If we hold the opinion "killing is bad" as merely a subjective value with nothing objective that gives it content, than it would be equally viable that all animals and people just slaughter each other, as it is to continue living. If we accept that life objectively strives towards preserving and continuing itself, it then follows that refrain from killing is also objective, whatever some group of people may think. History knows for very blood-thirsty tribes, who saw killing as normal, and yet it is not.

Objective either means true regardless of opinion;
True whether or not any one even knows it is true;
Or just some stuff that the establishment tells you is true.

What's it gonna be? — charleton

True in the same sense that it would be objectively true that the earth is not flat even if every person thought it was. Similarly, just because everyone thinks it is objectively morally wrong to kill doesn't mean it actually is.

Morality is intrinsic if you would allow me to extend intrinsic to mean natural. Murder is socially reprehensible and therefore reprehensible to human existence. Humans cannot survive without socialism.

If we hold the opinion "killing is bad" as merely a subjective value with nothing objective that gives it content, than it would be equally viable that all animals and people just slaughter each other, as it is to continue living. — Dalibor

No actions could be demonstrated to be objectively morally right or wrong, yes. So essentially when someone does kill, we'd be saying they are morally wrong in the context of our presupposition values. And if majority of people agree on those values in a society, then they will condemn and punish a murderer.

If we accept that life objectively strives towards preserving and continuing itself, it then follows that refrain from killing is also objective, whatever some group of people may think. History knows for very blood-thirsty tribes, who saw killing as normal, and yet it is not. — Dalibor

Even if hypothetically every single life form refrained from needlessly killing, that wouldn't give the act of needlessly killing any more or less objective moral value. That would just mean if someone decides to kill, they are going against what all other life forms value. But not against some objective moral standard.

Morality is intrinsic if you would allow me to extend intrinsic to mean natural. Murder is socially reprehensible and therefore reprehensible to human existence. Humans cannot survive without socialism. — matt

The title of this thread is a little misleading now, but I don't expect you to read all the replies. My position now is that objective morality hasn't been demonstrated. So as you say murder is socially reprehensible, that is because many humans generally value life and safety. Since those presupposition values are subjective, that doesn't demonstrate that it is objectively morally wrong to kill.

The title of this thread is a little misleading now, but I don't expect you to read all the replies. My position now is that objective morality hasn't been demonstrated. So as you say murder is socially reprehensible, that is because many humans generally value life and safety. Since those presupposition values are subjective, that doesn't demonstrate that it is objectively morally wrong to kill. — SonJnana

So your position went from:
Nothing is intrinsically morally wrong
to
Objective morality hasn't been demonstrated.

Is intrinsic morality the same as objective morality?

It's not objectively morally wrong because the person you're killing values life and safety. It's objectively morally wrong because murder annihilates the person's ability to valuate at all.

Is intrinsic morality the same as objective morality? — matt

I don't think so because something can be intrinsically valuable to a person.

It's objectively morally wrong because murder annihilates the person's ability to valuate at all. — matt

It would be wrong with presupposed values that are consistent with allowing others to have the ability to valuate. However how can you demonstrate that that those presupposed values aren't just what you or majority of people feel or think is right vs. some objective moral standard that describes what actually is right or wrong.

(Excuse me, I might have repeated what someone has previously said.)

It is objectively morally wrong to kill if we ascribe objectivity to an outer, non-human judge. However, we have no proof of that, no proof of a "God" prescribing to humans objective moral values. Otherwise, it is a collective notion for the suffering of an innocent person to be objectively morally wrong.

Therefore, SonJnana's assertion that morality is self-decided is correct. Killing and stealing are actions that are self-justified, therefore the issue over whether an objective, universal morality exists has been overridden.

It would be wrong with presupposed values that are consistent with allowing others to have the ability to valuate. However how can you demonstrate that that those presupposed values aren't just what you or majority of people feel or think is right vs. some objective moral standard that describes what actually is right or wrong. — SonJnana

My argument only matters if you grant intrinsic=objective. I'm thinking something along the lines, that the fact the life exists and seems to have forced itself into existence (something like Schopenhauer's Will). I believe transgression and violation against this will of life itself is intrinsically, objectively morally wrong. Life and nature's morality stands on its own. Life's persistence isn't a presupposed value nor is it a matter of majority opinion. And it's got nothing to do with "outer, non-human judge".

It what world would it make sense that it was "okay" to cause suffering to an innocent person?

