you are incapable of dialogue, because you exercise no effort in understanding the other opinion.

Not so agreed. The non-assignment of a truth value does not validate a preference. If I say I don’t hold with x being true or not true, doesn’t imply I prefer one over the other. I could just be logically indifferent, or, in some typically empirical cases, unknowledgable. Still, a moral agent will not be indifferent, even if the logical possibility exists. — Mww

The point I was going for, was if there is no truth value in opinion a or b, either choice is just preference. There is no truth value that vanilla is better than chocolate. It is just preference, chose as you wish. We don't have that luxury with is murder bad or good.

And because we remain in the purely logical, hence a priori domain, we are still being subjective. It also explains why you were given an comment (it is true murder is good/bad, right/wrong) that didn’t properly refer to the antecedent (there is a truth about murder being good/bad, right/wrong).

Best paragraph I’ve had to work with in days, so......thanks for that. — Mww

I am struggling with how we can believe that it is true that murder is either good or bad. And there can be a significant subjective judgment on which it is. Subjective and truth seem by their nature seem at opposition

Ok let me see if I can guess at one

For some reason you thought I said murder or not murder is the same as vanilla or chocolate

And you called that a false equivalence

My point was, and is.

There are somethings that are true
I propose it is true that murder is wrong

There are two people, like yourself believe moral judgments are mostly subjective
One says, to me, my moral relative thought is murder is wrong.
The other says, my moral relative thought is murder is fine.

Both tell each other they disagree with the other one.

If you believe there is a possible truth about the moral nature of murder they both
Can not be right. And if you believe in mostly subjectivity, there is no standard to judge
If wrong.

If it is not right or wrong, it is just different. Like the choice of vanilla or chocolate.

I have no issue with the moral relativist as long as they acknowledge they lose the right to judge the moral judgments of others.

you make a claim, I challenge you to defend it, you dodge. Rinse repeat, normal interaction with you. Just stop with the tactics please.

if I thought any of that was true I would happily admit it. So take one of those, and in a complete though, that shows you actually took a second to understand the point I am making, show my error I will be happy to admit error if you show it.

— Rank Amateur

I think I speak for both myself and Terrapin when I say that we object to your lack of explicit acknowledgement that you made a point which lacks logical relevance. You made a point which preaches to the choir, and does nothing else, except suggest a fallacious false equivalence, whether that was truly your intention or otherwise. Making that equivalence is either careless or deceptive. — S

And you have yet to actually make a coherent point in opposition.

You are extremely predictable. Do you know that? You have chosen to respond with denialism and evasion. Who would've guessed? Well, at least you have now been well and truly exposed. — S

Forgot the part where no matter what the reality is, you, like trump will always declare victory.

I just said, "Thoughts are the only things that have truth values." Obviously I think there is truth, then. It's a property of some thought. (But not moral stances (at least not when we're keeping this simple, when I'm avoiding what would have to be a huge tangent on truth theory).) — Terrapin Station

Just to make sure I understand correctly. This means some thoughts have truth value, but thoughts about moral stances do not have truth value. If I have that right, than what makes any thoughts about a moral stance any more than a preference by the thinker of one over another stance

Validity has to do with truth value. So no one's moral stance is valid on my view. Again this is because moral stances do not have truth values. — Terrapin Station

I again have no issue if one wants to have the view that morality is largely subjective, as long as they acknowledge this entails allowing the different moral views of others without any value judgments. You can have subjective but then all you can have is different not better not worse.

And no, almost no one--and definitely not me, would say that any arbitrary person's moral stances are just as good as other person's moral stances, because "just as good" is itself a value judgment that individuals make, and people--again including me--do not happen to judge all stances equally. Hence why I asked you earlier, "Equal from what perspective?" — Terrapin Station

I disagree that you can hold to individual moral judgments to be largely subjective, and impose a qualitative difference one to the other. They can only be different.

