how would it be demonstrated?

Getting back to some older points...

"Unless of course you don't agree that there are such things as efficient and inefficient ways to achieve goals." I agree completely. Our mutual agreement does not validate the objectivity of judgements about efficiency, just as a reductio, however clear and concise...

[Murchad99]

@BigLundi "it WOULD be objectively true." ...That all people alive prefer the taste of vanilla. As you said with regards to taste, the concept that vanilla is good/better/best remains subjective regardless of whether or not it's currently universal. This is a carousel of convention.

"Which was the point of my rebuttal." I must not have understood, perhaps you can rephrase. I want to assume you're saying that the overall flourishing of mankind is an objective and necessary goal..

[BigLundi]

@Murchad99 "If every person on the planet thought vanilla ice cream was the best...objectively true." OIf course, because the statement of how something tastes isn't objective. However, if we could determine that scientifically ALL our taste buds are more satisfied by the flavor of vanilla than anything else...it WOULD be objectively true.

"We already established said peope are not insterested" Which was the point of my rebuttal.

[Murchad99]

@BigLundi "Universal and objective are equivalent in this case." I disagree. If every person on the planet thought vanilla ice cream was the best, it would be universal... but by no means objectively true.

"share a goal that is in direct contrast with flourishing in general."

But we already established said people were not interested in general flourishing, only selective... which is logical by virtue of limited resources. So how are their moral values in contrast to their goals?

[BigLundi]

@Murchad99 In fact, it's this utilitarianistic approach that causes philosophers to abandon the label when getting into ethics, as it is regularly referred to as 'no duh' ism. They begin to say, "Well of course the goal of all morals is to decrease suffering and increase well being. The issue is HOW To go about that, and what amount of suffering can be called 'necessary' in order to cause the most 'well being'."

And it's that HOW that we can determine objectively.

[BigLundi]

@Murchad99 "A good sign that we're talking about universal morals, not objective ones" You're conflating again. Universal and objective are equivalent in this case.

However, you're wrong in your dissection. Those who value only the flourishing of a small population rather than the entirety are not morally superior by causing suffering to those whose existence they are willing to sacrifice to better the smaller existence share a goal that is in direct contrast with flourishing in general.

[Murchad99]

@BigLundi "we tend" ... a good sign that we're talking about universal morals, not objective ones. "..."to go towards what causes the most health, regardless of society and culture"

But by your prior explanation, those whose goal is for the health and flourishing of not all but only a portion (big or small) of the human population can consider actions that benefit that portion at the expense of the rest to be much more effective at achieving the goal, and thus morally superior.