I like the biological argument, however unfortunately, while we are programmed to survive as a species there is the wall of sexual desire. In nature, the male dominates the female. There’s always an Inate sense to reproduce. Because reproducing is part of surviving. But because of modern culture, we hold this back for our ideas of personal space and consiouness and privacy. I think rape is bad because it in of itself goes against my own sense of morality in many ways. However, the application of rape directly counters the biological argument.

True in the same sense that it would be objectively true that the earth is not flat even if every person thought it was. Similarly, just because everyone thinks it is objectively morally wrong to kill doesn't mean it actually is. — SonJnana

You are confusing two completely different things; Matters of fact, and matter of opinion.
It can never be factual that killing is right or wrong. Morals do not render facts.

Our world, precisely. Millions of innocent people suffer all the time. Just because this is a truth does not mean it's wrong. Life's persistence, as you put it, doesn't care for morality. We, humans, like to evade the feeling of suffering, pursue pleasure, and therefore we are apt to think that in no world is the suffering of an innocent person "okay."

"Nothing is intrinsically morally wrong." - Morality is only relevant in the context of a community. Separate the individual from community and morality no longer exists. Therefore, morality is a human construct. Let's face it. SonJnana's statement stirs within the majority of those reading it feelings of discomfort. Just because it doesn't stir me does not make me a person without morals. Morals are self-decided, like I said before. We determine what we consider right and wrong according to our own unique needs.

@SonJnana I tried to avoid stating this, because it is basically off-topic, but you are right that we can't demonstrate objectivity of moral values on the same way as we can for physical laws. BUT this doesn't make morality relative, which is what I tried to demonstrate and most people seem to think the same. Objectivity of certain moral laws still can be shown on 'softer' ways than what you demand in this thread.

life exists and seems to have forced itself into existence — matt

How could it have forced itself into existence before it existed?

(something like Schopenhauer's Will) — matt

You have to demonstrate that there is some sort of will and not just a case of the because of the physical laws and conditions of the universe, life just happened to come about.

You are confusing two completely different things; Matters of fact, and matter of opinion.
It can never be factual that killing is right or wrong. Morals do not render facts. — charleton

So then are you saying that when a person murders, it is because he is going against the opinions of the majority of people?

Objectivity of certain moral laws still can be shown on 'softer' ways than what you demand in this thread — Dalibor

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by softer, but what I'm asking is for you to demonstrate that it is wrong to kill because it actually is, not because it goes against what is important to organisms.

SonJnana's statement stirs within the majority of those reading it feelings of discomfort. — tinytoro

There may be some truth to this lol

what I'm asking is for you to demonstrate that it is wrong to kill because it actually is, not because it goes against what is important to organisms. — SonJnana

What does 'wrong' mean in this context? You seem to be asking the impossible. Something can be objectively 'true' outside of human opinion (for a physicalist) but something can't be objectively wrong without defining 'wrong'.

Even in maths 2+2=5 is objectively wrong only because we've defined 'wrong' as being an answer that does not allow further functions within that framework.

If the point you're trying to make is that the meaning of the word 'wrong' is created by humans, then I'm not sure you'd have anyone disagree with you. If not, then you need to specify what meaning, in this context, you're trying to claim is unprovable for moral statements.

Even in maths 2+2=5 is objectively wrong only because we've defined 'wrong' as being an answer that does not allow further functions within that framework.

If the point you're trying to make is that the meaning of the word 'wrong' is created by humans, then I'm not sure you'd have anyone disagree with you. If not, then you need to specify what meaning, in this context, you're trying to claim is unprovable for moral statements. — Pseudonym

My point is that if you say the earth is flat, you're not wrong because people think you're wrong, you're wrong because the earth really is not flat and that is demonstrable. And so if someone for some reason thought that that it was flat, it could be demonstrated that the earth is not flat.

But if you say murder is wrong, that hasn't been demonstrated. So if there is no objective morality, you can only say it's wrong because a bunch of other people believe it to be wrong. In the absence of objective morality, people are essentially saying murder is only "wrong" because it goes against what majority may think or feel is wrong. Basically like just going against the crowd.

If not, then you need to specify what meaning, in this context, you're trying to claim is unprovable for moral statements. — Pseudonym

Not saying it's unprovable, just saying I haven't seen it proved.

, you're wrong because the earth really is not flat and that is demonstrable. — SonJnana

You're still missing the point of how we're using the words. "The earth is flat" is 'wrong' because the earth (the thing we live on) can be shown to be not flat (a plane extending either infinitely, or to edges) by looking at a photo of it showing its plane to have no edges. This is only possible because we have defined 'the earth' and we have (at least broadly) defined the group 'things which are flat' sufficiently to say that 'the earth' does not belong in that group.

