This is, I suppose, a symbolic culture-driven reference which I don't get. A white paper in a white room by a white philosopher who is a white folk? I don't know what you could possibly mean. — god must be atheist

Big door, tiny window.

Nothing has a bearing on an act whether it's moral or immoral, other than people's views. — god must be atheist

In some cultures cannibalism is opined to be acceptable and is encouraged, in most cultures it is rejected and deemed immoral. — god must be atheist

We have your claim and supporting evidence presented above? It would be a shame to lose it the moment things seem untenable. My irritability is with being told how "right I am" repeatedly. If you've closed the matter then fine move on. If you are indeed correct some one will let a distance relative who doesn't understand it know. In the next 160 years. Till then, it's understood to be an open question.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that you are stuck at the same hurdle as Kant, when it comes to lying (Kant said you can't and must not) and lying for the effect of effecting a moral good. You and Kant can't come to terms with the flip-flop nature of moral conviction, and its effect on people. — god must be atheist

First, I maintain that was a misinterpretation of Kant's work that was referenced in it's refutation. The original work is discussing lying in Kant's legal sense as whether or not it is a liability to tell the truth.

The fact people can rationalize an immoral act has zero bearing on whether it is an immoral act. Because the act takes place outside the mind of the agent. How do you reconcile this matter?

Since we are making personal assessments. I think you're having a bit of fun with me. Except you already had that document ready; which makes me wonder if you are typing in a white room.

Well......if no one has ever seen it, there is no beauty. We observers are not passive receivers of some beauty that is "out there". What, did you actually think this to be the case? Not only does beauty vanish in an unobserved world (an impossible thing to even imagine, really), but reason and meaning vanishes as well. — Constance

The idea was to establish objective morality. If the answers are different, then morality is not from the act but rather a subjective notion of the observer. The same willful act of destruction of the same object should in theory produce the same moral judgement. Or not. An attempt at an inquiry.

So, even in a case like this, there's going to be an objective component. — Sam26

I think I'm in agreement. I suppose harm implies there is an understood value in the subject of harm. Others being high value and self-portraits held for disposal would be low value. The more I look at it we're just discussing criminal law without specific precedent.

You can't make me read that.

More or less the unstated thought process I'm going with at the moment. See if it can move from less witchcraft to more science based.

I just really can't fathom the jist of your criticism. — god must be atheist

Generally everything stated here; some might call it the justification you provided. Is in error. I put the most absurd part in bold. You are using validity in a nonsensical way. I've pointed out the same issue 4 times to evasion and confusion. I believe that demonstrated a respectful level of patience. I can't fathom explaining it again, so let me know how it works out for you. At a much later time and date; lifetime would be fine. Good day.

They are equally valid in two groups: valid for one group with one set of answers, and valid for the other group with a different set of answers. The validity is decided on whom the answer vindicates morally. To one group those questions will be valid that morally vindicate them; to the other group, conversely so. — god must be atheist

No problem. The 'they' was a glaring deficiency in your approach, so it was easy to remember. You stated twice I didn't understand it, but what you meant was I didn't agree with the conclusion that it implies morality is arbitrary to perspective. Then, you seem to have misplaced it.

↪Cheshire I am now confused. I can't identify what you mean by "they". But it's not your fault... my mind is going, I can't mentally encompass a great number of data items that require short-term memory recall. Sorry, again, it is clearly my fault and my problem. — god must be atheist

Your demonstration of multi-sided ethics via a soccer gain result.
Referenced Here:

They are equally valid in two groups: valid for one group with one set of answers, and valid for the other group with a different set of answers. The validity is decided on whom the answer vindicates morally. To one group those questions will be valid that morally vindicate them; to the other group, conversely so. — god must be atheist

Originating Here:

If my soccer team wins by one goal where the referee did not punish my team for being off side, then it's not a moral sin for the followers of my team, but it is for the opposing team. — god must be atheist

Note that here with your notion of moral objectivism, you're already taking for granted that certain acts are moral, while others are immoral. — baker

I'm taking for granted that I seem to believe it without any trouble. The OP was basically this assertion followed by But, I can't account for how this could be; because every case seems to be about an observer.

