no
If I had said there IS an objective morality then that would apply.
And i don't give a shaved rats ass about anybody's razor or any philosophical fallacies or phrases by other people that I'm not talkin to so because I'm alive and actually here to talk to how about you say something other than quoting somebody else that's not in the conversation because I don't subscribe to the groupie phrases

:rofl: STFD.

hood trash reply

There is no objective morality plane and simple — MAYAEL

Yes, I'm hoping for a binary result to be the product of my "test". Morality does often present as being subject to an individuals perception. If I was using a looks like a duck, quacks like a duck protocol; then rejecting objectivity outright would be a likely outcome. I think we do want it to be objective to validate how much emotional investment the subject entails. Wanting a particular answer too much can be a trap.

This is not to say that whenever a harm is done that it's necessarily immoral, but only to say that all immoral acts have this property. — Sam26

:up:

An attempt at an exploration in search of objectivity, because relativism causes so much harm. — Cheshire

Intrigued by this. How do you imagine it causes harm? — Isaac

It delivered the worst humans have ever done. Slavery, Genocide, Illegal Downloading... — Cheshire

How are any of these the fault of relativism? These acts were often argued to be morally acceptable and objectively moral. It's the actual argument that these acts are objectively moral that provides the reasoning for others to participate in them.

Moral relativism doesn't make the case that these acts are what everyone should be doing. In fact, it makes the opposite case. So, because someone is engaged in illegal downloading doesn't make it ok for you to do it. That's you're own personal choice. And if you are making your moral decisions on what others are doing, that isn't moral relativism, but more of moral objectivism. So, moral relativism isn't thinking that what is good for others is good for you. It is in the understanding that you are a social animal capable of complex reasoning and that using reason to navigate the social environment is in your best interests as a social animal.

How are any of these the fault of relativism? — Harry Hindu

I don't know that you can actually blame a moral theory on an outcome(which is what I did to be fair). But, moral relativism would hold that there was a time or place these acts were permissible. Moral objectivism would argue they were never permissible. Intuitively they seem wrong regardless of when they occurred, so adhering to a system that permits acts(in hindsight) that are always wrong; implies a faulty system of ethics is available.

I don't know that you can actually blame a moral theory on an outcome(which is what I did to be fair). But, moral relativism would hold that there was a time or place these acts were permissible. Moral objectivism would argue they were never permissible. Intuitively they seem wrong regardless of when they occurred, so adhering to a system that permits acts(in hindsight) that are always wrong; implies a faulty system of ethics is available. — Cheshire

Really? What if you're committing genocide/slavery against another group that is committing genocide/slavery against your own group? Many in today's political environment argue that killing or imprisoning your political opponents is a good thing.

Really? — Harry Hindu

Yep.

What if you're committing genocide/slavery against another group that is committing genocide/slavery against your own group? — Harry Hindu

Two groups are committing immoral acts.

Many in today's political environment argue that killing or imprisoning your political opponents is a good thing. — Harry Hindu

Almost curious what you have to twist in order to support this assertion. No one is generally arguing it in the way you have presented it.

Two groups are committing immoral acts. — Cheshire

Then defending yourself with equal force is immoral?

Then defending yourself with equal force is immoral? — Harry Hindu

You derived self defense from the refutation of the following statement about genocide/slavery.

Really? What if you're committing genocide/slavery against another group that is committing genocide/slavery against your own group? Many in today's political environment argue that killing or imprisoning your political opponents is a good thing. — Harry Hindu

I thought you were going to twist the political killing statement, but you pivoted. What's the tactic here anyway? Make a wide indefensible statement and hope the counter-argument over reaches at an easy target? I bet it works, but it's pretty annoying.

Genocide and slavery are not legitimate forms of self defense. So, there is no "defending yourself" that can be implied rationally. Rhetorically, you can ignore that if you like though; doesn't make for much of a philosophical position.

If you're asking if there is something objective about an immoral act, I would say there is, viz., the harm done. So, for example, if I cut someone's arm off for no good reason, then I've committed an immoral act by definition. — Sam26

There's also attempted Armacide. It's immoral from the intention to harm, but lacks the objective existence of it. Would this still qualify as a property and maintain an objective sense?

I think that for one's moral stance to be strong, one has to believe that it's not merely one's own, subjective, partial, biased view, but that it intimately has something to do with "how things really are", ie. that it is objective, beyond mere subjectivity.
— baker
Why does my lone perception carry less moral validity than some one's imagined consensus with the universe? — Cheshire

I'm not sure whether you're actually asking this, or whether it is just part of your discussion.

