"Morality isn't anything other than how people feel, whether they approve or disapprove, etc. of interpersonal behaviour that they consider more significant than etiquette." — S

I am not allowed to disagree with that?

I am not allowed to disagree with that? — Rank Amateur

Sweet Jesus. No one here is crazy enough to equate the two, so you have a fundamental misunderstanding. Big surprise.

I prefer cheese and onion flavour crisps and raping babies to ready salted flavour crisps. How about you?

'Universal' doesn't necessarliy mean 'objective'. — ChrisH

I undersatand that, but it does not answer how we as human beings have near universal moral judgments on many things, if there is not some things with a high degree of objectivity- do you have a theory?

There is enormous unity regardless of culture or situation on many things most humans would consider morally wrong. Now you can chalk up that near universal consistency to evolution, God, or something else, but it exists and it is not coincidence.

What is the difference then between near universal agreement and nearly objective? — Rank Amateur

There is near universal agreement about what we feel. Most people feel that they shouldn't murder someone and they feel that they should ostracise, or somehow discourage anyone who seems like they should murder people. So our feelings on many matters of moral judgment are similar. That means it is 'close to' an objective fact that most people feel that way.

So, for the one person who doesn't feel that way, what bearing does this objective fact (that most people think otherwise) have on your objective judgement of his moral feeling? All you can say objectively is that it is at odds with the majority. That doesn't require him to act any differently without some further link which you have not provided. I dread the day that being at odds with the majority position places on us a duty to change our behaviour accordingly.

incredulity is not argument, and obviously not very effective on me. I am open to reason if you would care to take a deep breath and actually address the point.

Incredulity is not argument, and obviously not very effective on me. I am open to reason if you would care to take a deep breath and actually address the point. — Rank Amateur

I addressed the point. I identified the logical error, namely a false equivalence, and I just added the obligatory satirising of it, but I think that I was a little too late in adding that, so...

So anyway, I prefer cheese and onion flavour crisps and raping babies to ready salted flavour crisps. How about you?

What is the difference then between near universal agreement and nearly objective? — Rank Amateur

"Objective" doesn't have anything to do with commonality or agreement. "Objective" simply refers to whether something occurs independently of persons.

I don't think that anyone is arguing the relative commonality of any stances. No one disagrees that the vast majority of people think it's wrong to murder, for example.

There is near universal agreement about what we feel. Most people feel that they shouldn't murder someone and they feel that they should ostracise, or somehow discourage anyone who seems like they should murder people. So our feelings on many matters of moral judgment are similar. That means it is 'close to' an objective fact that most people feel that way. — Isaac

Agree

So, for the one person who doesn't feel that way, what bearing does this objective fact (that most people think otherwise) have on your objective judgement of his moral feeling? All you can say objectively is that it is at odds with the majority. That doesn't require him to act any differently without some further link which you have not provided. I dread the day that being at odds with the majority position places on us a duty to change our behaviour accordingly. — Isaac

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.

If you believe there is a high degree of subjectivity, you can only say to him, that most people find your judgment that murder is ok incorrect. And try to change his mind, but if he chooses not to, you have no standard to value his judgment against, and must accept it as his subjective moral judgment, you can disagree - but that is all. It is now reduced to just preference.

I undersatand that, but it does not answer how we as human beings have near universal moral judgments on many things, if there is not some things with a high degree of objectivity- do you have a theory? — Rank Amateur

Human beings nearly universally have noses, don't they? But no one is saying that our noses aren't something that our bodies make.

In order to think that the fact that humans have something or other in common, where (almost) all of us have whatever it is, somehow suggests that the thing in question can't be of us, would only make sense if one thought that either humans are as they are more or less randomly or they have to be constituted/arranged/put in order by something outside of themselves. I don't know why on Earth anyone would think something like that, though.