Now take the statement "murder is wrong". Superficially it doesn't conform to the previous one. 'Murder' is just a single word, not a proposition, so to ask if it can be wrong is meaningless. Taking a more generous interpretation we could say the proposition is that "murder is bad". Now we have a statement where it is grammatically possible for it to be wrong. It might be that 'murder' does not fit into the group 'bad things'. But in order to check this, we'll have to define the group 'bad things'. If we refuse to define such a group, then the question is not proven, it simply becomes meaningless (like asking whether the proposition "all cats are slithy" is wrong when we don't know what 'slithy' means). If we disagree about the definition of the group 'bad things' then that is the discussion we need to be having. If we agree on the definition of the group 'bad things' then we can confidently make objective claims as to whether murder is in it or not, in exactly the same way as we did with the proposition "the earth is flat".

My point is that if you say the earth is flat, you're not wrong because people think you're wrong, you're wrong because the earth really is not flat and that is demonstrable. And so if someone for some reason thought that that it was flat, it could be demonstrated that the earth is not flat. — SonJnana

For physical laws, that is the dead world, we can state scientific facts about it because we can put distance between it and us. But when we come to life experiences, that is life, it's impossible to us to make this distance. Therefore we can't talk about objectivity of morality on the same way as we can for scientific facts. But we can on an indirect way, which you constantly refuse.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by softer, but what I'm asking is for you to demonstrate that it is wrong to kill because it actually is, not because it goes against what is important to organisms. — SonJnana

Here lies the problem. Morality has no other reason to exist except to serve organisms. If you refuse to make this leap and accept that we can't talk about morality as we do about physical laws, but only in the context of life that we are living - this is what I meant under 'softer' - than you are not only asking the impossible, but also opening a more general discussion about objectivity in general, foremost the existence of objective world unrelated to our subjective experiences.

So then are you saying that when a person murders, it is because he is going against the opinions of the majority of people? — SonJnana

No I am saying exactly what I meant to be saying. You are confusing matters of fact with matter of opinion. Own it; deal with it.

It is worth noting that even if nothing is intrinsically morally wrong, it does not follow that nothing is morally wrong.

If we disagree about the definition of the group 'bad things' then that is the discussion we need to be having. If we agree on the definition of the group 'bad things' then we can confidently make objective claims as to whether murder is in it or not, in exactly the same way as we did with the proposition "the earth is flat". — Pseudonym

Are you using the word bad here as that which one doesn't hope or desire for? Like for example saying ice cream is good. If so then we're basically saying the same thing. If not, can you explain what context you are using the word bad?

Here lies the problem. Morality has no other reason to exist except to serve organisms. If you refuse to make this leap and accept that we can't talk about morality as we do about physical laws, but only in the context of life that we are living - this is what I meant under 'softer' - than you are not only asking the impossible, but also opening a more general discussion about objectivity in general, foremost the existence of objective world unrelated to our subjective experiences. — Dalibor

We could just be using the word objective in different ways which would make this argument going nowhere so let's clear it up. If a psychopath says he wants to murder because he enjoys murdering and doesn't care if other people don't like it, what reasoning do you have for telling him he shouldn't do it.

Is it because it goes against what you or majority of people desire? In this case the act of murdering is simply an act that goes against what other people want.

Is it because it is wrong in the context of presupposed value of life? In this case if "life" isn't important to the psychopath, then he's just doing something that goes against what others find important and in some sense just acting against others' desires.

Or is it because murder is just wrong for some other reason?

No I am saying exactly what I meant to be saying. You are confusing matters of fact with matter of opinion. Own it; deal with it. — charleton

Own what?

I'm not the one asserting that murder can be demonstrated as a fact. That's why I made this thread, to see if anyone can demonstrate it because a lot of people talk as if it is a fact. What are you even talking about???

It is worth noting that even if nothing is intrinsically morally wrong, it does not follow that nothing is morally wrong. — Banno

Sure, but we can't say that any presupposed values that dictate one's morality are any better than those of some else without a demonstration that there is some objective morality that is better than others.

Can't we? Why not?

With what standard are you evaluating?

If you come across a culture where if one person cuts someone's hand off, it is okay for the person now with one hand to go find that guy and retaliate by cutting his hand off, what would you think?

Assuming that in your sense of morality it's not okay for the guy to retaliate by cutting his hand off...
What makes your sense of morality better than that culture's sense of morality? Sure you could say that in the context of a stable society, this is not good. Or maybe in the context of valuing life it's bad. But if the culture values their own sense of fairness over a stable society and life, how can you say that your morality is any better than there's?