I've addressed it a bunch of times. — Terrapin Station

He's in denial. I'm surprised his other 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!".

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.

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.

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

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?

If, as I do, believe there is a high degree of objective truth that murder is wrong, I would say that person is objectively wrong. — Rank Amateur

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.

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.

It sounds like you are saying that wrong, by definition, simply means those behaviours which the majority of people think are a certain way. But if that's the case, then what is that certain way? You can't use the word 'wrong' again because otherwise your definition is self-referring.

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.

That has nothing at all to do with my issue. — Rank Amateur

I don't care if you want to wiggle out of my criticism and talk about something else. This is what I am calling you out for:

"It just turns all such judgements to preference. Murder or not murder is the same as vanilla or chocolate".

They are your own words. You can either concede or foolishly attempt to defend them. Or, you know, just revert to one of your coping mechanisms because you can't handle being wrong about something.

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?

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

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

So (1) our bodies, due to (2) genetics and environment, and if you want you can explain at least the genetics part by (3) evolution.

That should have been clear from the responses I already posted.

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.

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

Where does it come from. — Rank Amateur

Well, obviously not God. It's no more God than the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot.

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, which foolishly goes further and makes the additional claim that the commonality represents an objective standard. Ockham's razor.

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. So with respect to my view, you're asking about a commonality of our bodies. (Which is why I brought up the stuff about noses, blood (circulation), etc.)

Re (near-)unanimity on some things (even though I think that tends to be exaggerated), — Terrapin Station

I realise this was an aside (hence the parentheses), but I wanted to highlight the point you're making.

The degree to which we all seem to agree is very broad... Murder is wrong, torture is wrong, that sort of thing. But this is almost never the actual moral dilemmas people seek an understanding of the which are things like - should we give money to beggars and if so how much, should it be related to my income or their needs, do I take their demeanour into account....

Any vague homogeneity here is virtually useless, if it even exists at all ,so the fact that we broadly agree murder is wrong, may well be interesting from an evolutionary point of view, but is completely useless, even to the objectivist, when judging real moral dilemmas.

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.

As I asked terrapin, Can you briefly say what you understand my point to be, I think we are taking past each other. — Rank Amateur

Don't worry. I know how your psych works better than you do. You are predictable. What would happen is that I'd explain that your comment suggested a false equivalence, and you'd simply deny whatever I said rather than concede, blaming me for misinterpreting your comment. That way, you're right and I'm wrong. That's how it has to be for you, because you can't cope with the alternative prospect.

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.

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 believe there are things that are true. — Rank Amateur

Fine, well accept that for the time being.

I believe you can make a truth statement about murder. — 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.

If there's a reason why you think there's a truth value about murder I'm interested to hear it. If it's just an article of faith then that's fine with me, but there's nothing left to talk about.

— 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.

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

It makes no sense to me why this wouldn't count as an answer to you.

Do 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.

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.

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. — Rank Amateur

See? There it is again. Denial. No, of course you don't see it. That's the problem. But it is quite amusing from an outside perspective who clocks on to how your psych manifests itself in how you respond to me.

My point should be crystal clear, as it is no doubt crystal clear to others, but you are so in denial that you spin this as a refusal on my part to spell it out for you in the most obvious of ways. Okay, here goes, although I doubt that it will work on you, as you'll likely just respond in one of your usual ways:

I think that your comment suggested a false equivalence. It equated two very clearly different things, namely murder/not murder and vanilla/chocolate. You said that they're "the same". Of course, they're both preferences, according to the view in question, but that's it. That in itself does nothing at all logically (a fallacy of irrelevance) and the additional suggestion (which I'm sure you'll deny, because that's what you do: you deny what you can't cope with confronting) is also fallacious.

Any reasonable person will clearly see that that is either plainly false or highly misleading. It shouldn't even have to be explained to this extent. I think that you're just buying time and trying to avoid having to confront being wrong about something.

Yes and thought is our bodies doing something. It's something our brains do. (Hopefully, at least. :razz: )

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?

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 — Rank Amateur

Yes, I know that you want to wriggle out of my criticism instead of conceding, so you're trying to manipulate me into talking about something else.

Remember, I am more conscious of your psych than you yourself are. And it does you no favours when I expose it. So maybe consider just conceding?

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

In a way, I guess you could say I am (metaphorically). If I don't agree with the axioms of mathematics, and you want to prove to me that 2+2=4, then you would be in such a situation. But, to continue the analogy, we'd be arguing, on this thread, about the axioms of mathematics. So the fact that you can't prove your point unless we agree with your axiom, is irrelevant.

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

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