So anyway, I prefer cheese and onion flavour crisps and raping babies to ready salted flavour crisps. How about you? — S

I think that is my point. Believing in high degrees of subjectivity in moral judgments reduces them to preference

I think that is my point. Believing in high degrees of subjectivity in moral judgments reduces them to preference — Rank Amateur

And?

And? — Terrapin Station

Therefore, false equivalence. Cheese and onion flavour crisps, raping babies.

I'm won over by that argument. Aren't you?

'Universal' doesn't necessarliy mean 'objective'.
— ChrisH

I undersatand that, but it does not answer how we as human beings have near universal moral judgments on many things, if — Rank Amateur

You've lost me. What does "it" refer to above?

In any event, there's not much 'universal' about attitudes to abortion, homosexuality, animal rights, social welfare, health provision etc, etc. Doesn't seem to me to be any evidence of an objectively correct solution to these thorny moral issues.

It's frustrating that you can't get folks to follow through on a line of questioning about this stuff, because that could help them understand the other view. It seems almost like they're afraid to "go down the rabbit hole" though. So whenever it looks like they're getting too close to the rabbit hole, they back off.

"Objective" doesn't have anything to do with commonality or agreement. "Objective" simply refers to whether something occurs independently of persons.

I don't think that anyone is arguing the relative commonality of any stances. No one disagrees that the vast majority of people think it's wrong to murder, for example. — Terrapin Station

The question was why is there such unanimity, and is there some pragmatic difference between near universal agreement and objectivity.


It seems what you really want to argue is if morality has a is a human or supernatural origin. I am not arguing that, I am happy to say that you can have a very large degree of objective morality without any supernatural origin.

It's frustrating that you can't get folks to follow through on a line of questioning about this stuff, because that could help them understand the other view. It seems almost like they're afraid to "go down the rabbit hole" though. So whenever it looks like they're getting too close to the rabbit hole, they back off. — Terrapin Station

Yes, it is annoying. They just leave it down to others to connect the dots out in the open.

I didn't say all, I said some.

It. Means your point universal does not have to mean objective

Because, from my point of view, morality is inherent in man — Brett

And so far no one has been able to say what morality is, — Brett

(Raising hand from back of the room)
Hellloooo!!! see page 17. I said, “Morality, one of two fundamental human conditions, the other being reason....”

Somebody did say what morality is, and happens to coincide nicely with your “inherent in man”. Problem is, everybody wants to jump from “inherent in man” as a “fundamental condition” out into the objective world of circumstance, without doing the work of grasping what happens in between.

I also said, pg 5 fercrissakes.......“In a discussion with a moral or subjective relativist, always first determine what exactly is relative to what.”, but people would rather dismiss the obvious than exploit it, so we end up with 20 pages of, as @Janus so aptly put it, “....litany of irrelevancies and category errors....”.

Everybody wants to be right; nobody wants to be laughed at, so nobody does real honest-to-farginggawd-philosophy, because doing so is never right and is often laughable. But some questions cannot be addressed any other way, and all answers are wrong if the questions are irrelevant.

Carry on, and good luck.
(Puts hand down and continues with idle doodling)

The question was why is there such unanimity, and is there some pragmatic difference between near universal agreement and objectivity.


It seems what you really want to argue is if morality has a is a human or supernatural origin. I am not arguing that, I am happy to say that you can have a very large degree of objective morality without any supernatural origin. — Rank Amateur

First, I don't look at it as anything about supernatural stuff, because there are a lot of objectivists who aren't positing anything supernatural.

Re (near-)unanimity on some things (even though I think that tends to be exaggerated), the stuff about almost all of us having noses wasn't rhetorical or facetious. How and why most aspects of the human body develop as they do isn't very controversial. We don't see it as a big mystery that we almost all have noses, that we all have circulating blood if we're alive, and so on. We don't see many people believing that the only way we all have noses and circulating blood is because something outside of ourselves gave those things to us wholesale and we just took delivery of them. So it shouldn't be a mystery that the vast majority of people think that murder is wrong, either, that the vast majority of people agree that 2+2=4, that the vast majority of people don't like drinking hydrochloric acid, etc.

