"assuming that [they believe] objective morality is true, which I don't think so"

[Makaze]

I think it's time to summarize the argument I've been making here. Yes, exceptions exist and that's fine. Exceptions exist in both morality and logic. It's not a "stalemate" at all. Sociopaths are an exception that tend to get eliminated via natural selection even today (get sent to jail for life, get killed off in gang wars, etc.). If the human race were somehow composed solely of sociopaths, we'd probably die out in a few hundred years or so. You say this is proof that morality is subjective, but there are also people who seem to have different logical systems in their head, like I showed earlier. So I don't see what the problem is.

I also agree with the assertion that we need at least some form of reasoning to survive. A man completely devoid of reason would probably be like a Huntington's patient, just flailing his arms around and rolling everywhere like a maniac.

We can draw an analogy now. We see now two things in common with morality and logic: humans need at least some of both to survive, but some aspects of both are subjective and a matter of opinion. In the same way that certain aspects of morality is subjective, so is logic (like I showed earlier). It's a matter of opinion if the truth value of the sentence "The PM of the US is gay." There is no way to know if it's false or meaningless because it's so controversial. So is the truth of this sentence: "Abortion is wrong."

Your position seems reducible to egoism, which is pretty agreeable, but lacks universal or even communicative value. It is not wrong for me to actively oppose the survival of the species because it is in my interests to do so; it is not wrong for you to actively promote the survival of the species because it is in your interests to do so. How is that not a stalemate?

I don't believe that logic and morality can be equated like that. As we established, the basics of logic do not appear to be subjective in the epistemological sense. Our convictions and desires are subjective in the epistemological sense. We can accurately communicate our concepts of logic but we cannot accurately communicate our desires.

I prefer Russel's assertion about these statements. It cannot be a true statement because it relies on the premise not only that 'wrong' and 'PM of the US' exist, but that 'exactly one exists such that...' Which is false. Alternately, it is meaningless. I believe you were the one who said that the statement 'The PM of the US is gay' is either false of meaningless, but cannot be true. Is that not the case after all? Can it be a true statement?

Edited October 5, 2014 by Makaze

[Chiki]

Your position seems reducible to egoism, which is pretty agreeable, but lacks universal or even communicative value. It is not wrong for me to actively oppose the survival of the species because it is in my interests to do so; it is not wrong for you to actively promote the survival of the species because it is in your interests to do so. How is that not a stalemate?

Egoism?? What does that have to do with anything in this debate? I never mentioned anything about the importance of the self...

As we established, the basics of logic do not appear to be subjective in the epistemological sense.

Nor are certain basics of morality. I doubt anyone thinks that it's morally justified to go and rape, kill and eat a bunch of children. Just because there are people who do this doesn't mean they think it's morally right: they just might not care about morality. Sociopaths are those kinds of people.

Our convictions and desires are subjective in the epistemological sense.

What do "convictions and desires" have anything to do with this debate? You like to use the word conviction a lot, but I don't see what it has to do with this debate. Just because a sociopath desires to kill a bunch of children doesn't mean the sociopath thinks it's the right thing to do. Maybe he doesn't care about it.

I prefer Russel's assertion about these statements. It cannot be a true statement because it relies on the premise not only that 'wrong' and 'PM of the US' exist, but that 'exactly one exists such that...' Which is false. Alternately, it is meaningless. I believe you were the one who said that the statement 'The PM of the US is gay' is either false of meaningless, but cannot be true. Is that not the case after all? Can it be a true statement?

Ok, so you're saying it's false because it's not true in the first bolded part, but then you're saying it's either false or meaningless? But if it's not true it can also be meaningless. Right? You need to really think about what you're trying to say here.

[Makaze]

Egoism?? What does that have to do with anything in this debate? I never mentioned anything about the importance of the self...

Your position seems reducible to egoism. I'm getting the impression that you are asserting that all systems of morality held by people are equally real and valid.

Nor are certain basics of morality. I doubt anyone thinks that it's morally justified to go and rape, kill and eat a bunch of children. Just because there are people who do this doesn't mean they think it's morally right: they just might not care about morality. Sociopaths are those kinds of people.

I fundamentally disagree. If you have wants, you have morals. What you want is right. What interferes with our wants is wrong. Sociopaths don't necessarily lack morals. They lack empathy. All of their convictions are against things that hurt their personal interests.

