Apartheid was not objectively wrong, nor was the Holocaust

[Jichard]

No actions are objectively morally right and no actions are objectively morally wrong.

I reject the above bolded claim. But some theists apparently accept it.

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.

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

Of course not... Not objectively.

Now, some people might disagree with what I said, by claiming that:

God's law is what makes actions objectively morally right or objectively morally wrong. So if God commands that we not do X (as reflected in God's law for us), then it's objectively wrong for us to do X.

But this reply fails, since God's commands'law don't make actions objectively right or objectively wrong. At best, God's commands'law would make actions subjectively right and subjectively wrong, as per the subjectivist position known divine command theory. Here's a Wikipedia introduction to this (though there are more reputable sources that make much the same point):

"Ethical subjectivism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:

1. Ethical sentences express propositions.
2. Some such propositions are true.
3. Those propositions are about the attitudes of people.[1]

[...]

However there are also universalist forms of subjectivism such as ideal observer theory (which claims that moral propositions are about what attitudes a hypothetical ideal observer would hold) and divine command theory (which claims that moral propositions are about what attitudes God holds)."

So God's commands / God's law, are not going to make actions objectively right/wrong. And since some theists think that actions could not be objectively right/wrong without an existent God's commands, then that means, on these theist's position, there are not objectively right/wrong actions. Which would make sense, since these theists don't think there are any objective moral facts. So, for these theists, the Holocaust was not objectively wrong, nor was Apartheid, nor were various instances of rape, nor...

Amazing. Just amazing.

[seer]

No actions are objectively morally right and no actions are objectively morally wrong.

I reject the above bolded claim. But some theists apparently accept it.

Now, some people might disagree with what I said, by claiming that:

God's law is what makes actions objectively morally right or objectively morally wrong. So if God commands that we not do X (as reflected in God's law for us), then it's objectively wrong for us to do X.

But this reply fails, since God's commands'law don't make actions objectively right or objectively wrong. At best, God's commands'law would make actions subjectively right and subjectively wrong, as per the subjectivist position known divine command theory. Here's a Wikipedia introduction to this (though there are more reputable sources that make much the same point):

"Ethical subjectivism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:

1. Ethical sentences express propositions.
2. Some such propositions are true.
3. Those propositions are about the attitudes of people.[1]

[...]

However there are also universalist forms of subjectivism such as ideal observer theory (which claims that moral propositions are about what attitudes a hypothetical ideal observer would hold) and divine command theory (which claims that moral propositions are about what attitudes God holds)."

So God's commands / God's law, are not going to make actions objectively right/wrong. And since some theists think that actions could not be objectively right/wrong without an existent God's commands, then that means, on these theist's position, there are not objectively right/wrong actions. Which would make sense, since these theists don't think there are any objective moral facts. So, for these theists, the Holocaust was not objectively wrong, nor was Apartheid, nor were various instances of rape, nor...

Amazing. Just amazing.

OK, give us one objective moral fact and why it is objective. And don't quote other people - in your own words. I'm willing to bet that you can't.

[Rational Gaze]

Moral objectivism is the position that moral statements are true or false regardless of our apprehension of them. Moral subjectivism is the position that moral statements rely on our beliefs, etc. for their truth value. God is a maximally great, metaphysically necessary being. He exemplifies every great-making property to the highest degree possible. Thus, God is omniscient, and morally perfect. God knows all truths, which include moral truths. Whereas, God's commands reflect God's moral nature. So, God's commands are not subjective.


So, please learn to think.

[Jichard]

Moral objectivism is the position that moral statements are true or false regardless of our apprehension of them. Moral subjectivism is the position that moral statements rely on our beliefs, etc. for their truth value.

Special pleading on your part, since moral subjectivism does not just limit it to "our beliefs, etc.". It applies to God's beliefs as well. Hence divine command theory being a form of moral subjectivism. This is so well known that it's on Wikipedia, as I discussed in the OP:

"Ethical subjectivism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:

1. Ethical sentences express propositions.
2. Some such propositions are true.
3. Those propositions are about the attitudes of people.[1]

[...]

However there are also universalist forms of subjectivism such as ideal observer theory (which claims that moral propositions are about what attitudes a hypothetical ideal observer would hold) and divine command theory (which claims that moral propositions are about what attitudes God holds)."

