Having mercy is never immoral, while any punishment can be just as long as the same law is applied equally to all criminals. — BlueBanana

Why do you claim that mercy is never immoral? Is it not immoral to pardon Hitler over and over again, such that each time you set him free, he kills more and more jews?

the act of "imposing others' desires against my will" cannot be accepted, by definition.
— Samuel Lacrampe
Accepting something based on rational reasoning dodsn't make it your will. — BlueBanana

Either I misunderstand you, or misunderstood me. Regardless, the treatment of "imposing others' desires against my will" clearly breaks the golden rule of ethics, and the golden rule is directly derived from justice. As such, this treatment is necessarily unjust.

I'd think about the situation objectively and try to not be selfish, and accept my situation as a just sacrifice for a greater good. — BlueBanana

But say that it does not result in a greater good, or a net gain, but rather a net loss. In which case, unequal happiness is not better than equal misery. As such, we cannot generalize that "unequal happiness is always better than equal misery".

Why do you claim that mercy is never immoral? Is it not immoral to pardon Hitler over and over again, such that each time you set him free, he kills more and more jews? — Samuel Lacrampe

It'd not be immoral to not give him a death sentence and instead put him in jail. The jail sentence doesn't exist for the sake of punishing criminals but simply to prevent the criminals from repeating the crimes, and therefore mercy doesn't apply to that situation.

the treatment of "imposing others' desires against my will" clearly breaks the golden rule of ethics — Samuel Lacrampe

Sure the golden rule can be interpreted that way but that leads to contradictions. I want to be treated the way I want to be treated -> treat others the way they want to be treated, which can directly contradict the way you want to be treated.

But say that it does not result in a greater good, or a net gain, but rather a net loss. — Samuel Lacrampe

That's of course another situation, which is treated differently from one where it leads to a net gain.

As such, we cannot generalize that "unequal happiness is always better than equal misery". — Samuel Lacrampe

I didn't attempt to generalize it. I claimed that the opposite can't be generalized.

If the existence of God logically follows from the rest of the argument, — Samuel Lacrampe

It does not. You have it backwards.

No? The formula 2+2=4 is not objective, but man-made? — Samuel Lacrampe

Exactly. Now you are getting it.
Nature has no integers or equivalents.
There are no straight lines, circles, geometric shapes, in nature.
Maths relies on all these fictions including irrational numbers.

Day One: All men are equal
Day Two: Oops I mean women and children too.
— charleton

This only proves the words describing the idea have changed, not the meaning or the idea behind them. — BlueBanana

No it proves that women were not considered fully human.

The same goes for the laws of morality.
— Samuel Lacrampe — charleton

Please state the "laws" of morality!

No it proves that women were not considered fully human. — charleton

You know that's not what was meant by what was written.

It is simply an historical fact that women for centuries have not been considered as men's equals.
Such a position has been the moral standard until the 20thC.
Why are you trying to deny the basic facts of history?

It is simply an historical fact that women for centuries have not been considered as men's equals.
Such a position has been the moral standard until the 20thC. — charleton

Irrelevant. We're talking about an opinion of a person in 21st century.

Why are you trying to deny the basic facts of history? — charleton

Why are you acting dumb? I couldn't have denied them as I haven't made any claims about any historical facts.

Why are you acting dumb? I couldn't have denied them as I haven't made any claims about any historical facts. — BlueBanana

If you are going to use this absurd line of reasoning how can you claim that moral law is objective? When it is demonstrable that morals are different across time, culture, nation, and tribe, and between persons within those categories.
It is you that is acting stupidly, not me.

These are three examples of Objective moral claims you have made. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

No they are not. They are the result of my experience with these issues, and are therefore subjective.
It's like you don't know what objective means.

Usually, when someone belligerently clings to absurdity, it means that they are trying to avoid what they perceive as a much bigger danger if they were to let go of absurdity. Moral relativism protects many people in the West from spiritual forms of anxiety - it helps them repress it.

Can you not see the flaws I am pointing out? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

You are only pointing out your own flaws my friend.
and you continue to avoid answering the question; please furnish the thread with some examples of objective morality.
I am happy to claim that my observations on the morality of the world is based on my experience of the world; my studies; my life.
But since you have yet to offer any kind of observations on the details of 'objective morals' or "objective moral laws', you are wasting the time of all who contribute to the thread.

Usually, when someone belligerently clings to absurdity, it means that they are trying to avoid what they perceive as a much bigger danger if they were to let go of absurdity. — Agustino

That just about sums you up perfectly. Your absurdity is the claim that your narrowly focused and narrow minded moral code is universal in some way. This could not be more funny.

