It is objective biology and outside individual human desire or judgment where our nose goes, — Rank Amateur

You understand that on my view it's biology that produces our moral stances, too, right?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

It's interesting that it has mostly been the case that those who understand your position agree with it, and those who don't understand it disagree with their own misunderstanding.

Yeah, and it's frustrating to me that it's apparently so difficult to get across to some folks.

I'm kind of an "irrational optimist," though, so I keep trying, lol

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Same here, lol. Understanding the position is that key first step that some people here are failing on. They are getting way ahead of themselves. The moral of the story is: don't try to run before you can walk.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

But what exactly would be your grounds for complaint? — tim wood

Why wouldn't not wanting to be murdered be sufficient? Additionally most people don't want people to murder other people in general.

Yes, but obviously I have already considered and assessed the argument for why reason is a slave to the passions and judged it to be successful enough, hence my mentioning of the oft-quoted line to begin with. You have yet to put forward a superior alternative in my assessment. You have yet to put forward a greater reason for concluding the contrary, namely that reason is not a slave to the passions, whether semantic or otherwise.

And I steadfastly refuse to address what the Kantian in the background has said if he hasn't the decency to even speak to me. He who has the nerve to suggest that I lack philosophical maturity. I think they call that projection.

I understand and disagree, can you explain your position in one complete thought.

Why am I failing against Ockham’s razor.

I explained that in detail in a post to you above.

You understand that on my view it's biology that produces our moral stances, too, right? — Terrapin Station

I never argued this near universal agreement was not biological, I have said a few times said it could be evolved. It is just not a individually unique biology.

Lots of rhetoric on my challenge- just no reasonable answers

I never argued this near universal agreement was not biological, I have said a few times said it could be evolved. It is just not a individually unique biology. — Rank Amateur

Re "individually unique" that's irrelevant to this discussion. (I have a view on that, but it has to do with nominalism, and we can leave that out of this discussion.)

"Individually unique" seems pertinent to something I wrote earlier today: "I can't help but think that some of this stems from misunderstandings--namely, believing that relativists and/or subjectivists are more or less saying that morality is wildly divergent from person to person, and that it's essentially arbitrary. But no one is actually claiming anything like that."

i can’t find it. Sorry can you paste it again

It was a relatively long post. Here's a direct link to it: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/267821

Sometimes it is better to set tasks that help one to connect the dots themselves rather than simply spelling something out, don't you agree? Compare the following:

Light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, and it appears to have wave-like properties. Therefore, luminiferous aether.

The world contains people who live meaningful lives, and who are capable of judging right from wrong. Therefore, God exists.

Lots of people have in common the judgement that murdering children is wrong. Humans are such that they tend to feel a certain way about it which leads to that conclusion. Therefore, objective morality.

s pertinent to something I wrote earlier today: "I can't help but think that some of this stems from misunderstandings--namely, believing that relativists and/or subjectivists are more or less saying that morality is wildly divergent from person to person, and that it's essentially arbitrary. But no one is actually claiming anything like that." — Terrapin Station

No I don’t you just have not come up with any reason why on some issues it is near universal. If you want to say we have all evolved as humans to feel that way, I will agree but that seems quite objective to me with the source being a shared human evolution.

you just have not come up with any reason why on some issues it is near universal. — Rank Amateur

The post I just linked you to explained it yet again. It's about the fifth or sixth time in this thread that I've explained it: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/267821

I will agree but that seems quite objective to me with the source being a shared human evolution. — Rank Amateur

Re this, for the umpteenth time, ALL that I'm saying by the term "subjective" is that we're referring to a mental phenomenon. We can just drop the terms "subjective/objective" and I can just say that "moral stances do not occur outside of persons thinking them." The reason that they think them is biological. Biology is as it is because of evolution and common environmental factors, which lead to near-universal agreement on some things.

He has denial issues.

You are having the same problem that Rank Amateur is having as a result of additional unwarranted assumptions which can be cut out with Ockham's razor. If we were to go through the motions in detail, we'd see much in common between us, such as we both feel strongly against murder, we both judge murder to be wrong, we both don't want to be murdered, we'd both complain for these reasons, and so on. The big difference is your additional unwarranted assumption which stands out like a sore thumb, and which I have the good judgement to reject.

