The Tanager wrote:
Argument #1: The existence of the suffering and death of innocent people shows morality to be a human subjective construct.
You need to further support at least two things here.
One, why it is immoral to cause the suffering and death of an innocent person.
Isn't it a given that everyone who discusses morality would agree to this principle of morality no matter what position they take on morality being objective, subjective, absolute or otherwise?
I think you are the one who would need to support the idea that any sane person would try to claim that causing innocent people is not immoral. Who's going to argue that torturing babies should be considered to be a moral thing to do?
What's the point in discussing a concept called "
morality" if you're going to start demanding support for the most basic moral concepts that everyone pretty much agrees on?
The Tanager wrote:
Two, that there are innocent people who suffer and die. What are those supports?
We know that innocent babies have been tortured both, by natural disasters and disease, as well as at the hands of sick humans.
So is it your intent to argue that every baby that is ever tortured must not be innocent? And must therefore deserve to be tortured?
That's a dangerous position to take because if someone came into your home and started torturing your baby you could not object. You'd have to take the position that since the baby is being tortured it must deserve it.
Do you really want to back yourself into those kinds of corners?
The Tanager wrote:
Argument #2: That the majority of humans are okay with killing species other than their own shows morality to be a human subjective construct.
It's possible you mean something else, but I think the emphasis of your point is about the species-ism present in human expressions of moral opinions. I fail to see why that proves morality to be subjective. It fits with subjectivism, but it also fits with non-subjectivism. The majority of humans could be correct that humans have a special status. Or the majority of humans could just be wrong about it.
It seems to me that you are heading to thin ice by suggesting that there should be an "
objective morality" that only applies to humans.
Also if moral concepts don't extend to the animal kingdom, then how could you make a moral argument against animal abuse?
I'm mean, sure you can do down that path if you want, but it seems to me that it would be a very rocky path potentially leading to a dead end.
The Tanager wrote:
Argument #3: If killing isn't wrong across the board, then morality is a human subjective concept.
Divine Insight wrote:If there such a thing as absolute m orality then humans would be just as guilty for murder when they kill a mosquito as they would be if they killed another human. The reason we consider killing other humans to be immoral is precisely because we are humans.
This seems to me to still confuse the two kinds of questions I laid out earlier. Does the change in elevation make the temperature water boils at a subjective fact? No. The temperature water objectively boils at depends upon situational facts (such as elevation). Killing may depend upon situational facts (whether a mosquito is killed or a human or in self defense or whatever), yet still not be a subjective fact.
My argument is that it couldn't be a naturally objective morality.
It appears to me that you might be thinking in terms of some sort of religious morality where some God has subjectively decided that humans are more valuable then other animals.
But then you need to bring int0 the mix yet another conscious entity (i.e. a God) who has his own subjective opinions about morality. That ends up bringing subjectivity right back into the mix.
The Tanager wrote:
And now from this thread:
Argument #4: Moral disagreements show that morality is a human subjective concept.
Does the fact that people disagree on the shape of the earth show that there is no objective truth on the matter? If not, then what is the difference?
This one is actually quite trivial. We have a physical earth to settle the disagreements humans have about the shape of the earth. Those who refuse to accept the facts of reality are simply unreasonable people. It's that simple.
So your attempt at an an analogy here breaks down in the worst possible way.
Where are you going to find any objective morality that you can hold up in the same way as a physical planet earth?
You've made a false analogy that has no merit.
The Tanager wrote:
Argument #5: If morality does not apply to inanimate objects, then morality is a human subjective concept.
I'm not sure if I'm understanding your reasoning here clearly, but it seems like that is what you are saying. That there can't be moral agents and non-moral things, it's an all-or-nothing kind of thing. What is your support for that?
I'm just being reasonable. I've already made the point that this is what we currently have:
Morality as a subjective human construct = overwhelming evidence
Morality as an objective absolute = zero evidence.
What can you point to as evidence for these proposed "
moral agents"?
Any why does morality only apply to humans and nothing else?
And does a human-centric system of morality even make any sense?
I think it doesn't. We are already discovering that if we don't take care of our space ship Mother Earth we will soon be unable to survive on her anymore. So humans should be concerned with the morality of destroying our own planet.
Not only are humans in bulk unconcerned with this but clearly there is no sign that any imagined "
moral agents" are concerned about it either.
For me the bottom line is simple. The evidence that morality is an invented human construct is overwhelming. The evidence for the existence of any moral agents external to humanity is simply non-existent.
So which is more reasonable to believe to be true?
If you are demanding that I "
prove" that morality is a subjective moral construct, then you're barking up the wrong tree.
However, one thing that no one can deny is that if there is an objective morality, then very few, if any, humans are aware of it or have a clue what it might be.
So what's even the point in trying to argue for an objective morality if you can't even point to it?
No one would have a clue what it might even be.
The Tanager wrote:
Argument #6: If no evidence can be given for morality being non-subjective/objective/real/absolute, then morality is a human subjective concept.
Divine Insight wrote:Since there is absolutely no evidence anywhere for any objective morality, ... why should we think that any objective or absolute moral values exist at all?
I would propose that we take one side at a time. I want to make sure that I understand your reasoning, so that I can then hold it up against why I believe in non-subjective morality. It helps me to think most clearly, if no one else.
The core of my reasoning is this.
Let's assume for the sake of argument and curiosity that an objective morality exists.
Where does it exist?
Can you point me to it?
If you can't even point to an objective system of morality then why would it even matter if such a thing existed? No one could have a clue what it is anyway.
An objective morality that no one can point to, is as meaningless as a non-existent objective morality.
So where is this objective morality?
If you can't point to it, then what's the point in even trying to argue that it might exist?
And I certainly hope that you wouldn't point to some religious Holy Books as the place where this objective morality is supposedly hiding. That's been tried for millennia and has never worked. Even those who claim to have found "
objective morality" in their Holy Books cannot even agree with each other on what that morality actually entails. And often times the moral principles they claim to have found in such books has been called "
terrorism" by other humans who disagree with those moral principles.
You used the physical earth as an analogy above. Well, we can point to planet earth.
Where is this objective morality? If you can't even point to it then what is it are we even discussing?
Shouldn't you need to first produce an "
objective morality" that we can test to see if it truly can be validated as being genuinely objective?
We have planet earth to argue about. And as far as I'm concerned the evidence is already in on that one. Anyone refusing to accept the evidence is simply being irrational and unrealistic.
But where is this objective morality? I don't see it.