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
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
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
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. — SonJnana
Is intrinsic morality the same as objective morality? — matt
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. — SonJnana
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
life exists and seems to have forced itself into existence — matt
(something like Schopenhauer's Will) — matt
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
Objectivity of certain moral laws still can be shown on 'softer' ways than what you demand in this thread — Dalibor
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
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
If not, then you need to specify what meaning, in this context, you're trying to claim is unprovable for moral statements. — Pseudonym
, you're wrong because the earth really is not flat and that is demonstrable. — SonJnana
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
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
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
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
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
It is worth noting that even if nothing is intrinsically morally wrong, it does not follow that nothing is morally wrong. — Banno
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.