Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[seer]

That's not at all what I mean by "objective", as you well know, since I've told you that on other occasions. Is there some reason why you're pretending otherwise?

But really, seer, you should own your position. Take responsibility for it: you don't think any actions are objectively morally right or objectively morally wrong, since you don't think there are any objective moral facts.


So you don't think what Pol Pot did was objectively wrong. Same for Stalin, Hitler, and the apartheid government in South Africa. You don't think there's ever been an objectively wrong abortion, nor an objectively wrong murder.

Own your position, seer. This is what your subjectivism has led you to.

First, one does not have to believe in objective moral facts to personally believe that some things are wrong. But I will ask again: try making your case in your own words. Show me one objective moral fact and why it is objective.

[JimL]

I get it, if you can get more people to agree with your moral position it becomes objective! Nice, that....

No, but if morals serve the best interests of life and society, then the morals are objective whether individuals abide by them or not.

[seer]

No, but if morals serve the best interests of life and society, then the morals are objective whether individuals abide by them or not.

Right Jim, but as we discussed it depends on what your goal is. Is it the best interests of society or your own best interests and desires?

[Jichard]

First, one does not have to believe in objective moral facts to personally believe that some things are wrong.

You have to believe in objective moral facts in order to believe that some things are objectively morally wrong.

But I will ask again: try making your case in your own words. Show me one objective moral fact and why it is objective.

This question of your's has been answered before. You've been told numerous times of objectivist positions on which there are objective moral facts, and why those facts are objective. So please stop dishonestly pretending that you haven't been told this. It amounts to lying on your part.

Once again:

"So, what is moral realism about? It's about what sort of thing makes moral beliefs, moral statements, etc. true or false or false. That's what meant by "moral facts"; not "moral truths", but the truth-makers for moral claims. To take a non-moral example: scientific realists can point to things like "cats", as being the sort of things that make scientific claims like "cats exist" true. You'd have to be deeply confused to treat that as meaning the same thing as "the truth that cats exist must exist apart from minds". Similarly, the moral realist can point to things like character traits (as per virtue ethics), effects of welfare (as per welfare utilitarianism), etc. as being the sort of things that make moral claims true or false. You've already been given examples of such positions:

(http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil12...ctivism.html):

2. Moral Objectivism: The view that what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are. Objectivist theories tend to come in two sorts:
(i) Duty Based Theories (or Deontological Theories): Theories that claim that what determines whether an act is morally right or wrong is the kind of act it is.

E.g., Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) thought that all acts should be judged according to a rule he called the Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim [i.e., rule] whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." That is, he thought the only kind of act one should ever commit is one that could be willed to be a universal law.

(ii) Consequentialist Theories (or Teleological Theories): Theories that claim that what determines whether an act is right or wrong are its consequences.

Utilitarianism is the best known sort of Consequentialism. Its best known defender is John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Essentially, utilitarianism tells us that, in any situation, the right thing to do is whatever is likely to produce the most happiness overall. (The wrong thing to do is anything else.)"

Ok, so what are these reasons then? Let's say, a person wants to assassinate somebody in my country.

I stated them already:

And moral reasons are constituted by the properties/features discussed in welfare utilitarianism (ex: effects of well-being) and virtue ethics (ex: character traits like compassion).

In my country, most murderers get away with murder. The people who murdered Dana Seetahal got away. Most people agree it was an assassination i.e. somebody got paid. My question is: Was it morally wrong for the killer(s) to assassinate her? If it wasn't, why wasn't it?

I would need to know the details of the situation, so that I could know what level of harm resulted from the assassination, what other available options the assassins had, and so on. In ethics, much as in science, details often matter, even if one can make help rules-of-thumb or general statements that apply in most situations one would encounter.

For example: a general statement / rule-of-thumb that would apply here is that "assassinations are morally wrong because they harm the person being assassinated". Is that always true? No, just as the statement "if something is a four-legged, barking mammal, then it's a dog". But it is a decent place to start and begin filling in further details. For example, was the assassination the only viable way to prevent Seetahal from slaughtering numerous other people? So feel free to provide the relevant details.

Yes I agree that you, and other moral realists, believe that your theory accounts for objective moral truths. The question I have been asking is how are these moral facts actually objective.

Because they're features of the world that don't depend on mind-dependent views. You've been told this before.

[Jichard]

Actually no it's not. I said they would not be objectively wrong. Culturally, perhaps.

seer, you don't think anything is objectively morally wrong, since you don't think there are any objective moral facts:

There is no good reason to think that objective moral facts actually exist, or that if they did that they would have any authority, or in any sense be preferable to theistic moral law.

Yes I generally don't entertain fantasy. I asked you this in the past - try making your case in your own words. Show me one objective moral fact and why it is objective.

First, you regularly quote-mine and misrepresent people like Dawkins, Chalmers, Harris, etc. Yet you complain when people fairly quote other sources. That's dishonest of you.

Second, I've already answered your question. Yet you continue to pretend I haven't. That's dishonest of you. Let me know when you can stop the dishonesty and actually address what I wrote, as opposed to pretending that it doesn't exist.

