To say that moral claims can be true is to say that there are inherently true moral claims, claims that by definition are not supported by external evidence. Such claims are needed because extrinsic truths depend on intrinsic truths to be truths. It cannot be that the only moral claims that are truthful are those that depend on other moral claims to be true. Any moral justification that lies outside the thing itself - extrinsic morality - "x is good because it does abc and abc is good" - requires claims outside itself to be truth in order for it to be truth. This creates a never-ending chain of justifications, each new justification passing the problem onto something else. This is moral relativism and subjectivism. They are absurd, literally. — Leftist
have no logical reason to stop me from hammering a toothpick under your fingernail. — Leftist
To say that torture is bad is to say that moral claims can be true. — Leftist
There are no correct moral claims — Leftist
To say that moral claims can be true is to say that there are inherently true moral claims, claims that by definition are not supported by external evidence — Leftist
Therefore, you have no logical reason to stop me from hammering a toothpick under your fingernail. — Leftist
I do. It'll bloody hurt. — Isaac
There are no correct moral claims. People only have incorrect opinions on what's good/bad, what should/shouldn't exist. — Leftist
Harm is a reason not to harm. If you have empathy that is. — Benj96
Like the word 'game', there's no one criteria for what constitutes a game — Isaac
Therefore, you have no logical reason to stop me from hammering a toothpick under your fingernail. — Leftist
you have no logical reason to stop me from hammering a toothpick under your fingernail. — Leftist
There are no correct moral claims. — Leftist
There are no correct moral claims. People only have incorrect opinions on what's good/bad, what should/shouldn't exist. — Leftist
Moral claim: "I wish to cause the least harm to the greatest number of people possible".
What is wrong with that moral claim? — Benj96
Moral claim: "I wish to cause the least harm to the greatest number of people possible".
What is wrong with that moral claim? — Benj96
Quantity over quality. Similar to mistaking sound for substance. ie. "I would prefer to destroy the least amount of schools as opposed to the most amount of brothels because destroying buildings is generally considered immoral therefore it is the moral choice to make", etc. — Outlander
The comparison is ridiculous. Deliberately? — Vera Mont
Are you saying this is what people man when they moral claims? Because I don't think most think they are opinions, or, better put, I think they think many of their moral claims are objective claims. Or are you saying that really, despite what they think, they are merely expressing their preferences and desires?A moral claim is an opinion about what is good or bad.
Morality is not about what is the case, but how we want things to be. Mostly, folk find themselves in agreement on the topic, but they get hung up on the details. — Banno
If you believe there are no moral truths, you must also believe there is no valid reason to want anything. — Leftist
To say that torture is bad is to say that moral claims can be true. — Leftist
"X is moral because it is my intention to cause or not cause X"
I attribute this argument to Benj69.
Does mere intention make it so something should, or shouldn't, be done? Does it make it a fact that nobody - or just you - should or should not do those things? — Leftist
"The experience of suffering is inherently a logical reason not to continue it."
I attribute this argument to Benj69.
This is another "X being stated to be a moral truth, seeming arbitrarily, without justification". This is hedonism. I explain my reasons against it in the OP and in "The community creates moral truths". The experience of pain might seem like it has inherent bad in it, that it makes it worse for you to exist as you and therefore makes it worse for you to exist at all, but that is merely an illusion created by evolution. — Leftist
OK, I agree. When I look at posts like this, I am not quite sure what people are saying....They may think of it as a truth claim but from what I can see, the best anyone can do is express a preference based on some set of values. — Tom Storm
I am nodding for a while then ending up not at all sure what position is presented on the objectivity of morals.A moral claim is an opinion about what is good or bad.
Morality is not about what is the case, but how we want things to be. Mostly, folk find themselves in agreement on the topic, but they get hung up on the details.
If you think torture is not immoral, you are faulty.
No argument from first principles or axioms or final justifications is relevant here. Indeed, thinking that such things are needed is further evidence of something being wrong. If you cannot see that inflicting pain should be avoided, you are faulty.
Moral claim: "I wish to cause the least harm to the greatest number of people possible".
What is wrong with that moral claim?
— Benj96
Quantity over quality. Similar to mistaking sound for substance. ie. "I would prefer to destroy the least amount of schools as opposed to the most amount of brothels because destroying buildings is generally considered immoral therefore it is the moral choice to make", etc. — Outlander
Okay … I guess murder and rape are good then because I say so. If you argue against this then you cannot possibly believe what you just claimed. — I like sushi
Any justification you give for it being bad, such as "it causes suffering" would beg another question "why is suffering bad", if you keep asking the question of the previous answer, eventually all you'll have is "because I feel it is bad". — Down The Rabbit Hole
The only thing that should be done are things which are good. Good things should be done. If anything should be done, it is by definition good. If you believe there are no moral truths, you believe nobody can make a true claim of "good", meaning nobody can make a true claim of what should be done or exist. To want something is to say the thing should exist. It is impossible to want something without thinking it should exist, or should be had by you, or whatever other "Should", because that is what is meant by "wanting something". This is especially clear when talking about wanting goals. If you know there's nothing good about accomplishing the goal, that there's no logical reason why the goal should be achieved, why would you want the goal to be achieved? Every possible justification, every possible "it should be achieved because abc", would be wrong, and you'd believe it to be wrong. Therefore, you cannot want anything for logical reasons if there are no moral truths.Not sure how you get to this. Can you step it out again? — Tom Storm
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.