God is a maximally great, metaphysically necessary being. He exemplifies every great-making property to the highest degree possible. Thus, God is omniscient, and morally perfect. God knows all truths, which include moral truths. Whereas, God's commands reflect God's moral nature. So, God's commands are not subjective.

Nope. God's commands are subjective (like every other commands) since God's commands are expressions of God's attitudes and expressions of attitude are subjective (see above)

So, please learn to think.

So please learn the basics of meta-ethics. Because you apparently don't even know them up to a Wikipedia level.

[Jichard]

OK, give us one objective moral fact and why it is objective. And don't quote other people - in your own words. I'm willing to bet that you can't.

This is pretty sad claim for you to make, since you're notorious on this forum for quote-mining sources so that you can misrepresent what they say.

And once again, you fail to tell the truth. I've answered this question of your's before.

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.

Yet you come on this thread and lie, by claiming I would not answer that question, even though you know full well I've answered it multiple times.

If I was at your level, I would tell you to go do what you told shunydragon to go do:

Shuny, I said please - now please leave my thread. Thank you...

I have very little patience for dishonest people.

[tabibito]

No actions are objectively morally right and no actions are objectively morally wrong.

I reject the above bolded claim. But some theists apparently accept it.

Now, some people might disagree with what I said, by claiming that:

God's law is what makes actions objectively morally right or objectively morally wrong. So if God commands that we not do X (as reflected in God's law for us), then it's objectively wrong for us to do X.

Perhaps you would do well to consider
Had Axis forces won WWII what your most likely attitude be to

the holocaust ... You would have been indoctrinated to believe it was justified.
Japanese war crimes. ...(You would not have been informed of them, just as now you have not been informed of Allied war crimes - unless you have searched them out.)

Moral attitudes change either when circumstances arise or information becomes available that call them into question.
European based cultures had no reason to question their right to treat non-European races any way they pleased, until non Europeans suddenly copied their actions and turned them against European cultures. With that mirror held up to their collective face, the wrongs involved became readily apparent.
European attitudes toward the Jews were no different to those of Germany's, until the Allied war-time propaganda machine decided that classing Jews as human would actually increase the popularity of prosecuting the war (improve morale).

Granted, changes in morals involve a lot more than the basics listed here, and with far greater complexity - but events like these are the foundational steps.

And these are just the POSITIVE changes ... negative changes are far easier to implement.

[Jichard]

Perhaps you would do well to consider
Had Axis forces won WWII what your most likely attitude be to

the holocaust ... You would have been indoctrinated to believe it was justified.
Japanese war crimes. ...(You would not have been informed of them, just as now you have not been informed of Allied war crimes - unless you have searched them out.)

Moral attitudes change either when circumstances arise or information becomes available that call them into question.
European based cultures had no reason to question their right to treat non-European races any way they pleased, until non Europeans suddenly copied their actions and turned them against European cultures. With that mirror held up to their collective face, the wrongs involved became readily apparent.
European attitudes toward the Jews were no different to those of Germany's, until the Allied war-time propaganda machine decided that classing Jews as human would actually increase the popularity of the war (improve morale).

I'm not sure how this is relevant. Yes, if things had gone differently, I might have different moral beliefs. But that's true of my beliefs in almost any other topic. For example, if things had gone different, I might have different historical beliefs, different scientific beliefs, different mathematical beliefs, etc. All that shows is that people have have different beliefs in different contexts. It doesn't show that there is not some objective fact of the matter in virtue or which those beliefs are true or false.

Granted, changes in morals involve a lot more than the basics listed here, and with far greater complexity - but events like these are the foundational steps.

If by "morals", you mean something like moral beliefs, practices, statements, etc., then yes, there can be changes in morals. But again, that's not particularly relevant. It certainly doesn't show there is no objective fact of the matter on morality. After all, if you use "history" to mean historical beliefs, practices, statements, etc., then there are changes in history. But that does not how there is no objective fact of the matter on history. Similarly, if you use "science" to mean scientific beliefs, practices, statements, etc., then there are changes in science. But that does not how there is no objective fact of the matter on science.

[tabibito]

I'm not sure how this is relevant. Yes, if things had gone differently, I might have different moral beliefs. But that's true of my beliefs in almost any other topic. For example, if things had gone different, I might have different historical beliefs, different scientific beliefs, different mathematical beliefs, etc. All that shows is that people have have different beliefs in different contexts. It doesn't show that there is not some objective fact of the matter in virtue or which those beliefs are true or false.