Re "there (being) some pragmatic difference between near universal agreement and objectivity," it depends on what the pragmatic goal is, but what is the pragmatic value of near-universal agreement in the first place? That's simply a fact about the way things are. It doesn't imply anything normatively.

In any event, there's not much 'universal' about attitudes to abortion, homosexuality, animal rights, social welfare, health provision etc, etc. Doesn't seem to me to be any evidence of an objectively correct solution to these thorny moral issues. — ChrisH

It seems that way to me too. It's probably because there isn't any. That's why some have resorted to dogmatism, and others try and fail to be logical about it.

I didn't say all, I said some. — Rank Amateur

Universal, near universal, a majority, evenly split, a small minority, one person... Doesn't make any real difference, meta-ethically. To believe otherwise is a moral delusion, a fallacy.

↪S

It's frustrating that you can't get folks to follow through on a line of questioning about this stuff, because that could help them understand the other view. It seems almost like they're afraid to "go down the rabbit hole" though. So whenever it looks like they're getting too close to the rabbit hole, they back off. — Terrapin Station

I am happy to go down any rabbit hole you want.

I am not sure either you or s even understand the point I am making. And I have yet to see it addressed in a complete thought.

Most of what I am hearing is you are wrong and you don't understand.

I keep asking what I think is a reasonable and logical issue, That either you can not, or will not address reasonably and logically.

no issue there are many judgments people differ on. Is your point that there is no truthful answer to any of them? Even one we do not know. Or are all these equal and valid opinions on the item in question?

I am happy to go down any rabbit hole you want.

I am not sure either you or s even understand the point I am making. And I have yet to see it addressed in a complete thought.

Most of what I am hearing is you are wrong and you don't understand.

I keep asking what I think is a reasonable and logical issue, That either you can not, or will not address reasonably and logically. — Rank Amateur

If you're talking about the unanimity thing, we have addressed it. Our bodies don't develop randomly, do they? You're not addressing that. You're not supporting the notion that there shouldn't be widespread commonalities if moral stances only occur in individuals.

Or are all these equal and valid opinions on the item in question? — Rank Amateur

Validity has to do with truth values, and in what perspective would different moral stances be equal?

So it shouldn't be a mystery that the vast majority of people think that murder is wrong either, — Terrapin Station

It is imperative to my point for you to try and identify why we all feel that way, and not just keep dismissing it. Why do we all feel that way ?

I am happy to go down any rabbit hole you want.

I am not sure either you or s even understand the point I am making. And I have yet to see it addressed in a complete thought.

Most of what I am hearing is you are wrong and you don't understand.

I keep asking what I think is a reasonable and logical issue, That either you can not, or will not address reasonably and logically. — Rank Amateur

Your point that I addressed was your false equivalence. But you seem to be in denial that I even addressed your point. What don't you understand about why your point was fallacious?

Your last point didn't even go anywhere logically relevant, as Terrapin picked up on. That's a fallacy called missing the point.

If you're logically incompetent, then what tends to happen is that the discussion becomes about that rather than the wider issue.

It is imperative to my point for you to try and identify why we all feel that way, and not just keep dismissing it. Why do we all feel that way ? — Rank Amateur

I've addressed it a bunch of times.

First, human bodies do not develop randomly.

Do you agree with that?

If you're talking about the unanimity thing, we have addressed it. Our bodies don't develop randomly, do they? You're not addressing that. You're not supporting the notion that there shouldn't be widespread commonalities if moral stances only occur in individuals. — Terrapin Station

We are taking past each other, I see nothing in this that addresses my point.

Can you take a second to tell me in your words what you understand my point to be?

Can you take a second to tell me in your words what you understand my point to be? — Rank Amateur

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.

Your point that I addressed is your false equivalence. But you seem to be in denial that I even addressed your point. What don't you understand about why your point was fallacious? — S

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