But on the grounds of what did you establish that a certain act is moral to begin with? Your gut feeling? — baker

The ground that my perception of what is moral is accurate. But, I don't know why. It isn't compelling, but near universally understood. So much so we test our moral theories against an understood intuitive moral standard. Or unuttered theory. Then, expect the same from others without explanation. The thread was meant to test for the experience being real or an illusion of sorts. So far it's moderately inconclusive.

If you're asking if there is something objective about an immoral act, I would say there is, viz., the harm done. So, for example, if I cut someone's arm off for no good reason, then I've committed an immoral act by definition. — Sam26

There's also attempted Armacide. It's immoral from the intention to harm, but lacks the objective existence of it. Would this still qualify as a property and maintain an objective sense?

Then defending yourself with equal force is immoral? — Harry Hindu

You derived self defense from the refutation of the following statement about genocide/slavery.

Really? What if you're committing genocide/slavery against another group that is committing genocide/slavery against your own group? Many in today's political environment argue that killing or imprisoning your political opponents is a good thing. — Harry Hindu

I thought you were going to twist the political killing statement, but you pivoted. What's the tactic here anyway? Make a wide indefensible statement and hope the counter-argument over reaches at an easy target? I bet it works, but it's pretty annoying.

Genocide and slavery are not legitimate forms of self defense. So, there is no "defending yourself" that can be implied rationally. Rhetorically, you can ignore that if you like though; doesn't make for much of a philosophical position.

Really? — Harry Hindu

Yep.

What if you're committing genocide/slavery against another group that is committing genocide/slavery against your own group? — Harry Hindu

Two groups are committing immoral acts.

Many in today's political environment argue that killing or imprisoning your political opponents is a good thing. — Harry Hindu

Almost curious what you have to twist in order to support this assertion. No one is generally arguing it in the way you have presented it.

How are any of these the fault of relativism? — Harry Hindu

I don't know that you can actually blame a moral theory on an outcome(which is what I did to be fair). But, moral relativism would hold that there was a time or place these acts were permissible. Moral objectivism would argue they were never permissible. Intuitively they seem wrong regardless of when they occurred, so adhering to a system that permits acts(in hindsight) that are always wrong; implies a faulty system of ethics is available.

Let's look at the "senses" of share at work here. We open the armagnac and share it - we might talk about sharing the experience of drinking. — Banno

The exception being Cilantro; for some people it tastes like soap. It oddly correlates with whether or not an individual can smell stink bugs. I want to say they identified a genetic marker. So, when the same interactions do produce non-trivial little men it is noted.

There is no objective morality plane and simple — MAYAEL

Yes, I'm hoping for a binary result to be the product of my "test". Morality does often present as being subject to an individuals perception. If I was using a looks like a duck, quacks like a duck protocol; then rejecting objectivity outright would be a likely outcome. I think we do want it to be objective to validate how much emotional investment the subject entails. Wanting a particular answer too much can be a trap.

Different involves separate subjects, where as differential is variance in a single subject. Like, air pressure inside versus outside a balloon. Compared to a balloon and a signed leather bound first edition of the Count de Monte Cristo.

Sounds like a different meaning of "objective". — hypericin

It hints at being too literal. I meant the ability to establish morality without the perception of any person being injured. The painting is indifferent. Often, morality relies on the golden rules, suffering, means to ends, human relationships, etc. Here we've taken away the ability to measure a human reaction and still made a determination. So, it implies a person can act on the world in an immoral way. Ergo, morality exists beyond the human perception of it. It isn't something we made up in the sense that it isn't arbitrary; like the validity given to a preference.

If the answers to the questions proved to be contradictory, then it would make a case to the contrary. At least, that was the assumption in trying to produce a test. I did have to insert myself hypothetically in order to make the determination, so there's plenty of counter argument to be made.