What do "convictions and desires" have anything to do with this debate? You like to use the word conviction a lot, but I don't see what it has to do with this debate. Just because a sociopath desires to kill a bunch of children doesn't mean the sociopath thinks it's the right thing to do. Maybe he doesn't care about it.

I believe that by definition they feel it is the right thing to do, and that if you interfered, that would be wrong of you.

Ok, so you're saying it's false because it's not true in the first bolded part, but then you're saying it's either false or meaningless? But if it's not true it can also be meaningless. Right? You need to really think about what you're trying to say here.

Like I said, I agree with Russel. I believe that it can be considered just plain false. I changed my position to include meaningless because you said you disagreed with Russel. I admit that these are potentially semantic arguments so I chose not to rule out meaninglessness. If I stated that it was impossible for it to be meaningless, you probably would have called me out for that since you disagree. I was intentionally avoiding that tangential debate when I can see reasons for both positions.

Is it possible for the statement to be true?

Edited October 7, 2014 by Makaze

[dondon151]

I fundamentally disagree. If you have wants, you have morals. What you want is right. What interferes with our wants is wrong. Sociopaths don't necessarily lack morals. They lack empathy. All of their convictions are against things that hurt their personal interests.

obviously this isn't true. you could want two things that are fundamentally opposed to each other (e.g., prolonging life of a terminally ill patient vs. letting patient die with dignity), and choosing to act on one means going against the other.

[Moira]

obviously this isn't true. you could want two things that are fundamentally opposed to each other (e.g., prolonging life of a terminally ill patient vs. letting patient die with dignity), and choosing to act on one means going against the other.

Normally with this type of decision of decision people only choose to let a person die when they believe they won't enjoy/be comfortable living longer. They would rather choose to let them live an enjoyable/comfortable life but don't believe it's possible, so they let them die. This isn't really wanting two mutually exclusive things, its just not being able to achieve the best scenario so going for the best alternative.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Fluorspar

[Makaze]

obviously this isn't true. you could want two things that are fundamentally opposed to each other (e.g., prolonging life of a terminally ill patient vs. letting patient die with dignity), and choosing to act on one means going against the other.

There is no contradiction. Morals can and often do conflict in contemporary morality. e.g. 'Thou shalt not kill' versus 'Obey the deity's commands'. There is a hierarchy of conflicting convictions in each moral code. Those who subscribe to a system of morals might ignore one of them in favor of another based on their personal priorities. In the end it comes down to priorities. You could argue that their priorities don't count as morals if they don't make then into an enforced policy or rule, but I think that's just a question of how long they have those priorities. Peoples' concerns differ and sometimes change over time. People who are more decisive and stable will be prone to develop long-term codes of conduct while fickle people will be prone to changes in the hierarchy at varying rates. It's the same in the egoist model of ethics.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Makaze

[Chiki]

Your position seems reducible to egoism. I'm getting the impression that you are asserting that all systems of morality held by people are equally real and valid.

I'm not giving any importance to anyone's specific version of morality or reasoning. I'm just drawing an analogy, and that's all.

If you have wants, you have morals.

This is completely wrong. Very young children and animals don't have morality (to understand what morality is you need language; you can't make decisions about what is right or wrong without language) but they want all sorts of stuff, like toys and food.

What you want is right. What interferes with our wants is wrong.

Um.. you can't just take this for granted. You're instantly taking an incredibly controversial view for granted (this seems to be a version of moral relativism, relative to the individual). I think what you're doing wrong here is confusing "convictions" with right or wrong.

Anyway there's a million things wrong with this. For example, I want to have some heroin right now: is that moral? If I want to go and blow myself up for the sake of Allah, is that moral? No, both are sick and disgusting actions that shouldn't be justified by any kind of ethics.

Sociopaths don't necessarily lack morals. They lack empathy.

This is actually true and empirically verified, lucky for you.

I believe that by definition they feel it is the right thing to do, and that if you interfered, that would be wrong of you.

So if your kid wants to overdose on heroin, it would be wrong for you as a parent to interfere? That's insane and you know it is. Egoism is nuts.

[Makaze]

I'm not giving any importance to anyone's specific version of morality or reasoning. I'm just drawing an analogy, and that's all.

My mistake.

