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

I am not a solipsist by any means. How is 5+5=10 different from saying murder is wrong?

How cryptic... — darthbarracuda

So you mean our sense data in itself is just photons, and doesn't contain the amount? Well it doesn't contain the concept of apples either, but you wouldn't call the concept of apple a priori. Although encrypted, the visual data you get does contain the information of the amount of objects you see.

I am not a solipsist by any means. How is 5+5=10 different from saying murder is wrong? — darthbarracuda

Take 5 apples in a bowl, take 5 more, count the apples. You have 10 apples. You make the conclusion that 5+5=10.

Kill the person: a person is dead. Check if they're dead. The only conclusion you can make is that killing makes things dead.

The only conclusion you can make is that killing makes things dead. — BlueBanana

LOL no, I'd make the conclusion that killing this person was wrong.

From what?

How is 5+5=10 different from saying murder is wrong? — darthbarracuda

Emotional commitment?

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?).

From what? — BlueBanana

From the a priori intuition that killing people needlessly is wrong.

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

That may be true, but how does this alter morality's truth value? And after all, many scientists and mathematicians are deeply amazed by the beauty of certain structures. This is an emotional reaction as well, even if it's not as often.

So you ask what's the difference is between mathematics and morals. 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.

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 that have already been discovered by synthetic a priori analysis.

Scientific testing involves the use of mathematics — darthbarracuda

All scientific testing involves the use of information discovered by other scientific research.

that have already been discovered by synthetic a priori analysis. — darthbarracuda

It's theoretically possible to figure out numbers and mathematics a priori. It's possible for one's imagination to create any concept a priori. That doesn't make it a priori knowledge. Mathematics and numbers are discovered by perceiving amounts in the physical world. They're a posteriori.

All scientific testing involves the use of information discovered by other scientific research. — BlueBanana

Yeah but also mathematics, which isn't scientific strictly.

Mathematics and numbers are discovered by perceiving amounts in the physical world. They're a posteriori. — BlueBanana

No. We never "perceive amounts", since we need to already have the concept of amounts before.

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

I'm not so sure that justice is an essential property of [all] moral acts. Moreover, I would disagree that justice is a matter of convention (conventionality connotes subjectivity for me), that is, there seems to be an objective component to what's just. That said, I would agree that justice is an important part of being moral, but it doesn't seem to be an essential component. I haven't read all of your posts, but it's important here to define, at least generally, what you mean by being just. Justice seems to me to be something that's meted out in terms of compensation. Let's say that I help an elderly women cross the street, most people would consider this a moral action, the right thing to do. Furthermore, I may just act in accord with what I consider my duty as another human being, so my action doesn't proceed from the idea of justice, but it's based on a duty, a rule, or a principle. Justice may never enter the picture for most, most would just act from the motivation of kindness.

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

Maybe you mistyped, I'm not sure, but this act is not an example, of a "justice done," but is an immoral act based on the harm done. What makes all immoral acts evil, is the harm done to oneself or to others or to both. If a justice is done in terms of the act as you presented, then the person cutting the arm off would have to suffer the consequences of their actions based on relevant criteria. Justice would be something meted out after the fact, after the harm has been done. I suppose you could say an injustice has been done, but this begs-the-question, because what makes it unjust other than the harm itself? Harm is foundational for all immoral actions, as far as I can tell - no harm, no immorality.

I am not a solipsist by any means. How is 5+5=10 different from saying murder is wrong? — darthbarracuda

You've asked this same question so many times and I've responded the same thing so many times. You should just go back and re-read our discussion about this first.

I made the last post to show you that anyone can say that anything is an essential property. You stated that harm is an essential property. You have to demonstrate that there is an objective morality that true regardless of whether people believe it to be true or not, and then you have to explain why that objective morality's essential property is harm.

Objective means that it doesn't depend what people think. If everyone thinks the earth is flat, that doesn't mean that the earth is flat. If you or even everyone agrees that it is objectively wrong to harm, that doesn't make it objectively wrong to harm.

No. We never "perceive amounts", since we need to already have the concept of amounts before. — darthbarracuda

Why? One could very well perceive two apples and three apples, notice a difference between them and acquire the understanding of the concept of amount a posteriori.

You've responded by merely asserting mathematics is objective while morality is not. This discussion keeps going in circles.

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? There maybe examples that are more difficult than others in determining the harm, but even in those examples one could make a strong case that one's character is harmed. I'm not saying the harm is always clear cut, but in those cases in which it is clear cut, it does seem to be the essential component or the essential property of immorality. Thus, I'm inferring from those immoral acts where the harm is clear cut, to those immoral acts where it's not so clear cut, that that property is probably just as essential. 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. Otherwise how could you say it's not just?