But, moral relativism would hold that there was a time or place these acts were permissible. Moral objectivism would argue they were never permissible. — Cheshire

Note that here with your notion of moral objectivism, you're already taking for granted that certain acts are moral, while others are immoral.

What you have is double moral objectivism:
1. by taking for granted that certain acts are moral, while others are immoral,
2. by taking for granted that the above distinction applies at all times.

But on the grounds of what did you establish that a certain act is moral to begin with? Your gut feeling?

Note that here with your notion of moral objectivism, you're already taking for granted that certain acts are moral, while others are immoral. — baker

I'm taking for granted that I seem to believe it without any trouble. The OP was basically this assertion followed by But, I can't account for how this could be; because every case seems to be about an observer.

But on the grounds of what did you establish that a certain act is moral to begin with? Your gut feeling? — baker

The ground that my perception of what is moral is accurate. But, I don't know why. It isn't compelling, but near universally understood. So much so we test our moral theories against an understood intuitive moral standard. Or unuttered theory. Then, expect the same from others without explanation. The thread was meant to test for the experience being real or an illusion of sorts. So far it's moderately inconclusive.

I asked if you meant they were all equally valid, which you confirmed. — Cheshire

I am now confused. I can't identify what you mean by "they". But it's not your fault... my mind is going, I can't mentally encompass a great number of data items that require short-term memory recall. Sorry, again, it is clearly my fault and my problem.

↪Cheshire I am now confused. I can't identify what you mean by "they". But it's not your fault... my mind is going, I can't mentally encompass a great number of data items that require short-term memory recall. Sorry, again, it is clearly my fault and my problem. — god must be atheist

Your demonstration of multi-sided ethics via a soccer gain result.
Referenced Here:

They are equally valid in two groups: valid for one group with one set of answers, and valid for the other group with a different set of answers. The validity is decided on whom the answer vindicates morally. To one group those questions will be valid that morally vindicate them; to the other group, conversely so. — god must be atheist

Originating Here:

If my soccer team wins by one goal where the referee did not punish my team for being off side, then it's not a moral sin for the followers of my team, but it is for the opposing team. — god must be atheist

Your demonstration of multi-sided ethics via a soccer gain result. — Cheshire

Cheshire, you're a gem. Thanks.

No problem. The 'they' was a glaring deficiency in your approach, so it was easy to remember. You stated twice I didn't understand it, but what you meant was I didn't agree with the conclusion that it implies morality is arbitrary to perspective. Then, you seem to have misplaced it.

I don't know. To me my theory is clear-cut, no loose ends, and easily digested. Your reply indicates it has inherent difficulties; by agreeing to something, I capitulate to disagreement, and vice versa.

I just really can't fathom the jist of your criticism. You tie things in the model of your critical analysis to things where I don't even suspect a connection, let alone see a relationship that you see. You are talking in largely conceptual terms, and I don't know, don't understand, how your analysis relates to my theory in any way.

Am I to take away from this that you are seeing related logic in the theory as self-contradictory, and your vision is superior to mine? Or am I to take away from this that you (haha) don't get my point? Or am I to take away from this that you simply try to confuse me, for lack of better things to do, or because it's fun. Honestly, and in complete frankness, I could not tell the difference between the three. If my three-year-old great-grand-son asked me to explain what you mean, I would be lost not only for words, but also for even a modicum of understanding (cognitive understanding, not empathic) w
hat you are trying to say, and how what you say relates to my theory.

I just really can't fathom the jist of your criticism. — god must be atheist

Generally everything stated here; some might call it the justification you provided. Is in error. I put the most absurd part in bold. You are using validity in a nonsensical way. I've pointed out the same issue 4 times to evasion and confusion. I believe that demonstrated a respectful level of patience. I can't fathom explaining it again, so let me know how it works out for you. At a much later time and date; lifetime would be fine. Good day.

They are equally valid in two groups: valid for one group with one set of answers, and valid for the other group with a different set of answers. The validity is decided on whom the answer vindicates morally. To one group those questions will be valid that morally vindicate them; to the other group, conversely so. — god must be atheist

Wouldn't morals be a scientific matter if they were objective?

finally I understand you, Cheshire, and I appltaud your patience. Believe me, your writing style is mysterious, alluring and smart, and to me (personally, maybe not to others) completely obliterative to the meaning you wish to put across.

What you described is a simple case to explain, and you were so hung up for so long on it.

