Gut Feelings Equals Objective?

[POI]

Otseng stated the following: "Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules."

For debate: Seems Otseng is stating that if one has strong intuition(s) about something or things, it is objectively moral?

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "Garbage.The level of argument there is very poor. Either citing the Bible or Ghandi, who was instrumental ibn Indian independence, but doesn't make him a role model. I need no lectures from You, Ghandhi nor indeed the Bible ,on Morals, Western Eastern or anywhere else."

------
This is all after calling Mae von H's stuff garbage as well. You have reached the kudos of a Troll under a Bridge. You are correct to ignore Ghandhi, ...what would that clown know?

What time do you sleep at so that we can tip-toe across your anti-theist arch , unmolested? You have gone beyond funny at this stage. Be careful not to bite yourself, or the bridge.

Thanks

[William]

Objective morality would be morality that applies to all people at all times at all locations. Do you agree with this definition?

I believe objective morality exists, do you?

I think your definition requires expanding upon before I can agree in the actual existence of morality which is objective (re its source/where it derives.)

As far as I am aware there is no absolute morality which "applies to all people at all times at all locations" so, examples of such would have to be given in that regard.

Then what definition do you propose for objective morality?

I don't claim that there is such a thing so consequently propose no definition.

As for examples of objective morality, I proposed these:


Is it wrong to rape someone?
Is it wrong to torture babies?
Is it OK to not bring any justice to those responsible for the Holocaust?
Is it acceptable to be unfaithful to your spouse?
Is it fine to steal from someone?
Is it wrong to murder someone?
Was it OK for the kid to cut in front of me yesterday in the grocery store checkout line?

Those appear to be questions (about morality) rather than examples of supposed/alleged existence of objective morality.

[otseng]

I don't claim that there is such a thing so consequently propose no definition.

You don't need to believe in something to provide a definition. As a matter of fact, in order to make any claim about something (including if it does not exist), you'll need to define what it is. Otherwise how can you say there is no such thing if you have no idea what it is?

As for examples of objective morality, I proposed these:

Is it wrong to rape someone?
Is it wrong to torture babies?
Is it OK to not bring any justice to those responsible for the Holocaust?
Is it acceptable to be unfaithful to your spouse?
Is it fine to steal from someone?
Is it wrong to murder someone?
Was it OK for the kid to cut in front of me yesterday in the grocery store checkout line?

Those appear to be questions (about morality) rather than examples of supposed/alleged existence of objective morality.

Yes, these are questions about morality. The question is do these fall under subjective or objective morality?

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #73]

I don't claim that there is such a thing so consequently propose no definition.

You don't need to believe in something to provide a definition. As a matter of fact, in order to make any claim about something (including if it does not exist), you'll need to define what it is. Otherwise how can you say there is no such thing if you have no idea what it is?

That is specifically why I wrote I think your definition requires expanding upon before I can agree in the actual existence of morality which is objective (re its source/where it derives.)

I did not say "there is no such thing" and made that clear when I wrote that as far as I am aware there is no absolute morality which "applies to all people at all times at all locations" and asked you for examples of such.

Those appear to be questions (about morality) rather than examples of supposed/alleged existence of objective morality.

Yes, these are questions about morality. The question is do these fall under subjective or objective morality?

That would depend upon the definition of objective you are using in relation to your claim.

Synonyms of objective
1.. a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
b (of a test): limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum

2. a: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
b: involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
c (of a symptom of disease) : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual
d: relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy

We can see by those definitions offered, that the list of questions you asked...

"Is it wrong to rape someone?
Is it wrong to torture babies?
Is it OK to not bring any justice to those responsible for the Holocaust?
Is it acceptable to be unfaithful to your spouse?
Is it fine to steal from someone?
Is it wrong to murder someone?
Was it OK for the kid to cut in front of me yesterday in the grocery store checkout line?"

...in relation to the claim that objective morality exists, can garner different answers.

"Is it wrong to rape someone?"

If the answer is "yes" or "no", (with accompanying reasons) how does that provide us with evidence that a supposed absolute morality which (you claimed) "applies to all people at all times at all locations" actually exists?

[otseng]

That is specifically why I wrote I think your definition requires expanding upon before I can agree in the actual existence of morality which is objective (re its source/where it derives.)