Once again:

"So, what is moral realism about? It's about what sort of thing makes moral beliefs, moral statements, etc. true or false or false. That's what meant by "moral facts"; not "moral truths", but the truth-makers for moral claims. To take a non-moral example: scientific realists can point to things like "cats", as being the sort of things that make scientific claims like "cats exist" true. You'd have to be deeply confused to treat that as meaning the same thing as "the truth that cats exist must exist apart from minds". Similarly, the moral realist can point to things like character traits (as per virtue ethics), effects of welfare (as per welfare utilitarianism), etc. as being the sort of things that make moral claims true or false. You've already been given examples of such positions:

(http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil12...ctivism.html):

2. Moral Objectivism: The view that what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are. Objectivist theories tend to come in two sorts:
(i) Duty Based Theories (or Deontological Theories): Theories that claim that what determines whether an act is morally right or wrong is the kind of act it is.

E.g., Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) thought that all acts should be judged according to a rule he called the Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim [i.e., rule] whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." That is, he thought the only kind of act one should ever commit is one that could be willed to be a universal law.

(ii) Consequentialist Theories (or Teleological Theories): Theories that claim that what determines whether an act is right or wrong are its consequences.

Utilitarianism is the best known sort of Consequentialism. Its best known defender is John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Essentially, utilitarianism tells us that, in any situation, the right thing to do is whatever is likely to produce the most happiness overall. (The wrong thing to do is anything else.)"

Ok, so what are these reasons then? Let's say, a person wants to assassinate somebody in my country.

I stated them already:

And moral reasons are constituted by the properties/features discussed in welfare utilitarianism (ex: effects of well-being) and virtue ethics (ex: character traits like compassion).

In my country, most murderers get away with murder. The people who murdered Dana Seetahal got away. Most people agree it was an assassination i.e. somebody got paid. My question is: Was it morally wrong for the killer(s) to assassinate her? If it wasn't, why wasn't it?

I would need to know the details of the situation, so that I could know what level of harm resulted from the assassination, what other available options the assassins had, and so on. In ethics, much as in science, details often matter, even if one can make help rules-of-thumb or general statements that apply in most situations one would encounter.

For example: a general statement / rule-of-thumb that would apply here is that "assassinations are morally wrong because they harm the person being assassinated". Is that always true? No, just as the statement "if something is a four-legged, barking mammal, then it's a dog". But it is a decent place to start and begin filling in further details. For example, was the assassination the only viable way to prevent Seetahal from slaughtering numerous other people? So feel free to provide the relevant details.

Yes I agree that you, and other moral realists, believe that your theory accounts for objective moral truths. The question I have been asking is how are these moral facts actually objective.

Because they're features of the world that don't depend on mind-dependent views. You've been told this before.

[JimL]

Right Jim, but as we discussed it depends on what your goal is. Is it the best interests of society or your own best interests and desires?

No, morals depend on what the goal for society is. You will ask, who decides what the goal for society is. No one does. Moral law is that which is in the overall best interests of the individuals living together as one community. So morality isn't dependent upon any one individuals specific subjective goal. The end goal is objective, and the end goal is a more perfect society.

[seer]

No, morals depend on what the goal for society is. You will ask, who decides what the goal for society is. No one does. Moral law is that which is in the overall best interests of the individuals living together as one community. So morality isn't dependent upon any one individuals specific subjective goal. The end goal is objective, and the end goal is a more perfect society.

Well actually that is not correct, men decide what the goals for society are. Mostly those in power. And the goal is often creating and keeping power for themselves. Not the general good. Again, this has been the history of man. The few and powerful ruling for their own personal ends.

[Jichard]

And don't we all agree that there really are things that are wrong? Wrong no matter what a culture may sanction? And even if we don't always agree what these specific moral wrongs are, we can agree, I think, that such a category exists.

seer, you don't think that there is anything that is objectively morally wrong.

There is no good reason to think that objective moral facts actually exist, or that if they did that they would have any authority, or in any sense be preferable to theistic moral law.

You'd think rape, genocide, slavery, murder, etc. were morally right if God sanctioned them. So no, you don't agree with us. Enjoy your crass subjectivism

[Jichard]

Surely, the NT does not contain specifics regarding every possible moral question that may arise. In the case of a moral question that is not dealt with in the NT, how do you determine right and wrong?

Right, in that case I would look at immediate harm, actually physical harm. The problem is we we can not know the long term consequences of our acts - even our good acts.

But you say...

Nonsense, I'm asking you why isn't it just as morally good to promote the well-being of my sentient life at the expense of, or to the detriment of, other sentient life? If doing that promotes my well being and the survival of me, my family or tribe why is it morally wrong. Certainly our survival is a moral good.

So which is it: do you actually take into the harm done to other's, or do you not bother to?

Because you seem to oscillate between them based on what happens to be convenient for you to claim at the moment.


Also, you say:

Are there actions that are morally wrong, regardless of what God says and regardless of whether God exists?

Of course not... Not objectively.

So which is it: is harm enough to make actions morally wrong regardless of what God says and regardless of whether God exists, or is that not the case?

