Use one of the situations you've already mentioned.

Can you demonstrate this?

It’s not about comfort. A lot of folks seem comforted by the notion that death is absolute. What if it’s not? I think if you honestly thought that was true it would be uncomfortable. — Wayfarer

Again, we have no disagreement. "Real talk", as my asinine generation says. (i.e., I agree with you).

But...comfort is something, isn't it? Only the mystics defy comfort, yes? And so?...

Many of my friends basically have a secular~scientific view of life. I don’t talk philosophy with them - it would be uncomfortable. That’s the reason I joined philosophy forums in the first place, because here at least it’s up for debate. — Wayfarer

True. I'm pretty quiet in real life, but I guess I'm also that guy who annoyingly brings up the topic if the time is ripe/enough booze has been consumed. :cool:

I define an objective morality as "An ought that is self evident to all observers" and so anywhere where there might be room for disagreement (and there is room for disagreement in all moral situations) then there can be no moral law for that situation — khaled

No bingo. Your definition defies itself.

So, by your definition of an objective morality, it does not exist, correct?

I'm confused.

"show"

Ok, can you demonstrate those positions? So far, they're just statements.

Sorry if I over-reacted. I've had many of these debates here, so the skin toughens a little bit.

As to murder, I was asking you why it's impossible for murder to be objectively wrong.

I'm not going to say anything about that subject because I never engaged in that conversation in this thread, yes.

Here's a prime example of morals. You added the Hitler question later; I saw that, and then I distrusted you once I saw it. Now, morally, I don't trust you, because you seem like the type who twists words.

I never responded to that question, and as far as I can tell, you added it in later.

No, that wasn't the question.

"If the answer is yes" to what question?

What?...

Woah, let's back up; I asked why it's impossible for it to be objective that killing is wrong.

No, let's stall there. Why is it impossible?

As I said, I think you’re being too obliging. — Wayfarer

But again, what about the "bias" of a materialist? I ask, because I have good friends who are materialists, by one bent or another, and they've intimated to me that the idea of materialism is more comforting than otherwise (a spiritual world, dualism, etc.). I'm trying to understand that viewpoint. What I've noticed is that, for folks like you and I, @Wayfarer, we feel some degree of comfort in our views that there's more to the world than the physical. And, conversely, with discussions with my actual friends, and discussions on this board, I've intimated that the converse seems to be also true: folks of a materialist bent seem to be comforted by their own views that nothing exists other than the physical. And then there's all those folks who are caught in between. And so that's really where this discussion of bias stems from. I'd love to see this "bias" brought to light on both sides. I recognize it's unrealistic, but I figure making a thread about it is better than doing nothing.

I fully agree with the rest of your post.

Yes.

Or I might not; feel free to respond to my prompt.

Use your imagination.

So demonstrate how that is the case.

"Self evident to all observers" is an impossible state of affairs.

What does "objective" mean for you?

I asked "how".

And why does a moral premise need to be self-evident for you?

Sure; how is the moral premise that killing someone is wrong not self-evident?

Why is Can vs does contradictory? — khaled

No, I meant "self-evidence" (your usage) is contradictory with the idea that a moral premise that no one CAN vs. DOES (your usage) disagree with is contradictory.

"Self-evidence" (what is that?) and a moral premise that no one CAN vs. DOES disagree with seem contradictory.

How does any of that relate to the moral? At what point do you, personally, feel comfortable introducing the "moral"? What grounds are sufficient for you to introduce the "moral"?

Yes. :joke:

You’re not being clunky, jjust too obliging! It’s not a bias, it’s an intimation, an inkling, an intuition. — Wayfarer

Well thanks. :up: But what about the intimation, the inlking, or the intuition that goes against mine? Is a materialistic "inkling" an inkling in the same sense? That's what I'm getting at with "bias"; both sides of the court seem to have a similar "predisposition"; and without even getting into the messy details, I'm trying to start at that "meta" standpoint. If that makes sense.

