We can demonstrate math law by showing that 5 objects + 5 objects = 10 objects. It is rational to believe this is knowledge about an objective math law, in terms of practical knowledge, because math law is applied in our daily lives constantly empirically. The same can not be said about morality.
If you don't think it's rational to believe that 5 objects + 5 objects will equal ten this time, it's probably because your a solipcist and care only about absolute knowledge. — SonJnana
How cryptic... — darthbarracuda
I am not a solipsist by any means. How is 5+5=10 different from saying murder is wrong? — darthbarracuda
The only conclusion you can make is that killing makes things dead. — BlueBanana
How is 5+5=10 different from saying murder is wrong? — darthbarracuda
From what? — BlueBanana
It seems to me that sincere mathematical propositions have no emotional component whereas moral propositions , if they're sincere, clearly demonstrate an emotional commitment (would you accept as sincere a claim that child torture was wrong made by someone who failed to to show any personal repugnance to child torture?). — ChrisH
The answer is that mathematics can be discovered and proven by scientific testing in practice while morals can only be figured out by subjective a priori intuition. — BlueBanana
Scientific testing involves the use of mathematics — darthbarracuda
that have already been discovered by synthetic a priori analysis. — darthbarracuda
All scientific testing involves the use of information discovered by other scientific research. — BlueBanana
Mathematics and numbers are discovered by perceiving amounts in the physical world. They're a posteriori. — BlueBanana
My own view is that there is an essential property to a moral act, and that property is the conventional view of justice. All moral acts are those that act for justice. If there is no justice, there is no morality. When I say this I'm not saying that every justice act is an morally good one, only that all good or moral acts are for justice. — SonJnana
The second component is that morality is objective, that is, it's not subjective, or a matter of opinion, or a matter of consensus. For example, if I kill someone's wife because he killed mine, there are several factors that make this a moral act, and moreover, make it an objective moral act. First, it's objectively true that the arm has been cut off, we can see it on the ground. Second, we can objectively observe the fact that my wife was dead originally and now I have killed his. These two reactions show the objective nature of the justice done. No opinion or consensus will or can change the objective nature of these observations." — SonJnana
I am not a solipsist by any means. How is 5+5=10 different from saying murder is wrong? — darthbarracuda
No. We never "perceive amounts", since we need to already have the concept of amounts before. — darthbarracuda
You've responded by merely asserting mathematics is objective while morality is not. This discussion keeps going in circles. — darthbarracuda
I'm glad you explained what objective means, otherwise, I may have not understood. Of course objective means mind-independent, and of course anyone can state that X is an essential property of Y without it being the case. If someone does make such a statement, all it takes is one counter-example to refute it. So give me an example of an immoral act that doesn't cause harm? — Sam26
Furthermore, if harm isn't the one property that makes something immoral, what would make it immoral? Don't say "justice," because what makes something an injustice is in fact the harm done. — Sam26
That may be true, but how does this alter morality's truth value? — darthbarracuda
our definitions for objective differ if you define objective as just consensus of what people think or believe — SonJnana
Just because everyone want to be, even if that were true, that wouldn't make it objectively morally right to make people happy. Using that same reasoning we could say that it is moral to make people slaves if everyone hypothetically wanted societies with slaves. — SonJnana
How would you define objectivity? — bloodninja
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.