Not to speak for S, but I don't know what there would be to say to that. Is anyone disagreeing with it? — Terrapin Station

That was my answer to s, that he has yet to answer

Yes, and so what? (That's a rhetorical question - you shouldn't actually answer it unless you want to continue this digression and be exposed). The word "objective" obviously doesn't normally mean "near universal", and this is very easily demonstrated with examples. It wasn't the case that it was objectively true that the Earth was at the centre of the solar system, even when that was nearly universally believed. — S

Interesting to counter a claim of semantics by making yet another semantic argument. None of that addressed the concept addressed and you know it.

Maybe instead of making up rules for this forum, you should find a debate site, you are very good at it. Or if that falls through Trump may need another press secretary soon, he can use someone who never gives an inch and has no interest in answering questions, is always right, and has an indifferent attitude about the nature of truth.

6th dodge, I will be back later take your time for number 7

Have to back to real life, but that looks like having your cake and eating it to. will get back later today

You sad

The commonality in our moral feelings are just a result of human nature, like many other commonalities. But human nature includes variance, so naturally there is a variance in moral feelings.

And none of that does anything at all for moral objectivism. — Rank Amateur

I said

So we all as humans, by our very nature, have some near universal moral views, but that has nothing at all to do with that being to a high degree objective.

We are getting semantic now. — Rank Amateur

And you have not commented on this yet

5th dodge

human nature was first and this is your 4th dodge on the question

I thought we'd pretty thoroughly established this. Asking whether murder is right or wrong non-subjectively is like asking whether walking is right or wrong, or whether Birmingham is right or wrong. It's just not a question that makes any sense. — Isaac

Ok, if you do not believe there are any truth statements we can make about the rightness or wrongness of murder, we just disagree.

Then whatever my personal judgment on the topic is, you can disagree with, but have to accept as just as morally valid as yours

ok, so there is no truth, my thought is as valid on any moral subject is as good as yours?

human nature please?

You can only have it your way if you tell me that you believe that there is no truth statement you can make about murder
— Rank Amateur

By "truth statement" I'm presuming you mean something like "murder is..." where this corresponds to reality, yes. In which case I can say "murder is unpopular", "murder is the intentional killing of another in illegal circumstances", "murder is a six letter word"...

All those are truth statements about murder. I'm really not sure what you're asking for.

You are asking me make an argument to prove 2 + 2 = 4 without using math.
— Rank Amateur — Isaac

No, what I am saying is there is a truth about murder being good or bad, right or wrong. We can disagree what the truth is, but it is important if both parties believe there is a truth. If we don't believe there actually is a truth. It is just preference. Then we can see if we think that truth is different than opinion. And if we believe there is a truth and that truth is more than opinion, we have left subjectivity.

no I want you to respond to the point about human nature, and not keep deflecting to ad hominem

I think that your comment suggested a false equivalence. It literally equated two very clearly dif — S

You lack of taking any time to actually understand what people say to you before you argue back is amazing. That is exactly my point, they are not equivalent. But if there is no underlying truth in the choice then it is just a preference. I say there is some truth that murder is or is not bad. There is no truth statement beyond mere preference if vanilla is better than chocolate

So your view of the source of the near universal commonly held belief that murder is wrong is pure biology, It is a sneeze.

Do thoughts have any truth value? Are all your biological thoughts as true as my biological thoughts?

Instead of this, you have not responded to this yet

1.4k
The commonality in our moral feelings are just a result of human nature, like many other commonalities. But human nature includes variance, so naturally there is a variance in moral feelings.

And none of that does anything at all for moral objectivism.
— S


So we all as humans, by our very nature, have some near universal moral views, but that has nothing at all to do with that being to a high degree objective.

We are getting semantic now. — Rank Amateur

What do you say?

Doo you understand that on my view, moral stances are something that our bodies do? So if you're questioning my stance critically, you're questioning the origin of our bodies doing something, questioning why our bodies would do something where there can be such widespread commonality. — Terrapin Station

I think your base point is all judgments are thought, they only exist as individual human thought. And as such have to be subjective to that person.