1. murdering children is objectively wrong. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

On what grounds?
And what do you mean 'objective' in this context?

That just about sums you up perfectly. Your absurdity is the claim that your narrowly focused and narrow minded moral code is universal in some way. This could not be more funny. — charleton

I follow my moral code for my own sake, not for anyone else's, so I certainly have no anxiety about it if you decide not to follow it. It's your problem as far as I'm concerned.

I follow my moral code for my own sake, not for anyone else's, so I certainly have no anxiety about it if you decide not to follow it. It's your problem as far as I'm concerned. — Agustino

Me too. But the difference is that you think yours is absolute.

Society is an additional foreground perspective that dictates the objective "truth" of a group of people. Even still not all people see eye to eye with societal definitions. — Vaskane

Indeed. I think that with matters that relate to moral and emotional value, objectivity can be no more than the people in the room at the same time agreeing.
In the real world people have opinions.

Me too. But the difference is that you think yours is absolute. — charleton

So why does it bother you that I think mine is absolute? Being absolute just means that it applies to everyone, and if someone does not act according to it, then they are being immoral.

You certainly think absolutely that moral values are not absolute.

It'd not be immoral to not give him a death sentence and instead put him in jail. The jail sentence doesn't exist for the sake of punishing criminals but simply to prevent the criminals from repeating the crimes, and therefore mercy doesn't apply to that situation. — BlueBanana

I agree with this. But I thought you were presenting an example where the act can be morally good yet unjust, when you said here "Having mercy is never immoral, while any punishment can be just as long as the same law is applied equally to all criminals." But now, you say it is merciful to put him in jail; which to me is a form of punishment. Long story short, we have yet to find a case where an act is morally good yet unjust, or vice versa.

Sure the golden rule can be interpreted that way but that leads to contradictions. I want to be treated the way I want to be treated -> treat others the way they want to be treated, which can directly contradict the way you want to be treated. — BlueBanana

It now sounds like we are arguing about the same position, namely, that the act of "imposing my desires on others (and no other reasons)" cannot pass the golden rule without contradictions. As such, this act cannot be just.

But say that it does not result in a greater good, or a net gain, but rather a net loss.
— Samuel Lacrampe
That's of course another situation, which is treated differently from one where it leads to a net gain. — BlueBanana

I didn't attempt to generalize it. I claimed that the opposite can't be generalized. — BlueBanana

Perhaps a misunderstanding once again, because I agree that for some situations, the net gain is a reasonable criteria for a morally good act. And as this "net gain" criteria is objective, it is compatible with an objective morality.

If you are going to use this absurd line of reasoning how can you claim that moral law is objective? When it is demonstrable that morals are different across time, culture, nation, and tribe, and between persons within those categories.
It is you that is acting stupidly, not me. — charleton

Don't drag me into that, that's not even my stance. If someone uses a bad or fallacious argument, I am going to point that out and argue against that argument, even if I agree with its conclusion. I don't agree with LaCrampe, but your claim that his opinion changed is false. From Wikipedia:

man (without an article) itself refers to the species, to humanity, or "mankind", as a whole.

If the existence of God logically follows from the rest of the argument,
— Samuel Lacrampe
It does not. You have it backwards. — charleton

So if the existence of God does not follow from my position that morality is objective, then why did you bring it up in the first place?

Nature has no integers or equivalents.
There are no straight lines, circles, geometric shapes, in nature.
Maths relies on all these fictions including irrational numbers. — charleton

And yet planes fly, houses stand, and you are using a computer to respond to these posts. But more importantly, if you do not believe that math is objective, then by extension you do not believe that logic is objective. And in which case, there is no common ground for you and I to have a coherent discussion.

Please state the "laws" of morality! — charleton

In general, since morality is the science of "what ought to be", this "ought" implies a law. Specifically in my objective morality, the law is justice, that is, equality in treatment under similar situations, or by extension, the golden rule.

And as this "net gain" criteria is objective, it is compatible with an objective morality. — Samuel Lacrampe

Even if it's unjust?

But now, you say it is merciful to put him in jail; which to me is a form of punishment. — Samuel Lacrampe

I wouldn't call the minimal action done to only prevent further crimes a punishment, but if that is done, what about not killing Hitler, instead putting him in jail? That's merciful, but arguably unjust.

What about dragging the moral agents into all this? Is killing other animals for food immoral? (I think it is but as >90% of people are not vegetarians I think it's a safe bet to ask this rhetorical question.) What about non-conscious things? Do they deserve equal treatment?