This is completely wrong. Very young children and animals don't have morality (to understand what morality is you need language; you can't make decisions about what is right or wrong without language) but they want all sorts of stuff, like toys and food.

Both children and animals enforce those desires on others and attempt to secure means of getting them by punishing others for interfering or refusing to accommodate. These actions speak of a desired code of conduct for themselves and others even if they can't tell you that they think it's wrong.

Um.. you can't just take this for granted. You're instantly taking an incredibly controversial view for granted (this seems to be a version of moral relativism, relative to the individual). I think what you're doing wrong here is confusing "convictions" with right or wrong.

Anyway there's a million things wrong with this. For example, I want to have some heroin right now: is that moral? If I want to go and blow myself up for the sake of Allah, is that moral? No, both are sick and disgusting actions that shouldn't be justified by any kind of ethics.

If morality in this case is actions that induce shame or qualms in the actor, then you can consider your own heroin use immoral in one sense, but do it anyway, showing a conflict of convictions. In that case it would be both moral and immoral for you, but given your decision, it would be ultimately more moral for you (since that was the ultimate result of the hierarchy). If you feel no shame or qualms with doing heroin then it is moral because you want it but not immoral because you don't have a contrary conviction. Same with blowing yourself up.

As I understand it, ethics and morals aren't the same thing. Morals are personal, ethics are social. If we're talking about ethics then that's another story. You acknowledged this below.

This is actually true and empirically verified, lucky for you.

As above: Sociopaths may have morals but they implicitly have no regard for ethics.

So if your kid wants to overdose on heroin, it would be wrong for you as a parent to interfere? That's insane and you know it is. Egoism is nuts.

Not from my perspective. If they intended to overdose then it would be their perspective. But in egoism, what I want is all that matters. What my kid wants only matters if I care about it.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Makaze

[Rapier]

Um.. you can't just take this for granted. You're instantly taking an incredibly controversial view for granted (this seems to be a version of moral relativism, relative to the individual). I think what you're doing wrong here is confusing "convictions" with right or wrong.

Anyway there's a million things wrong with this. For example, I want to have some heroin right now: is that moral? If I want to go and blow myself up for the sake of Allah, is that moral? No, both are sick and disgusting actions that shouldn't be justified by any kind of ethics.

If consuming heroin and blowing up for Allah are to be considered immoral by a vast majority, then we can agree that there are a padronized set of ethical values which tells us why both actions are immoral. Even if we argue that these ethical values come from us (thus, making them subjective and mind-dependent), the fact that most people tend to agree that such a thing is immoral makes it possible to set such actions as wrong, regardless of moral relativism.

Also, convictions have nothing to do with right or wrong, Makaze. Fascist leaders were convicted about their actions, and we all know they were immoral. I can be convicted about something which is immoral and wrong, this is not synonymous of righteousness or morality.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Rapier

[Makaze]

If consuming heroin and blowing up for Allah are to be considered immoral by a vast majority, then we can agree that there are a padronized set of ethical values which tells us why both actions are immoral. Even if we argue that these ethical values come from us (thus, making them subjective and mind-dependent), the fact that most people tend to agree that such a thing is immoral makes it possible to set such actions as wrong, regardless of moral relativism.

Also, convictions have nothing to do with right or wrong, Makaze. Fascist leaders were convicted about their actions, and we all know they were immoral. I can be convicted about something which is immoral and wrong, this is not synonymous of righteousness or morality.

I don't agree that they were immoral. Those fascist leaders not only believed that it wasn't immoral, but many believed that they were righteous moral actors. It's simply false to state that we all have the same morality.

If not convictions, then what criteria do you use to determine whether something is moral or not? What makes the conviction 'killing is wrong' more righteous than the conviction 'killing is right'?

Edited October 8, 2014 by Makaze

[Rapier]

I don't agree that they were immoral. Those fascist leaders not only believed that it wasn't immoral, but many believed that they were righteous moral actors. It's simply false to state that we all have the same morality.

If not convictions, then what criteria do you use to determine whether something is moral or not? What makes the conviction 'killing is wrong' more righteous than the conviction 'killing is right'?

I'm inclined to believing that what you believe to be morally right is not necessarily what is morally right. You may believe that 2+2=5, it doesn't change the fact that you're far from the truth. In the same way, even if one believes that killing is right, it is morally inacceptable and wrong. Objectively (and thus, independent from one's mind), such practice is detrimental to our society and to our own survival, and must be disencouraged.