1. In general, yes. You are harming those who would have otherwise enjoyed and benefitted from the painting. And you are harming the painter, who invested part of their life in the creation.
2. In this case, you are only harming yourself. If you hate the painting, destroy it.
3. Here only the first harm of 1. applies, not necessarily the second. — EdgarAllenDoh

Thanks for addressing the OP. It's strange to me; if I was watching this event I wouldn't be thinking about the people that would never see it or the painter. I believe I would consider the act immoral based on the direct injury to the object. I think a momentary faux personhood by virtue of it's ability to possess and deliver meaning would be the subject of harm. In your answer to number 2, you dropped the painter. I was wondering why. Number 3 seems consistent.

We know people can see other paintings and gleam comparable joy. If I can show that an immoral act can be against an object; then I've demonstrated an objective morality is more likely to exist?

Color-blindness didn't work. It became a denial of separate experiences under the false promise of equity.

The livable wage protects against the inefficient over production of unwanted goods. If your business doesn't generate enough value to sustain the people maintaining it, then it shouldn't exist anymore. We have ignored this and now have low quality food available at every other intersection by two or more manufacturers.

It's like a raccoon-dog. Before checking; tell me if it's real.

If any of those invented concerns were the real reason why I did not like your question, I either would have said so, or admitted to them. But I don't admit to them, because... because the reason I did not like your question was that it revealed you did not get my point. — god must be atheist

You've said "did not get my point" a suspicious number of times. I asked if you meant they were all equally valid, which you confirmed. Which is not what, not getting a point means. It's like pontificating from a position that has no authority. I suppose that makes the activity less offensive .

The question I did not like because it showed you did not get my point. I never said because it was immoral. I never said because how it made me feel. I did not like it because -- you know. Because it revealed that you did not get my point. — god must be atheist

It seems to me you didn't like the question, because it implied I questioned the conclusion. Your point was to demonstrate that different people may assert different positions concerning the same 'moral' event. You proceed to show how each person's position is valid to them; and suppose they are justified in this validity. Simply, because it follows from their particular bias's surrounding the event.

Which produces a bit of a hole in the system. We intuitively know a bias opinion is more likely to be in error. But, the idea you are putting forward suggests otherwise. Specifically, the notion that one's emotional reaction to a decision validates one's position. Which is absurd and demonstrated by the questions I asked. But, you couldn't point this out because it follows from the idea you are putting forward.

I don't see how. Smashing the painting would be morally wrong. It would be wrong because doing so would make you the kind of person who could destroy beautiful things without revulsion and removing that revulsion which prevents you from doing so could lead to suffering in future as you're no longer held back when feeling the urge to destroy something. — Isaac

I think this is a valid response. I could argue we have to reach a little to get to suffering, but it's well within reason. Thanks for the direct analysis.

You may be nostalgic about Kant and others, and rightfully so... their theories have become in one fell swoop archaic, inaccurate, should I say useless. This is not something that needs to be justified, I don't think. It is something that changes an entire industry of thinking: thinking about morality. — god must be atheist

Well, I've got a little philosophy cheat sheet. It says that if you think you've solved the entirety of a philosophical sub-category based on a single unrevised document then you are probably wrong. Ever heard of critical rationalism? It's designed to limit these types of 'misallocations' of perceived solvency.

You missed the information content of this statement.

Besides, Kant already did by identifying the difference in nature versus civilized context for moral decisions and he was tossed a sunder in the conclusion. You by proxy threw out your own idea. — Cheshire

I've found that a better question is to ask how the thing in itself is different from the thing. — Banno

When presented with a failing eye exam score the same issue is raised.

Since the two systems are now viewed, as per my treatise here, as similar but with also some nonequivalent elements or features of operation, obviously and in a logical way, not one system of philosophy can be found that applies to both equally. Hence, moral questions will never be subjected to a single, all-encompassing evaluation (and repair) system, since the amorphous nature of the acquired moral codes and the rigid system of the autonomous moral codes make that wholly impossible. — god must be atheist

We can and have made reasonable approximations. Being imperfect is not the same as without value.

