And isn't there supposed to be a money trail between the hit man and who sends the hit man? Very poor analogy made here, but what would you expect from those driven by hate and not truth? — Harry Hindu

This is reserving judgment? What you see as resentment is perhaps a projection of jealousy (enough to want to trivialize OLP as only about words). Not being interested does not make you right. — Antony Nickles

I might put it that, in making a claim about what the implications are of the expressions of our concepts (how we qualify knowledge, intention, meaning), we are saying something; something important to the problems of philosophy. Calling it "language" philosophy is to assume that there is (always) a space between our words and our lives. — Antony Nickles

↪Cheshire I'm only saying something can be wrong – incorrect, faulty, fails – for other than moral reasons. My reply to the OP only says that the questions posed are answered as morally wrong, as a negative utilitarian sees it, a person is harmed. That's all I've said about the OP. — 180 Proof

If a destructive act harms a sentient, it's usually morally wrong; otherwise, it could be wrong on non-moral (e.g. instrumental or aesthetic) grounds. — 180 Proof

And I called into question taking for granted that "art ... has intrinsic value" in ethical terms. — 180 Proof

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

I strongly urge you (who ever YOU are) to read these papers. If you have a comment to make on the papers, please for god's own sake, leave the comment on those paper's forums, not here. This thread has enough exposure. My threads are ignored BIG time. — god must be atheist

So what gives in the cade of inconsistency here, the premise or the conclusion? One of the two has to be wrong, but it's not given which. Either the moral theory is wrong because it produces a judgement that's inconsistent with some intuitive moral theory, or the intuitive moral theory is shown to be wrong because it's inconsistent with the rationally worked out answer. Doesn't seem like we've got any closer to knowing what's right. If some moral theory proved that killing some small child was the 'right' thing to do would you do it, or would you question the theory? — Isaac

Can "a painting" suffer harm? (Category mistake.) — 180 Proof

How does it make sense to say that something which cannot value itself has "intrinsic value"? — 180 Proof

No, but "intrinsic value" is not determinative, or the decisive factor. As I said "in relation to rather than in essence" – sentients over above non-sentients (things) because the latter cannot suffer – is an ethical criterion I find most reasonable and pragmatic. — 180 Proof

Conclusion: There are universal and thus objective criteria upon which a person can act or judge his actions. It does not matter how he (for brevity) evaluates good or harm, this is always subjective. But from the moment that he believes that something is right or wrong, and acts according to those criteria, his actions are moral. "Be true to yourself", they say. Moral integrity is one of the most important things in human behavior and consciousness. The only thing one can do wrong is breaking that integrity! — Alkis Piskas

So it's wrong if it's harmful and not wrong if it's not harmful. — 180 Proof

I'm sounding like a stuck record, but... why? If a firm has gone to the trouble of consulting an ethicist what difference is it going to make to the outcome whether that ethicist believes in absolute morality? — Isaac

Or get stuck on a raft with Banno and mock each other while drifting, slowly, nowhere.. — Antony Nickles

This is where you differ from the people above. A consequent moral objectivist would either not ask about the origins of morality, or would be certain of a particular source of it. Either way, he would not struggle how to account for objective morality.
It appears that you're not a consequent moral objectivist. — baker

Yes, but it is more difficult to justify an objective morality than an absolute morality it seems to me. If you just want the act to be right regardless of opinion absolute morality satisfies that without you needing to prove that moral facts exist. — ToothyMaw

↪Cheshire Then you're not a negative utilitarian as I claim to be when I prefaced my answers. — 180 Proof

A favorite example of the OLPers was the claim made by Russell that, properly speaking, we do not see any physical objects at all – we only see parts of our brains. Yet, according to the way the word 'see' is used, we typically never see our brains, but do see physical objects. So what can Russell mean? In reflecting on what he could mean by this, as an exercise, you might come to understand an example of what the OLPer is talking about. — Snakes Alive

The desire for "coherency" and the attitude that words are simple, are some of the reasons philosophy has theories of language (all of it), and meaning (in every case, for every thing). Your unwillingness to look further may hide the need for a certain answer. — Antony Nickles

I edited that comment to say I provided Malcolm's example (about "I know") above, and Austin's as well. — Antony Nickles

Whether or not an action is objectively wrong is different from an action being right/wrong independent of the actor/situation. Moral absolutism says an action is intrinsically wrong regardless of the ends or actor, whereas an objective morality entails that ethical norms are not up to interpretation; they are laws like any other that one can simply point to. — ToothyMaw

How? No one seems to be presenting a mechanism connecting objectivity of morals to people being somehow unable to act or form beliefs contrary to them — Isaac

The answers here are the same in large part because the criterion proposed in objectively grounded. Harm is the objective moral fact at issue: objective because it is specie member-invariant; moral because it entails a meliorative (helping) response; fact because it indicates a natural species defect that when stressed risks dysfunction or worse. — 180 Proof

1. Only insofar as it increases harm to someone.
2. ditto
3. ditto — 180 Proof

Ok, what makes people do right or wrong things if not my naive proposal. — Cheshire

Then why would it matter if morality was objective or not? Objectively wrong, or subjectively wrong, they don't care either way. Neither force people to do what's right. — Isaac

But how? — Isaac

..for different language in different situations... — Antony Nickles

I see, you did not take my advice on how NOT to explain things with negatives - how not to explain a thing by saying what it is not. You used two negatives with one blurred, muddled, ineffectual, vague positive claim. So... I don't know your point, until you state it in oridnary language. Simple, ordinary, common language. — god must be atheist

First, words are our tools...

Secondly, words are not (except in their own little corner) facts or things:...

...these surely are likely to be more sound, since they have stood up to the long test of the survival of the fittest, and more subtle, at least in all ordinary and reasonably practical matters...

Does utilitarian ethics justify gang rape because 9/10 people enjoy it? Therefore it is achieving the greater good "sexual pleasure" for the greatest number of people at the cost of only one person's sexual displeasure. — Gitonga

Even if all suffering isn't "evil", it doesn't seem to cohere that, "We should experience suffering because it is necessary for X". That is a value statement of one's preferences.. I think of a coach or drill sergeant wanting to spread their way of life to everyone. — schopenhauer1

I suspect you have missed something. The supposition is that we might drop (A & ~A)⊃B and yet with suitable alterations retain the "making sense" part. — Banno

If we get rid of Ex Falso Quadlibet and Modus Ponens, what insight do we gain into logic, maths and language? — Banno

Was the irony lost? — Banno

So you can stop trying to make sense of it now. — Banno

That same argument also gets made by people that want incest to be legalized and de-stigmatized. — TheHedoMinimalist

Does life on planet Earth entail some amount of suffering? — schopenhauer1

...Nature inflicts plenty of suffering and yet we don't attribute intention to nature. Doctors inflict plenty of suffering to patients but mostly with the intention of curing them or restoring them to a state of health. Most of us would think it was evil to intentionally inflict suffering upon another sentient being unless there was some greater good which was the ultimate goal. — prothero