I can't answer your question, as it is beyond my level of comprehension on philosophy. Yet I know that a society which considers killing as right will self crumble, therefore such thoughts must be disencouraged if not prejudiced against. Therefore, fascism is wrong, as it puts our own survivability on risk. I'd say morally correctedness is associated with practices that assure our survival, but this contradicts the fact that slavery is both immoral and good for a group's survival at the same time. So... I don't know.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Rapier

[Makaze]

I'm inclined to believing that what you believe to be morally right is not necessarily what is morally right. You may believe that 2+2=5, it doesn't change the fact that you're far from the truth. In the same way, even if one believes that killing is right, it is morally inacceptable and wrong. Objectively (and thus, independent from one's mind), such practice is detrimental to our society and survival.

I can't answer your question, as it is beyond my level of comprehension on philosophy. Yet I know that a society which considers killing as right will self crumble, therefore such thoughts must be disencouraged if not prejudiced against. Therefore, fascism is wrong, as it puts our own survivability on risk. I'd say morally correctedness is associated with practices that assure our survival, but this contradicts the fact that slavery is both immoral and good for a group's survival at the same time.

You are inclined to think that way. I am not. How do you reconcile that fact?

But... We just went over how 2 + 2 = 4 isn't necessarily true...

Why is our survival good in and of itself? Do you believe that suicide is immoral by extension?

Edited October 8, 2014 by Makaze

[Rapier]

You are inclined to think that way. I am not. How do you reconcile that fact?

But... We just went over how 2 + 2 = 4 isn't necessarily true...

Why is our survival good in and of itself? Do you believe that suicide is immoral by extension?

We reconcile that fact by comparing it to reality and leaving our wishful thinking aside. Which is better for our survival and for our society, a moral which condones mutual killing or a moral which encourages mutual killing? The answer should be quite clear.

2 +2 = 4 isn't necessarily true, but this is the closest to the truth as we have ever been. Until there is another theory to prove (better yet, "make it evident", since there is no such a thing as concrete proof, and what we take as "proof" is a load of evidence pointing to the probability of something being true) that 2 +2 = 4 is wrong and 2 +2 is actually 5, the former should be considered as true. Scientific theories such as [Einstein's] relativism, evolutionism and gravity are not necessarily true, yet they are considered as true by scientists until there is a better theory that makes them obsolete.

All living things crave to give continuity to their existance, hence why we care so much about surviving. Therefore, it is good to our self to pursue life and longevity and valid enough to consider this as a principle to be defended.

[Makaze]

We reconcile that fact by comparing it to reality and leaving our wishful thinking aside. Which is better for our survival and for our society, a moral which condones mutual killing or a moral which encourages mutual killing? The answer should be quite clear.

2 +2 = 4 isn't necessarily true, but this is the closest to the truth as we have ever been. Until there is another theory to prove (better yet, "make it evident", since there is no such a thing as concrete proof, and what we take as "proof" is a load of evidence pointing to the probability of something being true) that 2 +2 = 4 is wrong and 2 +2 is actually 5, the former should be considered as true. Scientific theories such as [Einstein's] relativism, evolutionism and gravity are not necessarily true, yet they are considered as true by scientists until there is a better theory that makes them obsolete.

All living things crave to give continuity to their existance, hence why we care so much about surviving. Therefore, it is good to our self to pursue life and longevity and valid enough to consider this as a principle to be defended.

Why is society and/or survival better than all humans dying out?

It is straight up incorrect that all beings want to give continuity to their existence. Both empirically and hypothetically. Suicidal people and animals exist, have intentionally ended the continuity of their lives, and are able to exist in the future.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Makaze

[Chiki]

My mistake.

Then this entire debate on "convictions" and egoism doesn't have any relevance to the argument I raised earlier, but I'll still continue it for fun.

Both children and animals enforce those desires on others and attempt to secure means of getting them by punishing others for interfering or refusing to accommodate. These actions speak of a desired code of conduct for themselves and others even if they can't tell you that they think it's wrong.

Really? I need to see some empirical evidence to back this up. You're reverting to your old habit of pop psychology here.