— Rank Amateur

Why? This is precisely the contested point and instead of providing an argument to support it you've just re-asserted your belief. I understand you believe there is a truth value about murder. I gather you're religious, so obviously the fact of such a truth value is an article of your faith, but what purpose has it here? This is a philosophy forum, I'm not sure I see the purpose in our just declaring articles of faith and leaving it at that. — Isaac

It is exactly the point. And they are linked. You can only have it your way if you tell me that you believe that there is no truth statement you can make about murder

You are asking me make an argument to prove 2 + 2 = 4 without using math.

You know darn well it was about the commonality of some moral judgments not where our bodies came from.
— Rank Amateur

Moral judgments are something that our bodies do in other words. — Terrapin Station

Another non answer. No one is keeping score. Do you want to tag along with S and call it human nature?

I can just add this to the very long line of direct questions you refuse to answer. Because you have no real interest in ideas you are only concerned with winning an argument.

The commonality in our moral feelings are just a result of human nature, like many other commonalities. But human nature includes variance, so naturally there is a variance in moral feelings.

And none of that does anything at all for moral objectivism. — S

So we all as humans, by our very nature, have some near universal moral views, but that has nothing at all to do with that being to a high degree objective.

We are getting semantic now.

that is a dodge or you are purposely ignorant.

You know darn well it was about the commonality of some moral judgments not where our bodies came from.

as I asked terrapin, Can you briefly say what you understand my point to be, I think we are taking past each other

Well, obviously. If you believe that murder is objectively wrong (by which you mean someone committing murder is objectively wrong to do so), then is is simply a re-wording of your belief to say that a person who commits murder is objectively wrong to do so. — Isaac

Ok

What we haven't heard from you yet is your reason for believing that. You have so far shown that most people feel murder is wrong, now show what logic or mechanism makes it the case that the few who disagree must also feel that way. — Isaac

Because I believe there are things that are true. I believe you can make a truth statement about murder. And my argument to the person above, because his view on murder is not true

So we can argue that my view on murder is not true, or there is no truth about murder.

Can you separate truth from moral? Can one be mostly subjective and one be mostly objective?

So you genuinely believe that my feelings about cheese and onion crisps are just like my feelings about raping babies, in every sense, respect, and degree?

Why on earth would you believe that? — S

That has nothing at all to do with my issue.

He's in denial. I'm surprised his coping mechanism hasn't kicked in yet. You can tell when it has, because he'll close down and go, "Okay, have a nice day!". — S

Usually in response to your ad hominem. Which is your default.

You believe, for some reason unbeknownst to me, that if morality is simply something that we do as individual human beings, there shouldn't be widespread commonality on some moral stances. — Terrapin Station

No my point was what is the origin of this commonality, is it coincidence, evolution, God, something else?

Where does it come from.

Your point that I addressed is your false equivalence. But you seem to be in denial that I even addressed your point. What don't you understand about why your point was fallacious? — S

No I obviously do not see the false equivalence- Can you explain it in a complete thought please.

If you're talking about the unanimity thing, we have addressed it. Our bodies don't develop randomly, do they? You're not addressing that. You're not supporting the notion that there shouldn't be widespread commonalities if moral stances only occur in individuals. — Terrapin Station

We are taking past each other, I see nothing in this that addresses my point.

Can you take a second to tell me in your words what you understand my point to be?

So it shouldn't be a mystery that the vast majority of people think that murder is wrong either, — Terrapin Station

It is imperative to my point for you to try and identify why we all feel that way, and not just keep dismissing it. Why do we all feel that way ?

no issue there are many judgments people differ on. Is your point that there is no truthful answer to any of them? Even one we do not know. Or are all these equal and valid opinions on the item in question?

↪S

It's frustrating that you can't get folks to follow through on a line of questioning about this stuff, because that could help them understand the other view. It seems almost like they're afraid to "go down the rabbit hole" though. So whenever it looks like they're getting too close to the rabbit hole, they back off. — Terrapin Station

I am happy to go down any rabbit hole you want.

I am not sure either you or s even understand the point I am making. And I have yet to see it addressed in a complete thought.

Most of what I am hearing is you are wrong and you don't understand.

I keep asking what I think is a reasonable and logical issue, That either you can not, or will not address reasonably and logically.

I didn't say all, I said some.

It. Means your point universal does not have to mean objective