Take up thine light sabre, and have at it! :strong: — Wayfarer

:strong:

I don't care about whether it's viewed by someone or other as procedural, because I know, morally, that it's wrong. See how that works? The "procedural" comes after the moral.

No, if it's a tautology, it's wrong. That's why your argument is wrong.

I do agree; the fault in your argument is that you take one, and then say it translates to the other, while admitting that the use of "translates to" is a tautology.

No but the REASON being cited in this case by this formula (My desire is X therefore I should do Y) is procedural. The expression "My want is for my children not to suffer. I should vaccinate my children." Translates to: "I should vaccinate my children in order to satisfy my want for them not to suffer" not "I should vaccinate my children because it is morally correct". What benefits there are for eating cake are or protecting children don't matter in this case. All this formula proves is that in order to satisfy certain wants, one must do certain actions. Even if I had formulated it like:
"My want is the well-being of my children therefore I should vaccinate them"

That still translates to:

"I should vaccinate my children to satisfy my desire of their well being" — khaled

But why does it always "translate" to the procedural being first? In what way is it first? What does "translate" mean here? Translate literally? Figuratively? If figurative, can you show how a figurative (poetic) use of the word translate is logically sound? What?

‘In culture’? There is no ‘culture’ now. There are fragments and pieces of various cultures, thrown together like found objects, vying for traction in the marketplace of ideas. It’s the Kali Yuga. — Wayfarer

Sure, and so dictionary definitions, then, become even more obsolete, no? The meanings of words become even more fragmentary, not less.

Your and my great-grandfathers would have been lamenting the abandonment of Biblical standards, as a harbinger of chaos. “Don’t you see?’ they might have said. “We won’t even be able to agree on what to disagree about! Everything we took to be the foundation of culture and society is melting into the air!. Things fall apart!’ And actually, while that’s true, it’s also necessary, and might even be good. But still requires that we realise the utter enormity of the predicament we’re in. — Wayfarer

I agree that things falling apart is necessary and good; I'll even remove the "might even be". As always, I think we agree, but we're getting hung up on semantics, it seems.

So trying to come to terms with all that, as you’re doing, requires a standpoint, a perspective, in this dizzying bardo of Modernity. That’s not a bias - that is the germinal seed of wisdom. — Wayfarer

I think maybe I see your perspective now? I'm not arguing that my own "bias" is as valid as someone else's, and so therefore we're all biased and there's nothing "true" or some such; I'm trying to underline that "bias", as it's colloquially thrown around, is actually the basis of philosophical thought, in the sense that everyone enters dialogue from a standpoint that is deeper than they know. I'd rather embrace this and encourage it, rather than to demonize it, which I'm sure you'd agree with. Again, I don't doubt that we're on the same page. Maybe I'm being too clunky with usage.

To further elucidate what I'm trying to say, your dictionary definition doesn't include "ideas", only persons, except for the word "something" in the verb definition. Whereas in common usage on the forum and elsewhere, "bias" is used to signify a preference for a viewpoint, position, etc. The buzzwords of "prejudice against a group" and what have you aren't pertinent when the word is used this way. And the reason I think this is important is because of usage; the dictionary says what it says, but people say words, not the dictionary.

Is procedural. It's the same should as in the sentence "I want to eat cake. I should eat cake" — khaled

It's not the same; the desire to eat cake is not the same as the desire for children not to suffer. Your entire conception of the "procedural vs. moral" here precludes the existence of the moral. To want to eat cake is by nature a personal pleasure, since there's no inherent health benefits to eating cake. The only other benefits are marginally social; it's a birthday party, and so, by eating cake, I partake in the social scene, and I feel a part of that scene, and there are moral implications to wanting to be part of the social situation. But if I'm alone and have a desire to eat cake, I can do that, but there's no moral implications. On the other hand, the desire that my children not suffer is patently different, and not "procedural" in the same way. Desiring that my children not suffer is a desire for their own well-being, which introduces the moral. "Wanting to eat cake" is personal, but "not wanting my children to suffer" is transpersonal.

What if "I want to eat kale"?