Great; so science suggests that we have bias in our political views. What about bias in our philosophical views, as that's what the OP is about?

Other things that I wish I could do-over or would tell my younger self: Don't question too much! I know it sounds like funny advice for a philosophy major, but I've noticed successful students tend to stick to their topics of interest and their goals, which they pursue vigorously. — John Doe

The really successful people will get stumped by, say, Aphorisms 130-133 — John Doe

Successful in what way?

I think you have the disposition for it, and for that particular area of study, so I'd say do it.

The problem is that you are "God" here. In this thought experiment, you already know about Hitler and how terrible he was.

What does this thought experiment show?

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.