If by "morals", you mean something like moral beliefs, practices, statements, etc., then yes, there can be changes in morals. But again, that's not particularly relevant. It certainly doesn't show there is no objective fact of the matter on morality. After all, if you use "history" to mean historical beliefs, practices, statements, etc., then there are changes in history. But that does not how there is no objective fact of the matter on history. Similarly, if you use "science" to mean scientific beliefs, practices, statements, etc., then there are changes in science. But that does not how there is no objective fact of the matter on science.

Let's see now.

(Science/Biology) Anciently, it was believed that the man impregnated the woman with a homunculus (which was a fully formed human) which then grew in the womb, and the environment of the womb influenced how that homunculus developed. The belief was used in a particular passage in the New Testament to support an argument. It also makes the concept of such things as centaurs understandable. The correct and objective science, being unknown, had no impact on beliefs, attitudes and behaviour.

(agriculture/climatology) An agricultural town was established and for a short time flourished in a desert area. The climatological information of the time showed that the area was experiencing an unusual run of wet seasons that could not be expected to continue - the area would return to rainfall levels below those that could sustain agriculture. The belief that "the rain will follow the wheat" prevailed over the science. The correct and objective science, despite being known, had no impact on beliefs, attitudes and behaviour.

Objective scientific fact can be demonstrated to exist - but even when it is known, unless it is believed and acted upon, it might as well not exist.

Does the same not apply to objective morality?

[seer]

This is pretty sad claim for you to make, since you're notorious on this forum for quote-mining sources so that you can misrepresent what they say.

And once again, you fail to tell the truth. I've answered this question of your's before.

No Jichard, you never gave me an example of a actual of an objective moral fact and why that fact was objective. You quote other people and speak in generalities.

Yet you come on this thread and lie, by claiming I would not answer that question, even though you know full well I've answered it multiple times.

You have answered nothing. So once again, present an objective moral fact and why that fact is objective.

[Jichard]

No Jichard, you never gave me an example of a actual of an objective moral fact and why that fact was objective.

Blatant lie, since I just did it again in the post you were responding to.

You quote other people and speak in generalities.

This is pretty sad claim for you to make, since you're notorious on this forum for quote-mining sources so that you can misrepresent what they say. At this point, people have learned never to trust you when you quote a source.

You have answered nothing. So once again, present an objective moral fact and why that fact is objective.

Already answered: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...655#post236655
So please stop pretending that you haven't been answered.


Now, how about you explain why you think none of the following were objectively wrong: the Holocaust, the recent shoots in Virginia and elsewhere, apartheid, torture, etc.?

[Jichard]

Let's see now.

(Science/Biology) Anciently, it was believed that the man impregnated the woman with a homunculus (which was a fully formed human) which then grew in the womb, and the environment of the womb influenced how that homunculus developed. The belief was used in a particular passage in the New Testament to support an argument. It also makes the concept of such things as centaurs understandable. The correct and objective science, being unknown, had no impact on beliefs, attitudes and behaviour.

(agriculture/climatology) An agricultural town was established and for a short time flourished in a desert area. The climatological information of the time showed that the area was experiencing an unusual run of wet seasons that could not be expected to continue - the area would return to rainfall levels below those that could sustain agriculture. The belief that "the rain will follow the wheat" prevailed over the science. The correct and objective science, despite being known, had no impact on beliefs, attitudes and behaviour.

Objective scientific fact can be demonstrated to exist - but even when it is known, unless it is believed and acted upon, it might as well not exist.

False. People don't need to believe and act upon facts in order for those facts to exist and be relevant. That'd be akin to saying that bacteria are irrelevant, as long as people don't believe they exist. That claim is silly for many reasons, including the fact that people still get sick from bacteria regardless of whether or not they believe they exist. Furthermore, you're committing the fallacy of appeal to consequences, since whether scientific facts are acted upon, is irrelevant to whether those facts are true.

Does the same not apply to objective morality?

No. It doesn't even apply to science.

[tabibito]

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.

True - you have made an argument for an absolute moral standard,. However, it is not particularly distinguishable from an argument for a situational moral standard. Even worse for your standpoint - you haven't given a reasonable explanation for why it is an absolute: Even by your explanation, you, I, or any other could argue that allowing the person in question to live was an inconvenience, and therefore the killing was justified on grounds that allowing the person to continue to live was detrimental to other person.