You also have persistent problematic misunderstandings about the logical consequences of moral relativism which seem practically irresolvable for you, in spite of valiant efforts. I mean, look, we've reached forty pages now, and you seem none the wiser. As I've said before, and of others, the real problem here seems psychological. You have a psychological problem with moral relativism, such that you simply must defeat it, no matter what.

You can lead a horse to water...

we all hold near universal views on the morality of some issues - I call that highly objective, don't you? — Rank Amateur

Absolutely and fundamentally not, no. And I've already explained why.

We do not normally treat things most people feel as objective truth and with very good reason. It would make it at one time objectively true that black people are inferior, for example.

You've said thoughts arising from conscience are different, and I agree, they are different.

What you continue to avoid answering is why you think that difference causes us to consider majority thoughts on morality as objective truths when not only do we not do this for any other class of thought, but we take great pains to avoid doing so.

Avoidance, like denial, is one of his coping mechanisms.

Under subjectivist morality, the only explanation that we need for near-universal moral judgments is that our bodies develop in similar ways--a notion that's quite uncontroversial for most things (otherwise medicine wouldn't work, we'd not be able to explain why almost everyone has ten fingers and ten toes, etc.). — Terrapin Station

I do not understand your link between our near general agreement agreement about some things, and our biological development. If you include some near universal evolutionary dispositions I am there. But I don't get the link between we all have a nose and 10 toes so we all think the same about a specific thing and it is subjective.

Can you give me the full logic of this link please.

deep breaths S, been a busy day.

What you continue to avoid answering is why you think that difference causes us to consider majority thoughts on morality as objective truths when not only do we not do this for any other class of thought, but we take great pains to avoid doing so. — Isaac

I have never called this near universal moral judgment on some issues a "objective truth". I said it points to their is an objective moral judgment on some actions. Meaning there is some source of this judgment that is not relative or subjective to the person, the culture or the time.

What don't you claim to understand this time? Or is this just another delaying tactic? If I understand it, then why don't you? He's saying that morality consists in preferences, and that preferences are a mental phenomenon, and that we're naturally predisposed to have certain preferences, which explains their prevalence. That is roughly analogous to saying that faces consist of facial features like a nose, and that facial features are bodily things, and that we're naturally predisposed to have a nose, which explains their prevalence.

I understand it because I have a certain level of intelligence. Just putting that out there.

Re this, for the umpteenth time, ALL that I'm saying by the term "subjective" is that we're referring to a mental phenomenon. We can just drop the terms "subjective/objective" and I can just say that "moral stances do not occur outside of persons thinking them." The reason that they think them is biological. Biology is as it is because of evolution and common environmental factors, which lead to near-universal agreement on some things. — Terrapin Station

Why, simply because it is a moral judgment, by an individual thought, makes that thought by definition subjective. People in that same mental phenomenon make a moral judgment, that the sorce of that thought is nearly universal, inherent in being human. Call it human nature or evolution- but if you agree such judgments exist they would seem to be much much more objective than subjective.

The biology of our brains is what he means, the chemistry of our minds. For example, empathy comes from our evolution. It shouldnt be controversial that empathy is at least related to “near universal” moral agreements. The 10 toes was part of an example about something else (medicine) besides morality where we make “near universal” judgements based on our bodies developing in certain ways.
Correct me if im wrong on that Terrapin.

My ownership of my life is absolute. — tim wood

Not only the ownership, or possession of it, but included is the principle of its preservation. If we have a truth the negation of which is impossible, we have a law. If we have a law, we have the ground of a moral philosophy. Because the law is a priori, it is neither relative nor objective. It is, instead, a good place to start.

I understand the point, what has not been explained is the link that makes these judgments subjective by definition because a human being makes them. It is a source argument. And my point is there is either some source behind these near universal judgments that we all share, making such judgments objective. Or, are we all the individual source of all our own judgments, and it is just a matter of coincidence that on some issues all these individual mental actions the same.