Imagine if I told you that anything can be understood from my point of view. Would that be evidence that I was correct? No, just consistent. I don't think dispensing with several thousand years worth of inquiry is justified because we can sort moral issues into two categories. Besides, Kant already did by identifying the difference in nature versus civilized context for moral decisions and he was tossed a sunder in the conclusion. You by proxy threw out your own idea.

Does paraconsistent logic give us a way to unbind god from logic? — Banno

In theory; it might. But, in practice it seems like people need to tie the existence of god to some part of their reality. It's why we keep getting new forms of creationism updated every few years. Because in practice theist have trouble imagining a world without a god being necessary for making it. You aren't a declared theist, so you can imagine a world without a god being necessary. The logic is regular consistent based on a belief in god.

I think a god experience emerges from the world, so I don't hold god as being necessary.

Or the obvious answer I suppose. If ever an alternative system of logic were needed to cope with
with a matter; it would probably be the necessity of god, from an atheist position, under the supposition of an idealist model depicting the many worlds hypothesis, then this may be it. Stack anything high enough you'll need a taller crane.

They are equally valid in two groups: valid for one group with one set of answers, and valid for the other group with a different set of answers. The validity is decided on whom the answer vindicates morally. To one group those questions will be valid that morally vindicate them; to the other group, conversely so. — god must be atheist

Wouldn't this dissolve the meaning of the word "bias". We recognize the degree to which a person's interest can mistakenly be injected into their perception. It's the reason some decisions are made best by a neutral party. A bias decision shouldn't be as equally valid as an unbiased decision.

I don't like that question, because it shows to me you haven't been getting my point. — god must be atheist

I was simply verifying your point. Proclaiming all positions equal simply because they are positions is rather bold. You did verify it in a qualified sense, so I wasn't too far off the trail. Is it an immoral question, because of how you feel? Why not?

All moral calculations contain some emotional reaction, but not all emotional reactions are part of moral calculations. — god must be atheist

Ok, what else is contained in a moral calculation.

That's just it; my examples showed that there is no neutral side in some moral questions. By the multitude of answers to the multitude of questions I aimed to demonstrate that any rationalization can be fabricated to support one's position. — god must be atheist

You are implying they are all equally valid?

That's just it. You could ask a number of things, and they could answer a number of things. — god must be atheist

Well, if I can approach a problem that shows a moral judgement can be reasoned from a neutral position; then it contradicts the notion that morality of a win is side dependent.

How do you distinguish between an emotional reaction and moral calculation? If I am angry, does that mean some one did something wrong?

Seems contradictory. If anything can be framed by how much suffering it causes, then it seems to follow that every metric can be converted. All that's required is to measure the suffering caused by it's valence. — Isaac

The OP is available for confounding this demonstration.

That's just it: feelings are not universal over some particular action or event. — god must be atheist

Which is precisely why our legal system doesn't run on feelings. In theory at least.

For example: One nation's celebration of victory over the overlords is a sad day in the life of the overlord. The victory is moral on one side of the fence, immoral on the other side. — god must be atheist

When converted to logical thought the question becomes is it morally ok to celebrate a military victory. Making decisions relative to an emotion alone isn't as reliable. When decisions are large enough people have to put forward some type of reasoning or risk being seen derelict of a duty for due diligence.

Or take the crucifixion of Jesus. Christians decry and hate the decision by the Jewish leadership to crucify him; yet without the act, people of Jesus' followers would never be saved. So should Christians thank the Jews for killing their god, or hate them for it? Christians by-and-large chose the hate part. — god must be atheist

I think it's irrational to hold people accountable for being related to other people by 2000yrs just in any context; it's a very misguided concept. In this one; I would remind the interested party he was crucified by Romans and at least some of the account of it was probably written or added in transcription in Rome. Or if your religion makes you hate anyone, then get a new religion.

If my soccer team wins by one goal where the referee did not punish my team for being off side, then it's not a moral sin for the followers of my team, but it is for the opposing team. — god must be atheist

Well, this is actually more significant. It sounds like happenstance of human error in regulating a game. I guess you could ask if it is immoral to enjoy a victory not fully earned?

