Not sure why this got removed from 196lemmy…blahaj.zone but it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong. Like an automatic DM or something
wait until this place hears that killing babies is bad as an objective moral truth
Objective != Better/stronger/more true
Just because something is clearly (to any sane human) true doesn’t mean it’s objective. It’s can still be subjective.
An objective moral truth is basically an oxymoron
You can objectively say that humans think certain things are morally bankrupt but you cannot say that certain things are objectively morally bankrupt without specifying according to whom. Morals don’t just float around space. Humans have them because of evolution and society.
I think much confusion here is around the word objective. We seem to be defining it differently. The way I define it, and I think the most idiomatic way to define it, there cannot, by definition, be such a thing as an objective moral truth
Edit: clarification
You can objectively say that humans think certain things are morally bankrupt but you cannot say that certain things are objectively morally bankrupt without specifying according to whom.
This is begging the question in favor of moral relativism. If there are objective facts “floating out there” about math, biology, etcetera, why can’t there be objective facts about morality?
If the answer is that it is difficult to know what the moral facts are: some facts are more difficult to find out than others. Physics didn’t know about the Higgs Boson for centuries and yet here we are. Perhaps philosophy could do the same thing with moral truths in time.
If there are objective facts “floating out there” about math, biology, etcetera, why can’t there be objective facts about morality?
Because the objectivity of statements about math, biology, etc. can be verified by posing a scientific question. In other words, something like 1+1=2 is a testable claim. We have seen no occurrence of 1+1=2. Hence, we can say that “1+1=2” is a law of nature. “Moral truths” are simply not testable.
If the answer is that it is difficult to know what the moral facts are: some facts are more difficult to find out than others. Physics didn’t know about the Higgs Boson for centuries and yet here we are. Perhaps philosophy could do the same thing with moral truths in time
And the Higgs Boson became an “objective statement” only after it was verified. Prior to that, it was just a hypothesis. Do you have any scientific evidence to suggest that there are certain universal moral truths that apply to all humans?
Sam Harris doesn’t like this idea, lol. “morality is wellbeing!”, well then what is wellbeing to a bad person? it’s all relative
Professional philosophers don’t take Sam Harris seriously. He’s a smart guy, but his take on free will is dismissive of established philosophical literature. That is, he could do more to read and then engage with published philosophy; but maybe he doesn’t think he has to since his work isn’t intended for academics.
Patrick’s last sentence is still consistent with everything that he said above. He expressed HIS opinion and HIS morals above.
No ethical framework can be truly objective. This is because there is no universal constant that backs any ethical framework. We need universal constants to verify an objective statement. For example, the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference. Also it is measureable. How do you measure the permissibility of an action? We do not know.
In conclusion, Patrick was right when he implied that there was no objectivity in ethics.
I’m seeing this point about moral epistemology a lot in this thread. Of course, philosophers have constructed convincing arguments in favor of different theories (classic ones being virtue ethics, deontology, consequentialism). If you were to take a look at those arguments you might be persuaded to one camp or another.
Also, I find this objection makes more sense for the moral skeptic than the moral relativist. If we really can’t know the moral value of an action, then why settle for saying its based on what humans think? Why not just go all out and say either 1) there is no such thing as moral value or 2) there is moral value but we have no way of knowing what it is.
If we really can’t know the moral value of an action, then why settle for saying its based on what humans think
I never said that we can’t know the moral value of an action. All that I’m saying is that the moral value of an action is dependent on the entity giving the value. Morals cannot exist without beings capable of having morals.
Why not just go all out and say either 1) there is no such thing as moral value or 2) there is moral value but we have no way of knowing what it is.
Because saying either of these two statements would not reflect reality. There IS a thing such as moral value. It’s just not constant for all beings capable of having morals. For the second option, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that there is indeed a universal moral constant. Hence, “knowing” that value goes out of the window.
I believe in Objective Morality
If you are harming someone else without proper cause. You are doing evil.
Let me dumb it down for you a little bit. Objective morality exists, and the objective moral is simply to do no harm. You may harm another person, if that person is causing harm and you are trying to stop them. That is the only time causing harm is just.
Ok but that requires some sort of objective way to sort out what’s harmful and what isn’t. And to what extent “harm” counts. And have an objective way to say who exactly was the one that caused the harm, who’s the agent and who’s not an agent. And to what exactly can justify harm. And what can even be harmed. That’s just an impossible thing to do.
It’s definitions all the way down – you can’t make anything like that “objective”. All the words you use are subjective, all words have loose meanings that differ from person to person. “Doing harm” has no objective meaning.
It’s like trying to find objective beauty. There is no objective beauty, there is nothing that applies to everyone that says how beautiful they are. It’s majority based on understandings gathered from culture and life experiences, which differ greatly from person to person. Morality is the same.
What you described isn’t “objective morality”, it’s the NAP. That’s just a discount conservative philosophy.
Okay, but can you prove objectively that doing so is a “bad” thing? What even is the definition of “bad” in this context?
Quite simple, if you harm someone who is not harming someone else, then you have done bad. It’s that easy
But why though? Why is “harming someone who is not harming someone else” equivalent to “done bad”? What universal constant says that this is the case?
Fuck it, the right doesn’t follow rule or law. If I was her I’d laugh in their face and say “no”.