Animals can't follow codes of conduct. It's just an instinct for them to punish others if they don't get what they want (if that's true at all). Animals don't say, "ok, I'm going to follow code of conduct xyz when event abc occurs." They don't have language to be able to do this.

As I understand it, ethics and morals aren't the same thing

They're absolutely the same thing. Ethics is the study of morality: what is moral and what isn't? I said the same thing to Rapier a few days ago.

If consuming heroin and blowing up for Allah are to be considered immoral by a vast majority, then we can agree that there are a padronized set of ethical values which tells us why both actions are immoral. Even if we argue that these ethical values come from us (thus, making them subjective and mind-dependent), the fact that most people tend to agree that such a thing is immoral makes it possible to set such actions as wrong, regardless of moral relativism.

LOL. Rapier, you have to go and take some courses on critical thinking. You just gave me a textbook case of moral relativism and said it's not moral relativism! Lol. It's moral relativism, by definition, if an action is right just in case it is right for the community (i.e. supported by the vast majority). So the case you gave me is moral relativism. Of course this leads to issues of circularity: we're using the word right to define what is right. But whatever, I don't think you can see why that matters.

Here's a counterexample to the scenario you present: in Nazi Germany, it was considered immoral by the vast majority to not kill Jews, and in the 1700s and 1800s it was considered immoral to not own black slaves. Do you really think that's ok?

But... We just went over how 2 + 2 = 4 isn't necessarily true...

2+2=4 is widely considered to be necessarily true by metaphysicians and logicians. Some logical truths seem to be obviously true no matter what scenario you take. Can you imagine a possible world in which 2+2=5 and square circles were floating around the universe? The "conviction" (philosophers today prefer to use the word intuition for this) that 2+2=4 is necessarily true seems to be undeniable.

[Rapier]

Suicidal people want to end their suffering, they don't necessarily want to give up on life. If they could manage to bring an end to their pain, they would cling to life. Suicidal people take a radical measure which goes against their programmation in order to end their suffering.

You may believe that the end of our species could be a positive thing, yet most people disagree with this and desire to survive, hence why our society believes that survival is a positive thing.

LOL. Rapier, you have to go and take some courses on critical thinking. You just gave me a textbook case of moral relativism and said it's not moral relativism! Lol. It's moral relativism, by definition, if an action is right just in case it is right for the community (i.e. supported by the vast majority). So the case you gave me is moral relativism. Of course this leads to issues of circularity: we're using the word right to define what is right. But whatever, I don't think you can see why that matters.

Here's a counterexample to the scenario you present: in Nazi Germany, it was considered immoral by the vast majority to not kill Jews, and in the 1700s and 1800s it was considered immoral to not own black slaves. Do you really think that's ok?

I wrote relativism when I meant subjectivism. I had it on mind and ended up switching both terms, sorry. Also, yeah, I know circularity is a fallacy, but since the mistake was clarified, let's move on.

My point is that regardless if someone believes that killing Jews or owning black slaves is morally right, it is essentially wrong. Right or wrong are mind independent, regardless if you believe x is right/wrong. Believing you are morally correct does not make you automatically morally correct. Anyway, I am not sure why these examples are morally wrong, but if I had to spend my two cents, I'd say it's because they violate human rights. Then again, it is also too vague and my knowledge on philosophy is not enough to argue why it is wrong to violate human rights (even if most people would agree that it is wrong) and delve too deep on the matter.

Why would you say that such examples are morally wrong?

Edited October 8, 2014 by Rapier

[Makaze]

They're absolutely the same thing. Ethics is the study of morality: what is moral and what isn't? I said the same thing to Rapier a few days ago.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-ethics-and-morals.htm

http://grammarist.com/usage/ethics-morals/

In any case these are widely recognized to be two distinct concepts, whatever we want to call them.

2+2=4 is widely considered to be necessarily true by metaphysicians and logicians. Some logical truths seem to be obviously true no matter what scenario you take. Can you imagine a possible world in which 2+2=5 and square circles were floating around the universe? The "conviction" (philosophers today prefer to use the word intuition for this) that 2+2=4 is necessarily true seems to be undeniable.

I can't imagine it, but that could be a constraint of my mind (and I believe it is) which may not necessarily be a truth of the objective universe. Regardless, I already stated that I subscribe to undeniable Maths truths... My objection to morality is that it is very easily deniable. I objected to Rapier because they were asserting that moral truth and 2 + 2 = 4 are objectively true regardless of rational denials.