So, there are ways of taking things out of the subjective; but if your purpose is the opposite, then maybe I'm missing something.

Perhaps, a reasonable approximation is still in play?

1. You present a theory on something that we don't know what it is. — god must be atheist

Exactly, it's nearly impossible to disagree with that statement. I think the first step in testing a moral theory is presenting it. There are several different ones that are commonly understood.

To decide something is immoral we only rely on our inner gut feelings. It can't be proven that it's immoral, while the emotional judgment is so strong that we are unilateral in the opinion -- without having a basic definition of it. — god must be atheist

Well, in this context of "testing a moral theory" we would be both comparing the "gut feeling" and the logical implications of the theory in question. In example, there are some that would suppose negative utilitarianism implies the removing of suffering people; by means other than reducing there suffering. I don't agree, but it is a vivid example of testing a moral theory.

No, it's not flawed; and we are not basing our moral compass on theory, but on feelings. — god must be atheist

The desire to make a morally correct decision isn't flawed, but the basis for it may be. If the emotional feeling is in fact reliable, we should be able to put into words why one decision is in fact better than another.

This can also be inferred from my paper. — god must be atheist

The style of making sweeping declarative statements that must feel self-evident does mirror some elements I found in the paper. I agree you aren't imagining the points you are making; but you may be missing some of the issues that come along with them. Thanks for the response.

↪praxis Oh, it's easy to explain, praxis. I think my theory congeals nicely and neatly, but from the point of view of you guys (both genders and the spectrum) I appear to be a monkey screamin' and jumpin' up-and-down in its cage, trying to get attention. — god must be atheist

General Advice
I think you've identified the resistance and like you say it is the different points of a view. Statements that you may take for granted become roadblocks to the breath takingly critical audience that emerges on a philosophy forum. I would recommend removing as many roadblocks as possible and simply try to get the reader to understand what it is you see is most novel regarding your approach.

What I think your main point is in the OP
You believe that humans experience two types of moral experiences. I would agree, because I think humans are in fact composed of two minds that argue over competing needs. One type is a survival resource or danger response system and the other is an emotional empathetic system. You have noted that one is more automatic than the other and I also agree with this; because having a danger response system that does a lot of ruminating would be a liability. Further evidence could be drawn from the fact humans also have two distinct nervous system states. If this part is the basis for your thinking then start here; it's a neat idea with some science that makes it plausible.

The roadblocks I would remove and reintroduce as needed.

Morality eludes objective definition. Its definition relies on subjective experience, it avoids an objective definition. — god must be atheist

This point is a thread and half itself and it's not critical to understanding what you are trying to say. Remember we aren't proving anything at this point, but rather laying out what might be.

Involuntary moral acts are pervasive among all societies, unchanged in required behaviour to the same triggers. — god must be atheist

Any universal statements become a target; the reflex to argue is strong with this crowd. Because arguing is fun.

There is no subset of humanity of normal people who would violate the involuntary moral acts. — god must be atheist

Another universal.

Universal statements are good because they imply a testable idea. One counter-example and the theory is busted. It's an under appreciated honest inclusion that will stop discourse in its tracks.

No proof provided... this is a theory. — god must be atheist

I would open with this and maybe change theory to idea. An idea is just something to be understood. A theory entails tests and competition with other preferred theories.

Let me know if I can clarify or elaborate on anything. I do think you have a novel track that is interesting enough to base a discussion on.

Incidentally, none of your sentences make sense to me, other than the last two. Don't take me wrong; I am not belittling you. It may be due to the fact that you're much more intelligent and deeper than I. I dunno. It could be mockery on your part, too, for all I know. — god must be atheist

No, it wasn't mockery I should have broken the post into two sections. The first was an attempt at some casual advice on herding cats to a thread via a style of OP. I appreciate the generous supposition, but I'm just smart enough to appreciate the things brilliant people do.