I've provided a definition and I'm asking you what you think the definition should be if you say it should be expanded.

That would depend upon the definition of objective you are using in relation to your claim.

I'm asking for a definition of objective morality, not objective. How would you define objective morality? We need to settle on this before arguing if it exists or not.

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #75]

I'm asking for a definition of objective morality, not objective. How would you define objective morality? We need to settle on this before arguing if it exists or not.

You claimed that objective morality (OM) would be morality that "applies to all people at all times at all locations." You asked me if I agreed with that definition.
I replied that I think your definition requires expanding upon before I can agree in the actual existence of morality which is objective.

I wrote that far as I am aware there is no absolute morality which "applies to all people at all times at all locations" and asked for, examples of such to be given.

You replied with a list of proposals that you think are examples of OM which applies to all people at all times at all locations. You also asked me what definition do I propose for objective morality.

I replied reminding you that I don't claim that there is such a thing as OM so consequently propose no definition. I also wrote that your list of proposals appeared to be questions about morality and you agreed with me and asked whether these questions fall under subjective or objective morality to which I replied that it would depend upon the definition of objective you are using in relation to your claim.

You also asked how can I say there is no such thing if I have no idea what it is, to which I replied that I did not claim "there is no such thing" and made that clear when I wrote that as far as I am aware there is no absolute morality which "applies to all people at all times at all locations" which is why I asked you for examples of such.

That is specifically why I wrote I think your definition requires expanding upon before I can agree in the actual existence of morality which is objective (re its source/where it derives.)

I've provided a definition and I'm asking you what you think the definition should be if you say it should be expanded.

You wrote that the issue is if objective morality exists and you believe it is "primarily through our intuition that we know objective morality exists" giving the example "we all have this sense that things needs to be fair. It is not something that is taught to us, but we instinctively expect things should be fair" and I replied that the example appeared to be sourced within (subjective) rather than externally (objective) and asked you why do you understand "this sense that things needs to be fair" as being 'objective' (which usually means an external thing).

You replied that "We need to go back and hash out some things. What is objective morality and does it exist?" adding that "objective morality would be morality that applies to all people at all times at all locations" and asked me if I agreed with this definition.

You asked me if the list of examples fall under subjective or objective morality and I replied that this would depend upon the definition of objective you are using in relation to your claim.
In answer, you write "I'm asking for a definition of objective morality, not objective." which I find a bizarre response, as the morality you are claiming exists is specifically objective and there are a number of definitions to do with that word.

You then once again shift the burden of defining "objective morality" because "we need to settle on this before arguing if it exists or not" and I am left with little to work with.

You definition of OM is that it is an internal process primarily involving our intuition and thus "we know" objective morality exists.

In that, it appears you are arguing for a solely subjective mechanism which somehow gives us the ability to access knowledge that an "objective morality exists" and "applies to all people at all times at all locations."

What is the take-away from this interaction? I think (through you list of proposals) you are arguing that laws exist and these are considered by you to being examples of objective morality.
If so, I would argue that laws are examples of objectified subjective morality.

We can see by those proposals offered, that the list of questions you asked in relation to the claim that objective morality exists, can garner different answers. If the answers are "yes" or "no", (with accompanying reasons) how does that provide us with evidence that a supposed absolute morality which (you claimed) "applies to all people at all times at all locations" actually exists?

You did not give me an answer to that question.

The question "Is it wrong to rape someone?" is something one decides for oneself. This is done through an internal mechanism and is subjective for that.

Say there are three persons existing. You, me and someone else. If you and I think (subjectively) that it is wrong to rape someone and the third person thinks it is right to do so, all three reach that understanding through subjective mechanisms.

Let's say that the third person tells you he is going to rape you sometime soon. What objective mechanism do you have at your disposal to convince that person not to go through with their plan?

[otseng]

You then once again shift the burden of defining "objective morality" because "we need to settle on this before arguing if it exists or not" and I am left with little to work with.

I'm not shifting the burden if I have already given my definition of objective morality. You are free to not agree with the definition I proposed, but if you do not agree, then it is your burden to provide an alternative definition.

You definition of OM is that it is an internal process primarily involving our intuition and thus "we know" objective morality exists.

No, my definition does not state how we know if it exists or not. This would be a separate issue once we agree on the definition.