[Jichard]

True - you have made an argument for an absolute moral standard,. However, it is not particularly distinguishable from an argument for a situational moral standard.

Not particularly relevant, since objectivism does not entail absolutism. One can be an objectivist absolutist, or an objectivist person with a situational position.

The difference between absolutism vs. situationism (or more precisely: generalism vs. particularism, respectively), isn't that one is objectivist and the other isn't. It's instead, that the former requires less details in order to specify objective truths, and the latter requires more detail. The same distinction holds up in science as well, where there are objective truths that require very little specified details (ex: all dogs are mammals) and other objective truths that require more details (ex: if the hurricane is to move that distance to the right, then [...] conditions need to obtain)

Even worse for your standpoint - you haven't given a reasonable explanation for why it is an absolute:

I never argued that it was absolute. In fact, I clearly argued that for many of the relevant truths, it was situationist/particularist.

Even by your explanation, you, I, or any other could argue that allowing the person in question to live was an inconvenience, and therefore the killing was justified on grounds that allowing the person to continue to live was detrimental to other person.

No, you actually couldn't. Virtue ethics would argue against that, since killing people for convenience displays character traits like callousness. And welfare utilitarianism would argue against that, since welfare benefits to one's personal convenience are far outweighed by the welfare loss to the person one murdered. Additionally, killing people for convenience isn't a moral reason to do something; it's a reason of self-interest. Therefore, it doesn't imply any moral obligation, on the account of moral obligations where moral obligations are accounted or in terms of moral reasons.

[tabibito]

False. People don't need to believe and act upon facts in order for those facts to exist and be relevant. That'd be akin to saying that bacteria are irrelevant, as long as people don't believe they exist. That claim is silly for many reasons, including the fact that people still get sick from bacteria regardless of whether or not they believe they exist.

That is the point I was trying to clarify.

Furthermore, you're committing the fallacy of appeal to consequences, since whether scientific facts are acted upon, is irrelevant to whether those facts are true.

as demonstrated by the consequences for the agricultural town.

However, it does seem that I misinterpreted what was meant by "objective morality".

So
You seem to be advocating "greatest good/benefit for the greatest number" and where numbers are equal, "the lesser harm" as objective moral standards - with a fairly complex interplay of the two. i.e. 10 people inconvenienced by the unseemly behaviour of one might justify locking the one away, but it wouldn't justify killing him. The "objective moral standard" is thus mercurial to some degree.
The corollary is - (assuming that I have understood it properly this time) - who gets to grab the mercury? Can discrimination be safely lodged with individuals, or would some overarching authority be needed as one of the parameters of objective morality to prevent injustice?

[Jichard]

That is the point I was trying to clarify.
as demonstrated by the consequences for the agricultural town.

However, it does seem that I misinterpreted what was meant by "objective morality".

So
You seem to be advocating "greatest good/benefit for the greatest number" and where numbers are equal, "the lesser harm" as objective moral standards - with a fairly complex interplay of the two. i.e. 10 people inconvenienced by the unseemly behaviour of one might justify locking the one away, but it wouldn't justify killing him. The "objective moral standard" is thus mercurial to some degree.

I have no idea what you're saying here.

We don't lock people away just for inconveniencing people. They actually have to commit a crime. Nor do we lock people away, just because they do something morally bad.

The corollary is - (assuming that I have understood it properly this time) - who gets to grab the mercury? Can discrimination be safely lodged with individuals, or would some overarching authority be needed as one of the parameters of objective morality to prevent injustice?

Again, I don't understand what you're saying here.

You seem to be talking about some legal context, where one needs an authority figure to administer punishments, prevent people from doing stuff, etc. I'm not talking about that, and I don't such an authority figure is required for anything I wrote. The truth and falsity of moral claims does not depend on whether there is some authority figure around, anymore than the truth or falsity of scientific claims requires there be authoritative scientists around. Truth and falsity are usually not up to the decisions of authority figures (the exceptions are in cases like legal matters; ex: in a dictatorship, legality/illegality is determined by the dictators decision). So I take your question about authority not be largely irrelevant to the point I'm making; your position presupposes a subjectivist position where moral truth is determined by what an authority figure decides.