My answer would be much as Terrapin's above. The incrediblely minute exceptions are what we're talking about from a meta-ethical position. And they're important because at one time, people who thought women should be allowed to vote were the incrediblely minute exception. — Isaac
So even if you bring it down to the very basic values (by which I mean values that are not derived inductively from other more basic ones), I see no factor in the world which would prevent some brains from developing some particular base value. — Isaac
so tell me the pragmatic difference between 99 % of the people in the world would have the same moral judgement and there is a near objective truth about that judgement ?? — Rank Amateur
A proposition is subjective if its truth value is is dependent on personal feelings, tastes or opinions (i.e. existing in someone's mind rather than the external world)
A proposition is objective if it's truth value is independent of the person uttering it.
In other words if it's subjective it reflects how people feel rather than any mind independent reality. This was essentially what the OP and the ensuing exchanges have been about. — ChrisH
At any rate, there's no moral stance that I can't imagine someone sincerely having. I wouldn't be able to guess how common any stance would be, but I don't think that's relevant to anything. That irrelevance was just my point immediately above. — Terrapin Station
At one time 99% of the world judged that the sun went around the earth which was the centre of the universe. Did that make their judgment true? — Isaac
if 99% of the world held the same moral judgement on some specific issue. That would require some explanation. — Rank Amateur
you do realize that point supports objective truth don't you ? — Rank Amateur
is there some pragmatic difference between 99% of the world having the same moral view about some action and a high degree of moral objectivity about that action ? — Rank Amateur
But you don't mean some explanation do you? You've been given some explanation - evolution. You're waiting for a particular type of explanation. One involving God — Isaac
is there some pragmatic difference between 99% of the world having the same moral view about some action and a high degree of moral objectivity about that action ?
— Rank Amateur
The question makes no sense. Either a moral proposition is objectively true (true independent of anybody's "moral view") or it's not. The phrase "high degree of moral objectivity" makes no sense — ChrisH
if you don't think it would matter to the subjective vs objective argument if 99% of the people in the world held the same moral view - You are right there is no need to keep chatting - — Rank Amateur
What do you mean by "same moral view". All you've established is acceptance here that a large majority of people will have similar moral views about one specific issue - 'child torture'. There are very many contentious moral issues facing us today which are far less clear cut and in my view it would be profoundly unhelpful for either side of these disputes to claim objective truth for their views — ChrisH
Of course you can guess, we all can guess - just asking for your honest guess. — Rank Amateur
And, at least to me it would be a relevant point if 99% of the world held the same moral judgement on some specific issue. — Rank Amateur
is there some pragmatic difference between 99% of the world having the same moral view about some action and a high degree of moral objectivity about that action ? — Rank Amateur
Why would you assume I'm not giving you my honest guess? — Terrapin Station
I wouldn't be able to guess how common any stance would be, — Terrapin Station
Relevant to what? (Other than itself) — Terrapin Station
No where did I say all moral judgments are objective - only some, and maybe only a handful. — Rank Amateur
Yes, of course. The pragmatic difference is that the two are two completely different things. Agreement, commonality has nothing whatsoever to do with objectivity. — Terrapin Station
was kind of a big clue — Rank Amateur
if you don't think that if 99% of the people in the world could hold the same moral view and it not be relative to a discussion of relative - vs objective morality - we will just have to disagree — Rank Amateur
Yes and I attempted to explain to you that the notion that only some moral judgements are objective (and others may not be) makes no sense. — ChrisH
was kind of a big clue
— Rank Amateur
How is that not a big clue? The two things don't have anything to do with each other. How in the world would I know just how common some relatively unusual stance might be? That has no impact on being able to guess that there might be some people with that stance.
if you don't think that if 99% of the people in the world could hold the same moral view and it not be relative to a discussion of relative - vs objective morality - we will just have to disagree
— Rank Amateur
How would it have anything to do with "relative vs objective morality" unless you were doing what I noted before that you objective to--my pet peeve, re the apparent assumption that it goes without saying that the popularity of something has some significance for its normative merit. — Terrapin Station
The objective standard is the duty to do no harm (arising from the instinctive avoidance of pain and the finding of oneself in a cooperative society where people depend on others for wants, needs, and survival). — Noah Te Stroete
How do you go from the instinctive avoidance of pain (which I don't actually agree is a fact as anything that simple, but we can ignore that for now) and the cooperative society fact to "one has a duty to do not harm"? That would need to be supported. — Terrapin Station
You could try just telling me what the percentage of people with some stance has to do with relative/subjective vs objective morality in your view. — Terrapin Station
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.