Suicidal people want to end their suffering, they don't necessarily want to give up on life. If they could manage to bring an end to their pain, they would cling to life. Suicidal people take a radical measure which goes against their programmation in order to end their suffering.

You may believe that the end of our species could be a positive thing, yet most people disagree with this and desire to survive, hence why our society believes that survival is a positive thing.

I wrote relativism when I meant subjectivism. I had it on mind and ended up switching both terms, sorry. Also, yeah, I know circularity is a fallacy, but since the mistake was clarified, let's move on.

My point is that regardless if someone believes that killing Jews or owning black slaves is morally right, it is essentially wrong. Right or wrong are mind independent, regardless if you believe x is right/wrong. Believing you are morally correct does not make you automatically morally correct. Anyway, I am not sure why these examples are morally wrong, but if I had to spend my two cents, I'd say it's because they violate human rights. Then again, it is also too vague and my knowledge on philosophy is not enough to argue why it is wrong to violate human rights (even if most people would agree that it is wrong) and delve too deep on the matter.

Why would you say that such examples are morally wrong?

You're contradicting yourself. When replying to me you say that majority conviction decides what is moral. That means that it does rely on convictions after all. You contradicted that when replying to Cheeky by saying that even though a majority believed that killing the Jews was correct, it was wrong. Which is it?

I wouldn't say that they were morally wrong.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Makaze

[Chiki]

My point is that regardless if someone believes that killing Jews or owning black slaves is morally right, it is essentially wrong. Right or wrong are mind independent, regardless if you believe x is right/wrong.

So far so good.

Anyway, I am not sure why these examples are morally wrong, but if I had to spend my two cents, I'd say it's because they violate human rights.

You mean they violate laws? Ok, how about this. In Saudi Arabia it's illegal to be atheist. Does that mean it's wrong to be an atheist? No.

Pretty much the only reason why moral realists think there are moral truths is because of Makaze's favorite word: "convictions." I, and many others, instead prefer to use the word "intuition." The feeling that there are moral truths is very strong indeed, isn't it? So is the feeling that 2+2=4, and that there are no square circles, and so on.

There's a very different reason why an error theorist like myself thinks there is no morality, but I think that will be too much for this thread.

Those webpages you gave me are just confused. They're not even written by professional ethicists. They all define morality as something subjective.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

Moral realism is not something that is subjective, at all, for example.

I can't imagine it, but that could be a constraint of my mind (and I believe it is) which may not necessarily be a truth of the objective universe.

No, it's not. Round = every point of circumference is equidistant from the center. A square is by definition not round, because it has four sides, so its points are not equidistant from the center. So a square is not round. How can something be not round and round at the same time? It's a logical contradiction.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Chiki

[Chiki]

Please delete double post.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Chiki

[Moira]

So far so good.

You mean they violate laws? Ok, how about this. In Saudi Arabia it's illegal to be atheist. Does that mean it's wrong to be an atheist? No.

Pretty much the only reason why moral realists think there are moral truths is because of Makaze's favorite word: "convictions." I, and many others, instead prefer to use the word "intuition." The feeling that there are moral truths is very strong indeed, isn't it? So is the feeling that 2+2=4, and that there are no square circles, and so on.

morals seem inherently subjective to me, completely unlike 2+2=4 which seems completely objective or true. I don't understand what makes these morals seem objective

[Chiki]

morals seem inherently subjective to me, completely unlike 2+2=4 which seems completely objective or true. I don't understand what makes these morals seem objective

Ok, can you imagine any average person (by "average" I mean someone who isn't mentally incompetent or an ethicist) answering "no" to the question "is it wrong to rape, then eat, then kill a bunch of random children playing at a kindergarten?"

Even sociopaths and serial killers would answer no to this question. Though they just don't care and do it anyway.

[Moira]

Ok, can you imagine any average person (by "average" I mean someone who isn't mentally incompetent or an ethicist) answering "no" to the question "is it wrong to rape, then eat, then kill a bunch of random children playing at a kindergarten?"

Even sociopaths and serial killers would answer no to this question. Though they just don't care and do it anyway.

I agree that almost all people agree on those things being wrong, but I have no trouble imagining someone who doesn't see those things as wrong. It seems completely person dependent.