Because you seem to vacillate between the answers based on what's convenient for you to say at the moment.

[Jichard]

Are there actions that are morally wrong, regardless of what God says and regardless of whether God exists?

Of course not... Not objectively.

Yet you say:

Surely, the NT does not contain specifics regarding every possible moral question that may arise. In the case of a moral question that is not dealt with in the NT, how do you determine right and wrong?

Right, in that case I would look at immediate harm, actually physical harm. The problem is we we can not know the long term consequences of our acts - even our good acts.

So which is it: is harm enough to make actions morally wrong regardless of what God says and regardless of whether God exists, or is that not the case?

Because you seem to vacillate between the answers based on what's convenient for you to say at the moment.

[Tassman]

Well actually that is not correct, men decide what the goals for society are. Mostly those in power. And the goal is often creating and keeping power for themselves. Not the general good.

…such as the religious leaders in a theocracy imposing religious conformity, or a dictator ensuring conformity to a secular ideology you mean? Most people don’t see this form of governance as beneficial for society as a whole and resist it.

Again, this has been the history of man. The few and powerful ruling for their own personal ends.

It's certainly been the history of religion. But most developed countries today devise laws in consultation with the community which are in the overall best interests of the community as a whole, not just the religious or secular elite.

[seer]

…such as the religious leaders in a theocracy imposing religious conformity, or a dictator ensuring conformity to a secular ideology you mean? Most people don’t see this form of governance as beneficial for society as a whole and resist it.

It doesn't matter Tass if the majority resists it if those at the top have the power. Look at North Korea, Cuba, China, most of the countries in Africa or the Middle East etc... A small powerful group controls the rest - just like what we see with the higher primates. All quite natural.

It's certainly been the history of religion. But most developed countries today devise laws in consultation with the community which are in the overall best interests of the community as a whole, not just the religious or secular elite.

Don't be silly, it has been the history of secular rulers too. It is the way the evolutionary process made us.

[The Pixie]

It doesn't matter Tass if the majority resists it if those at the top have the power. Look at North Korea, Cuba, China, most of the countries in Africa or the Middle East etc... A small powerful group controls the rest - just like what we see with the higher primates. All quite natural.

Let is think this through. If Christianity is true, then God engineered nature and the system you describe was designed by him. We should therefore conclude that it is morally right.

However, if atheism is true, then no one engineered nature and the system you describe was not designed at all. Therefore we can draw no moral inferences from it at all.

Curiously, you seem to hold the reverse view. That if God engineered it, it is morally neutral, and if it was not designed then it should be a moral guide. Can you talk us through your thinking there, seer?

Or is this another post the shows up the em,barassing the flaws in your position and so you just ignore it, like you are doing to all Jichard's recent posts?

[seer]

Let is think this through. If Christianity is true, then God engineered nature and the system you describe was designed by him. We should therefore conclude that it is morally right.

Nonsense, since we believe that men have genuine freedom of will. Which of course most materialists don't.

However, if atheism is true, then no one engineered nature and the system you describe was not designed at all. Therefore we can draw no moral inferences from it at all.

Right, so someone said back in the day said "what ever is is right."

Curiously, you seem to hold the reverse view. That if God engineered it, it is morally neutral, and if it was not designed then it should be a moral guide. Can you talk us through your thinking there, seer?

I have no idea what your point is. What follows if God created men free?

Or is this another post the shows up the em,barassing the flaws in your position and so you just ignore it, like you are doing to all Jichard's recent posts?

No I ignore him, I just got tired of being called a liar and psychopath.

[The Pixie]

It doesn't matter Tass if the majority resists it if those at the top have the power. Look at North Korea, Cuba, China, most of the countries in Africa or the Middle East etc... A small powerful group controls the rest - just like what we see with the higher primates. All quite natural.

Let is think this through. If Christianity is true, then God engineered nature and the system you describe was designed by him. We should therefore conclude that it is morally right.

Nonsense, since we believe that men have genuine freedom of will.

But you were saying it was the "natural" state of affairs, and is even seen in higher primates. God is the author of nature. You do believe that, right?

If men are following their free will to do something that is natural, then they are following God's plan.

Which of course most materialists don't.

Christians are not materials, so given we are supposing Christianity is true this is a red herring.

Right, so someone said back in the day said "what ever is is right."

And you took that to be the moral guiding principle of atheism? Why would you think that atheism follows that idea?

Do you have anything at all to support this bizarre straw man besides your own wishful thinking?

I have no idea what your point is.

This is readily apparent.

What follows if God created men free?

You tell me. You are the one who injected that in to the argument.

I am saying:

According to Christianity, God created nature
According to Christianity everything God does is morally right
According to you, it is natural for "A small powerful group controls the rest"
Therefore it is morally right for a small powerful group controls the rest

I get that you want the conclusion to be wrong, but I have yet to see you state that any of the three premises are wrong or that the conclusion does not necessarily follow.

No I ignore him, I just got tired of being called a liar and psychopath.

Yes, well his posts did seem to put you in a bad light. However, I could not see anything in them that was false. Or where he called you a "psychopath".