You've responded by merely asserting mathematics is objective while morality is not. This discussion keeps going in circles. — darthbarracuda

Humans may have evolved to be predisposed to understanding math. Yet I can distinguish that there actually is an objective math law it can be demonstrated. 5 + 5 = 10 objects independent of human thought. Therefore I know that my knowledge of math is of an objective math law that exists.

Humans may have evolved to be predisposed to believing that there is an objective morality. Yet I can't distinguish that there actually is an objective morality independent of human thought or if humans evolved to be predisposed to believe that there is an objective morality because it was useful. Since I can't demonstrate objective morality, I can't say that this "knowledge" is knowledge of an actual objective morality. Objective morality has to be demonstrated before making that claim.

Intuition doesn't make something objectively true. If humans didn't have an intuition of math, that wouldn't make it any less objectively true that 5+5=10 apples falling from a tree. And if I intuitively believe that a magician is cutting someone's head off, that doesn't mean that he's really cutting the person's head off.

I am asserting math is objective and you'd probably have to be a solipcist to disagree. I am not asserting that morality is not objective, I just lack the belief that it is objective. We've gone over this a hundred times that there is a difference. So you at this point you are being dishonest when you keep saying that I am asserting that morality is not objective.

^I've said all of this to you at least 10 times and I won't do it anymore. Unless you can come up with a new argument, it's pointless to repeat the same thing over and over again.

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

I don't think you understand my position. I don't claim that any acts are objectively immoral. I lack the belief that there is an objective morality. So you asking me to give an example of an immoral act that doesn't cause harm... Well I can't because I can't even give an example of an act that is objectively immoral in the first place, if I lack the belief that there is an objective morality.

Therefore if you claim there is objective morality it's up to you to demonstrate why there is, and why harm is an essential property. And I will tell you if I think it makes sense.

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

I don't know that there is anything that makes anything objectively moral. I lack the belief in objectively morality, that's the whole point. When I said justice I was just giving a generic example of what someone might say. I don't believe justice makes something moral. But I think you misunderstood the whole point I was making so forget that example.

That may be true, but how does this alter morality's truth value? — darthbarracuda

You asked how the two propositions were different and I suggested one possibility.

If what I said were true, then it would seem that moral propositions have a necessarily emotive component not shared by some non-moral propositions. This could be construed as evidence that moral claims have a necessarily subjective component.

our definitions for objective differ if you define objective as just consensus of what people think or believe — SonJnana

I don't define objectivity by what just anyone thinks, but by what the relevant people think. For example scientific objectivity depends on a consensus among scientists (i.e., experts) about what counts as scientific knowledge and correct practices for testing hypotheses, etc. Moral objectivity similarly depends on a consensus among suitable moral agents. This does not mean it depends on just what anyone thinks, and it absolutely does not depend on what philosophers think. A moral philosopher's job is merely to articulate this background objective morality.

How would you define objectivity?

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

You make a good point but I think you're making a small mistake, not something I would've seen without your help.

You seem to be looking for objective morality in a different sense. For you objective morality is, as I see it, outside of humanity or even life itself; much like a scientist searching for particle. This is a mistake because morality only relates to life or, in a narrow sense, human existence. So, objectivity in morality consists of looking at what's life-preserving and what's life-destroying.

How would you define objectivity? — bloodninja

It would be objectively true that the earth was not flat even if there was consensus that it was flat because the fact that it's not flat affected their life in ways that they have not known. That how I thought the conventional way to apply objective was and have never heard it used in the way you used it.

Sounds like you just redefined it to mean relevant consensus.

If you agree that it would be objectively true that the earth is not flat even if everyone believed it was flat, then we agree on definitions for objectivity. If not, then this argument would just be a misunderstanding.

When humans say it is objectively wrong to kill is it because

1. they discovered/have knowledge about an objective morality where it is objectively wrong to kill

or a possible alternative

2. They constructed this idea that it is morally wrong to kill because they realized it was useful even though it’s actually not objectively wrong to kill. Similar to believing the Earth is flat even though it's not objectively true that the earth is flat. Then humans evolved to be predisposed to believe it is objectively wrong to kill and/or people growing up in society are socially conditioned from a young age to believe that it is objectively morally wrong to kill.

Can you demonstrate why it would be the first case and not an alternative in which it is not objectively wrong to kill?

That doesn't make any sense in multiple ways. Over and out

@SonJnana A portion of your reply has been posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations, Thank you and Welcome~

I can't believe this discussion is still going... The way @SonJnana is defining objective, it is an absolute truth, like 1 + 1 = 2. Morality is by definition "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character". The question is: Why does it matter that morality is subjective? It's like wondering why there are no neon pink bananas. They just don't exist. It in no way changes the way we will think about reality or apply our concepts of morality.

Also, morality is a man-made concept. It makes no sense to discuss it outside of the context of living things that experience a sense of goodness or badness.

nice