(June 5, 2017 at 9:52 am)Zenith Wrote:

(June 5, 2017 at 9:23 am)Khemikal Wrote: Harmful vs helpful -is- an objective morality.  Just as "more than and less than" is an objective description of two piles of money, even when the size of each pile keeps changing.

No. "Harmful" and "helpful" ARE objective, but they are NOT morality. Morality is about belief, i.e.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictio...h/morality Wrote:Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong.

If you ask most people advancing an objective morality, help and harm are the things around which their belief in the goodness or wrongness of a situation is determined.  One of the most vocal advocates for objective morality reduces his entire position to;

"Don't harm, do help".

That's all that's meant by an objective morality. That the moral status of some x could be, in principle, objectively determined. In his case, determined by reference to help and harm. Why is assault bad? Harm. Why is charity good? Help.

Quote:"Don't harm, do help".

Even if there were an objective morality it could only manifest as if it were subjective.

Quote:Why is assault bad? Harm. Why is charity good? Help.

The downfall of objective morality is it doesn't take into consideration circumstances leading to an end result. It says a particular result is "bad" or "good" no matter the circumstances.

Assault can be good in a number of scenarios and charity can be bad in a number of scenarios. Objectively declaring them "good" or "bad" is short-sighted. I feel as if objective morality is result oriented and subjective morality is action oriented. The very fact that morality is used by humans make it subjective.

(June 5, 2017 at 11:50 am)pool the matey Wrote: Even if there were an objective morality it could only manifest as if it were subjective.

Agreed, and objective moral theorists point that out constantly.  That our moral agency, and our moral agreement(or disagreement) are separate subjects of consideration, and so to is any moral system. There's no necessity that the three be in agreement. Our subjective moral agency may lead us to believe that slaughtering the neighboring tribes firstborn is a good thing to do, everyone in our tribe may agree (and the other tribe may agree, with reference to our children)...but that won;t change it;s objective status as good or bad, if there is such an objective status or system.

Quote:The downfall of objective morality is it doesn't take into consideration circumstances leading to an end result. It says a particular result is "bad" or "good" no matter the circumstances.

It doesn't, actually.  Any particular objective moral system might use the goodness or badness of an act in a vacuum as a baseline, but there's no reason that it couldn't also account for what we might call extenuating circumstance.  For example, a person who does harm to achieve a greater good. The only particular acts which would be absolutely and uniformly bad in sum would be those to which no extenuating circumstance could rescue. Sure, we might make allowance for warfare - but how about rape? What extenuating circumstance make rape less than bad? At that point, we're not disputing an objective morality, we're appraising an act by reference to an objective morality. What can make a thing that objectively satisfies the conditions of being bad, less bad?

Quote:Assault can be good in a number of scenarios and charity can be bad in a number of scenarios. Objectively declaring them "good" or "bad" is short-sighted. I feel as if objective morality is result oriented and subjective morality is action oriented. The very fact that morality is used by humans make it subjective.

The status of the moral agency of humans does not equate to the status of any moral system.  An objective moral theorist would tell you that we are subjective agents, and deeply flawed in our perceptions, but that we are attempting (opr at least could attempt) to approximate a system of objective values as best we can....given circumstance both of the act being appraised and of ourselves.

Assault as warfare can be good and charity as manipulation can be bad..but bad by reference to -what-? If that reference is objective, we're still peddling an attempt at objective morality.

Which brings us to another downfall of objective morality.

Murder - Objectively bad.
Theft - Objectively bad.
Gratitude - Objectively good.
Charity - Objectively good.

There is no mention of severity. Murder and theft are both objectively bad but which is worse? Objective morality skips that part. Bible tells us breaking any of the ten commandments are enough to land us in hell. It's not possible to rate the severity of each acts objectively because it may not necessarily coincide with the value system of individuals and also because that would mean Objective morality isn't really all that objective but rather subjective after all.

Rape - Objectively bad.
Charity - Objectively good.

Believe in objective morality? Drop her 2 cents after you're done raping her that'll clear everything up.

(June 6, 2017 at 1:55 pm)pool the matey Wrote: Which brings us to another downfall of objective morality.

What downfall of what objective morality...?

Quote:Murder - Objectively bad.
Theft - Objectively bad.
Gratitude - Objectively good.
Charity - Objectively good.

There is no mention of severity.

You didn't mention any, there's nothing that says an objective morality can't....? How would you rate severity, is there some scale or idea by which you can ay that severity is objectively x? If there is, that's an attempt at an objective morality.

Quote:Murder and theft are both objectively bad but which is worse? Objective morality skips that part. Bible tells us breaking any of the ten commandments are enough to land us in hell. It's not possible to rate the severity of each acts objectively because it may not necessarily coincide with the value system of individuals and also because that would mean Objective morality isn't really all that objective but rather subjective after all.

Why would objective morality skip that part?  

Quote:Rape - Objectively bad.
Charity - Objectively good.

Believe in objective morality? Drop her 2 cents after you're done raping her that'll clear everything up.

I;m not sure why you think objective morality suggests that...that's all you...lol? However, suppose that were true? Wouldn't that immediately contradict your previous criticisms of objective morality as not being able to handle extenuating circumstances? Two cents were the extenuating circumstances, now rape is less bad.......or?


I just dont.......bah, lol.

lol k