In that, it appears you are arguing for a solely subjective mechanism which somehow gives us the ability to access knowledge that an "objective morality exists" and "applies to all people at all times at all locations."

Though our reasoning is subjective, why would it preclude us from reaching an objective conclusion? Your fundamental argument is based on the subjective nature of our reasoning, but that does not mean that morality cannot exist objectively. Things can exist objectively even though our reasoning is subjective. So, do you deny the existence of anything that is objective?

If so, I would argue that laws are examples of objectified subjective morality.

What do you mean by "objectified subjective morality"? How would it be different from objective morality?

We can see by those proposals offered, that the list of questions you asked in relation to the claim that objective morality exists, can garner different answers. If the answers are "yes" or "no", (with accompanying reasons) how does that provide us with evidence that a supposed absolute morality which (you claimed) "applies to all people at all times at all locations" actually exists?

You did not give me an answer to that question.

If there are circumstances that we find that would apply universally as wrong, then it would be an indication objective morality exists.

The question "Is it wrong to rape someone?" is something one decides for oneself. This is done through an internal mechanism and is subjective for that.

Say there are three persons existing. You, me and someone else. If you and I think (subjectively) that it is wrong to rape someone and the third person thinks it is right to do so, all three reach that understanding through subjective mechanisms.

My definition of objective morality does not depend on the mechanism of justification. And just because we think subjectively does not make everything subjective.

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #77]

I'm not shifting the burden if I have already given my definition of objective morality. You are free to not agree with the definition I proposed, but if you do not agree, then it is your burden to provide an alternative definition.
No, my definition does not state how we know if it exists or not. This would be a separate issue once we agree on the definition.

When you mentioned you had provided a definition, I went back through the thread pages and found what I did.
If this is not your definition of objective morality (which you also claim applies to all people at all times at all locations) then please provide either a copy and paste of it or a link to it.

Though our reasoning is subjective, why would it preclude us from reaching an objective conclusion?

What objective conclusion do we have which shows us that morality exists apart from the human mind/in objective reality?

Your fundamental argument is based on the subjective nature of our reasoning, but that does not mean that morality cannot exist objectively.

How do you propose explaining the existence of morality independent of the human mind?

Things can exist objectively even though our reasoning is subjective.

Then show/point out this "thing" you claim as objective morality which applies to all people at all times at all locations.

So, do you deny the existence of anything that is objective?

Of course not! Why are you even asking this question?
I simply have no evidence for the existence of this particular thing you claim as objective morality which applies to all people at all times at all locations. I deny that such a thing has been shown to exist.

If I am shown that such a thing exists, I will confirm it.

What do you mean by "objectified subjective morality"?

Laws are one example of what I mean. Following social norms (cultural/religious/scientific/political) is another.

How would it be different from objective morality?

That depends upon what you mean by "objective morality". According to your definition, are these the same or different?

If there are circumstances that we find that would apply universally as wrong, then it would be an indication objective morality exists.

Then provide such a circumstance and we shall examine this claim together.

The question "Is it wrong to rape someone?" is something one decides for oneself. This is done through an internal mechanism and is subjective for that.

Say there are three persons existing. You, me and someone else. If you and I think (subjectively) that it is wrong to rape someone and the third person thinks it is right to do so, all three reach that understanding through subjective mechanisms.

My definition of objective morality does not depend on the mechanism of justification.

Then how are you to decide what is "right" from what is "wrong"?

And just because we think subjectively does not make everything subjective.

It does however, make everything we think about the objective, subjective.

There is no escaping that, although I have no doubt God could create such a universe where thinking is an objective thing.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #77]

I'm not shifting the burden if I have already given my definition of objective morality. You are free to not agree with the definition I proposed, but if you do not agree, then it is your burden to provide an alternative definition.
No, my definition does not state how we know if it exists or not. This would be a separate issue once we agree on the definition.

When you mentioned you had provided a definition, I went back through the thread pages and found what I did.
If this is not your definition of objective morality (which you also claim applies to all people at all times at all locations) then please provide either a copy and paste of it or a link to it.

I'm not clear what you're asking for. I provided my definition of objective morality at:

Objective morality would be morality that applies to all people at all times at all locations. Do you agree with this definition?