This is what it is:

- humans rationalize to the max. They will bend logic to the max. Look at Christianity and its tenets, and the vehemence the believers believe in them and defend them for their truths, whereas they can't be held logically true for one second. Same mechanism of sentiments work for judging for moral issues. Anyone will rationalize any moral issue to give him or her the right to be morally superior. They would immediately switch to the other opinion -- the one that stands against their own -- should the situation change so that it is required.

Why you don't see this as a true and accurate description of reality, baffles me. Insight levels are different in people, I guess, and they don't necessarily correspond to intelligence levels.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that you are stuck at the same hurdle as Kant, when it comes to lying (Kant said you can't and must not) and lying for the effect of effecting a moral good. You and Kant can't come to terms with the flip-flop nature of moral conviction, and its effect on people.

Morals would not exist without social dynamics. Social dynamics, as they developed, parallel with morals, had an effect on the voluntary moral system of humans, and the effect is that the same deed can be seen as moral by one group, and immoral in another group, PRECISELY because it is a SOCIAL aid for survival. When two groups have the SAME moral, and they clash over some resource problem, then they MAY invoke the same moral to applied against the other group. I have seen it in the cold war, in its golden age, and I see it now in the new strife for world domination. Precisely the same fabrications are applied to the would-be enemies by both parties, pre-war, to prepare the masses to feel righteous enough to go and kill members of the other group if needed.

Indoctrination for preparing to war. Same moral teachings are applied in both camps against the other camp.

So no, your criticism of my establishing a seemingly self-contradictory picture of what can happen is not valid. Morals are subject to explanation before the interpretation of a situation becomes internalized. If enough indoctrination happens then enough people will be influenced.

THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS the members of the intelligentsia are the first ones to be lined up against the wall and shot. They see the dichotomy of any tyrannical indoctrination, and they will be prone to disseminate criticism of it, making it hard for the authorities to effect their input on shaping public morals. Therefore they are put out of action by way of execution.

There's also attempted Armacide. It's immoral from the intention to harm, but lacks the objective existence of it. Would this still qualify as a property and maintain an objective sense? — Cheshire

There's always going to be instances where it's difficult to see the harm. That said, we know the effects of certain actions, because we have seen the effects before. So, the intent to do harm, as in the example given, maintains it's objective component because we know what the outcome would be, viz., the blood, the screams, etc.

It's more difficult to see the harm of certain thoughts, especially if they're not connected with actions. It may take someone with an understanding of psychology, for example, to point out the objective harm of certain thoughts (thoughts that aren't connected to a particular overt act) because we lack the knowledge. Note that even here the psychologist may be familiar with the effects of these thoughts by observation. So, even in a case like this, there's going to be an objective component.

1. Is it Morally wrong to destroy a beautiful painting?
2. What if no one would have ever seen it?
3. What if you painted it? — Cheshire

Well......if no one has ever seen it, there is no beauty. We observers are not passive receivers of some beauty that is "out there". What, did you actually think this to be the case? Not only does beauty vanish in an unobserved world (an impossible thing to even imagine, really), but reason and meaning vanishes as well.

More or less the unstated thought process I'm going with at the moment. See if it can move from less witchcraft to more science based.

You can't make me read that.

So, even in a case like this, there's going to be an objective component. — Sam26

I think I'm in agreement. I suppose harm implies there is an understood value in the subject of harm. Others being high value and self-portraits held for disposal would be low value. The more I look at it we're just discussing criminal law without specific precedent.

Well......if no one has ever seen it, there is no beauty. We observers are not passive receivers of some beauty that is "out there". What, did you actually think this to be the case? Not only does beauty vanish in an unobserved world (an impossible thing to even imagine, really), but reason and meaning vanishes as well. — Constance

The idea was to establish objective morality. If the answers are different, then morality is not from the act but rather a subjective notion of the observer. The same willful act of destruction of the same object should in theory produce the same moral judgement. Or not. An attempt at an inquiry.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that you are stuck at the same hurdle as Kant, when it comes to lying (Kant said you can't and must not) and lying for the effect of effecting a moral good. You and Kant can't come to terms with the flip-flop nature of moral conviction, and its effect on people. — god must be atheist

First, I maintain that was a misinterpretation of Kant's work that was referenced in it's refutation. The original work is discussing lying in Kant's legal sense as whether or not it is a liability to tell the truth.

The fact people can rationalize an immoral act has zero bearing on whether it is an immoral act. Because the act takes place outside the mind of the agent. How do you reconcile this matter?

Since we are making personal assessments. I think you're having a bit of fun with me. Except you already had that document ready; which makes me wonder if you are typing in a white room.