Also, do you mean "sociopaths and serial killers would answer yes? that seems to make more sense based on your post.

[Rapier]

You mean they violate laws? Ok, how about this. In Saudi Arabia it's illegal to be atheist. Does that mean it's wrong to be an atheist? No.

Pretty much the only reason why moral realists think there are moral truths is because of Makaze's favorite word: "convictions." I, and many others, instead prefer to use the word "intuition." The feeling that there are moral truths is very strong indeed, isn't it? So is the feeling that 2+2=4, and that there are no square circles, and so on.

There's a very different reason why an error theorist like myself thinks there is no morality, but I think that will be too much for this thread.

As I said, I don't know why the examples you gave me are wrong. Yet they are, to anyone who has a shred of sanity to see the madness in the subjugation of individuals. I attribute this to a moral truth that is independent from what I believe.

If moral truths don't exist, then we can't even know if it is right or not to subjugate atheists. Why would it be wrong if there is no such a thing as morality? If your morality subjugates atheists, then it is fundamentally wrong. Naturally, the moral which doesn't subjugate individuals is the correct one, and must be defended.

I objected to Rapier because they were asserting that moral truth and 2 + 2 = 4 are objectively true regardless of rational denials.

You're contradicting yourself. When replying to me you say that majority conviction decides what is moral. That means that it does rely on convictions after all. You contradicted that when replying to Cheeky by saying that even though a majority believed that killing the Jews was correct, it was wrong. Which is it?

I wouldn't say that they were morally wrong.

No, something is only objectively true if it is backed up by rationality. Otherwise, it is charlatanry.

I meant to say that we have a natural inclination to that which is ethically correct, not that our majority should decide what is moral arbitrarily. ie, most people naturally condemn killing, rape and theft. We owe this to evolutionism.

Ok, can you imagine any average person (by "average" I mean someone who isn't mentally incompetent or an ethicist) answering "no" to the question "is it wrong to rape, then eat, then kill a bunch of random children playing at a kindergarten?"

Even sociopaths and serial killers would answer no to this question. Though they just don't care and do it anyway.

This would be my point if I knew how to phrase it decently.

[Makaze]

Those webpages you gave me are just confused. They're not even written by professional ethicists. They all define morality as something subjective.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

Moral realism is not something that is subjective, at all, for example.

Isn't it? It has many rational objections and disagreements within itself. That article opens with and continues to express that there is controversy around and among moral realists. The standards required to make something moral for a moral realist seem to be based on subjectively preferable criteria. As I understand it, when two or more people claim incompatible objective standards, they are both rendered subjective simply by having equally credible opposition.

I believe that these differences use the term subjective in the agent-relative/agent-neutral sense. Ethics are agent-neutral; morals are agent-relative. Is that better?

No, it's not. Round = every point of circumference is equidistant from the center. A square is by definition not round, because it has four sides, so its points are not equidistant from the center. So a square is not round. How can something be not round and round at the same time? It's a logical contradiction.

Because logic itself could be a constraint of my mind rather than the universe itself. If there were the case, I would only be able to interpret the universe in logical terms. There is no way for me to comprehend anything else.

[Chiki]

I agree that almost all people agree on those things being wrong, but I have no trouble imagining someone who doesn't see those things as wrong. It seems completely person dependent.

Also, do you mean "sociopaths and serial killers would answer yes? that seems to make more sense based on your post.

I also don't have trouble imagining someone who doesn't believe 2+2=4 (they actually exist).

Yes, I meant they'd answer yes (I just rechecked my post and that is made clear in it). Believe it or not, there's a lot of empirical evidence for the fact that sociopaths do have a sense of right or wrong, but just don't care about it.

Isn't it? It has many rational objections and disagreements within itself. That article opens with and continues to express that there is controversy around and among moral realists. The standards required to make something moral for a moral realist seem to be based on subjectively preferable criteria. As I understand it, when two or more people claim incompatible objective standards, they are both rendered subjective simply by having equally credible opposition.

I believe that these differences use the term subjective in the agent-relative/agent-neutral sense. Ethics are agent-neutral; morals are agent-relative. Is that better?

Here's the distinction. The truth of moral realism, as you say, may be subjective. But what morality is, on moral realism, is not something that is subjective. If moral realism is true, then morality is objective, and ethics is the study of moral objects.