Then you replied:

I think your definition requires expanding upon before I can agree in the actual existence of morality which is objective (re its source/where it derives.)

If you think my definition requires expanding, then I'm asking you what definition do you propose for objective morality.

What objective conclusion do we have which shows us that morality exists apart from the human mind/in objective reality?

I don't claim we can reach an objective conclusion about objective morality. Do we need to reach an objective conclusion for anything else that is objective?

How do you propose explaining the existence of morality independent of the human mind?

I subscribe to moral realism.

Moral realism (also ethical realism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

Things can exist objectively even though our reasoning is subjective.

Then show/point out this "thing" you claim as objective morality which applies to all people at all times at all locations.

That's why I brought up the list to start arguing for this:

Is it wrong to rape someone?
Is it wrong to torture babies?
Is it OK to not bring any justice to those responsible for the Holocaust?
Is it acceptable to be unfaithful to your spouse?
Is it fine to steal from someone?
Is it wrong to murder someone?
Was it OK for the kid to cut in front of me yesterday in the grocery store checkout line?

So, do you deny the existence of anything that is objective?

Of course not! Why are you even asking this question?

Because your fundamental argument is objective morality cannot be derived from our subjective thinking.

I simply have no evidence for the existence of this particular thing you claim as objective morality which applies to all people at all times at all locations. I deny that such a thing has been shown to exist.

If I am shown that such a thing exists, I will confirm it.

We can go back to rape. In what circumstance would it be morally acceptable?

How would it be different from objective morality?

That depends upon what you mean by "objective morality". According to your definition, are these the same or different?

If morality was "objectified" to apply universally, I don't see much of a difference between "objective morality" and "objectified subjective morality".

If there are circumstances that we find that would apply universally as wrong, then it would be an indication objective morality exists.

Then provide such a circumstance and we shall examine this claim together.

I've presented a list and we can start with rape.

Then how are you to decide what is "right" from what is "wrong"?

From our moral sense.

And just because we think subjectively does not make everything subjective.

It does however, make everything we think about the objective, subjective.

No. As you stated, you do not deny the existence of objective things. Otherwise you would be contradicting yourself.

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #79]

I'm not clear what you're asking for. I provided my definition of objective morality at:
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:05 am
Objective morality would be morality that applies to all people at all times at all locations. Do you agree with this definition?

It is probably best that we avoid going around in circles.

If you think my definition requires expanding, then I'm asking you what definition do you propose for objective morality.

Again, the "expanding" had to do with you giving examples which you feel fit under this definition you gave.

It is not that I agree or disagree with the definition. It is that the definition does not invoke any clarity re what you are trying to define. What exactly is "objective morality that applies to all people at all times at all locations."?

I don't claim we can reach an objective conclusion about objective morality. Do we need to reach an objective conclusion for anything else that is objective?

If we want to reach agreement, yes we do. Do you want to reach agreement with others re your claim "objective morality would be morality that applies to all people at all times at all locations."?

I subscribe to moral realism. Moral realism (also ethical realism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately.

Please give an example of moral realism which involves objective morality that applies to all people at all times at all locations.

So, do you deny the existence of anything that is objective?

Of course not! Why are you even asking this question?

Because your fundamental argument is objective morality cannot be derived from our subjective thinking.

My post #57 reads "your for instance appears to be sourced within rather than externally. Why do you understand such as being 'objective' (which usually means an external thing)?"

It can be seen clearly enough that I understand morality derives from (is fundamental to) the internal process of subjectiveness.
Another example of my stated understanding of the source of morality (being subjective) is in post #76 where I wrote "The question "Is it wrong to rape someone?" is something one decides for oneself. This is done through an internal mechanism and is subjective for that."
Clearly my fundamental argument is morality is derived from our subjective thinking.
I have no "fundamental argument" for "objective morality" because I have yet to be informed (by those who claim "objective morality" exists) as to what they mean by "objective morality"

Then show/point out this "thing" you claim as objective morality which applies to all people at all times at all locations.

That's why I brought up the list to start arguing for this:
otseng wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 7:23 am
Is it wrong to rape someone?
Is it wrong to torture babies?
Is it OK to not bring any justice to those responsible for the Holocaust?
Is it acceptable to be unfaithful to your spouse?
Is it fine to steal from someone?
Is it wrong to murder someone?
Was it OK for the kid to cut in front of me yesterday in the grocery store checkout line?