It now sounds like we are arguing about the same position, namely, that the act of "imposing my desires on others (and no other reasons)" cannot pass the golden rule without contradictions. — Samuel Lacrampe

No, I argued that treating others the way they want to be treated leads to contradictions. You can't take people's desires into account with golden rule in a way that doesn't lead to contradictions.

So if the existence of God does not follow from my position that morality is objective, then why did you bring it up in the first place? — Samuel Lacrampe

Indeed, no. Your assumption that god exists makes you think morality must be objective.
If you were to challenge your false belief then you can see how both god and morals is so obviously man-made.
It is evidently so.

Thought experiment: If you were the only person alive, what would you separate into GOOD/BAD categories? Most likely that which you divy into these categories are for survival purposes. Morality is merely 'mans' attempt at survival. — Vaskane

Hello. There is an error in category. What pertains to survival, or more generally speaking health, is indeed a type of objective value (good/bad); but it is a physical value, not a moral one. Morality pertains to the interaction among beings, and for this discussion, I have limited the topic to the actions of man towards man. With that, there is no morality to speak of when there is a single person left in the world.

We choose to participate in moral actions hoping for equality, the fact is equality doesn't exist. — Vaskane

Even if you are right that equality does not exist, it does not follow that it cannot or should not exist.

Morality is about how people emotionally respond to social interaction.
Emotions are about feelings and that means subjective values are brought to bear on ALL moral situations.
Morals are subjective. Laws are objective.

And as this "net gain" criteria is objective, it is compatible with an objective morality.
— Samuel Lacrampe
Even if it's unjust? — BlueBanana

No of course not. The "net gain" criteria is closer to a last resort, not the first. Equality in treatment, or justice is the first. Then in the rare case when we stubble upon a situation where two choices have the same level of justice, then we may look into the net gain. Such is the case in the Trolley Problem. I would think however that such cases are rare, and so the net gain criteria is not often required.

I wouldn't call the minimal action done to only prevent further crimes a punishment, but if that is done, what about not killing Hitler, instead putting him in jail? That's merciful, but arguably unjust. — BlueBanana

For the sake of argument, let's assume that such an act is indeed unjust. It is also no doubt merciful. How do you now judge the merciful act to be morally good?

What about dragging the moral agents into all this? Is killing other animals for food immoral? (I think it is but as >90% of people are not vegetarians I think it's a safe bet to ask this rhetorical question.) What about non-conscious things? Do they deserve equal treatment? — BlueBanana

As stated in the OP, I would like to keep the discussion to the morality of men towards men only. I can however point you to another discussion called In defence of the Great Chain of Being, which talks about morality of all beings, and should provide some answers. If you have any enquiries about it, I can see you there.

No, I argued that treating others the way they want to be treated leads to contradictions. You can't take people's desires into account with golden rule in a way that doesn't lead to contradictions. — BlueBanana

I agree. Desires are not always just, and so should not be considered to determine the moral value of an act. (I admit I forget what the dispute was about on this one. Maybe we resolved it?)

Indeed, no. Your assumption that god exists makes you think morality must be objective. — charleton

It may be so that the existence of God and objective morality are directly linked. I.e., no God, then no objective morality, and vice versa. This seems to be your view since you brought up the topic of God in the discussion. However, my argument for an objective morality in the OP does not mention God at all, and so I am not using the existence of God to demonstrate that morality is objective. You are barking up the wrong tree.

But selfishness is unjust. Therefore objective morality, in which justice is the criteria, cannot come from the selfish desire of survival. Not that survival is incompatible with morality, mind you.

Morality is about how people emotionally respond to social interaction.
Emotions are about feelings and that means subjective values are brought to bear on ALL moral situations. — charleton

Suppose that it is true that some emotional feelings are in regards to morality. E.g., anger is triggered upon experiencing injustice. It does not follow that morality is subjective, just because the emotional feeling belongs to a subject. The sense of sight always belongs to a subject, and yet it does not follow that the object seen is not objectively real.

No of course not. The "net gain" criteria is closer to a last resort, not the first. Equality in treatment, or justice is the first. — Samuel Lacrampe

Why? The only reason I can see for that is one's selfishness resulting in that they don't want to be the one in the worse situation.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that such an act is indeed unjust. It is also no doubt merciful. How do you now judge the merciful act to be morally good? — Samuel Lacrampe

Mercy is an expression of love towards another person, and love has an intrinsic value. Alternatively, moral intuition. Moral theories should be made to fit the applications, not another way around.

I admit I forget what the dispute was about on this one. — Samuel Lacrampe

It was about whether imposing everyone's will on everyone against their wills was unjust.