I responded with "Those appear to be questions (about morality) rather than examples of supposed/alleged existence of objective morality." and you replied with "Yes, these are questions about morality. The question is do these fall under subjective or objective morality?" and I replied with "That would depend upon the definition of objective you are using in relation to your claim." and gave a short linked list of synonyms of objective from which you could use to pinpoint the definition you were using but you didn't. I also wrote "If the answer is "yes" or "no", (with accompanying reasons) how does that provide us with evidence that a supposed absolute morality which (you claimed) "applies to all people at all times at all locations" actually exists?"

You did not immediately give me an answer to that question. When you eventually did, you wrote "If there are circumstances that we find that would apply universally as wrong, then it would be an indication objective morality exists."

You gave the "IF" and I replied with the "THEN"
"Then provide such a circumstance and we shall examine this claim together."

I've presented a list and we can start with rape.

So IF there are circumstances of rape that we agree with which would apply universally as wrong, why would these be examples/indicators that "objective morality exists"?

I have already attempted to start that conversation with you when I wrote in post #76 "The question "Is it wrong to rape someone" is something one decides for oneself. This is done through an internal mechanism and is subjective for that.

I then offered an example.

"Say there are three persons existing. You, me and someone else. If you and I think (subjectively) that it is wrong to rape someone and the third person thinks it is right to do so, all three reach their understanding through subjective mechanisms/processes.


I followed that with "Let's say that the third person tells you he is going to rape you sometime soon. What objective mechanism do you have at your disposal to convince that person not to go through with their plan?"

Then how are you to decide what is "right" from what is "wrong"?

From our moral sense.

Again, that "Sense" is internal (subjective - fundamental to (human) morality)

And just because we think subjectively does not make everything subjective.

It does however, make everything we think about the objective, subjective.

No.

Yes.

Clearly this pinpoints the reason we are back and forthing in this manner. ALL thinking is by nature subjective.

We may - upon discussing our thinking (objectifying our thoughts) into the external object we are experiencing (the universe) come to an agreement, if you and I think (subjective) that it is wrong to rape someone and the third person thinks it is right to do so, all three reach that understanding through subjective mechanisms.

You and I can come to an understanding through verbalising our thinking and present this to the person who thinks otherwise and that may induce the person to change the way they think.

As you stated, you do not deny the existence of objective things. Otherwise you would be contradicting yourself.

It is not the same thing. For example, I acknowledge the Earth exists as an objective thing I (a mind) experiences through a human (form) the mind I am occupies (for the experience).

I do not say that the earth exists "only as a subjective experience my mind created" but that I -the mind - am within the experience of the Earth (and all that this entails).

Therein I acknowledge no indication of morality present in the Earth or even the universe.
What I do observe is that the goings on (re Earth/Nature) are apparently absent of any sign of any objective source which you say your list examples as this supposed "objective morality" that "applies to all people at all times at all locations"

To underscore this observation, if we remove humans from the planet altogether and try to pinpoint/locate examples of this "objective morality" that "applies to all people at all times at all locations" what would we find?

One might argue that since this supposed "objective morality" "cannot apply to all people at all times at all locations if all those people don't exist on the planet" then we could tell from that, that people have to exist in order for morality to exist and therefore it is people who are objectifying morality into the environment and doing so through internal processes, suggesting that morality has an internal/subjective source rather than an external/objective source.

Therefore, how can the claim that "objective morality exists and that it applies to all people at all times at all locations" be supported?

It cannot be supported because it requires human beings exist in the universe and that the universe (being objective) is the source of (a supposed) "objective morality" which "exists" and that this supposed "objective morality" applies to all people at all times at all locations.

To underline this reasoning further, the idea that the universe is a purely objective thing, one could argue that it would still exist without humans existing to acknowledge it exists.

However, the same cannot be said of morality. Remove humans from the universe and one cannot say morality still exists as an objective reality, as part of the fundamental makeup of the Universe.

Therefore, the idea of any actual "objective morality" existing outside of the human experience appears flawed.

However, the idea that "morality exists and that it applies to all people at all times at all locations" is something we could agree with. I see/have been given no reason as to why one would need to add the word "objective' to that sentence.