Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[The Grand Nudger]

Saying OM does not exist but then saying "moral act X is wrong according to me" does not make sense.

Sure it does.  OM doesn't have to exist...and even if it does a person might not have access to it (you obviously don't, Mr "why cant i rape that girl and steal your house?"), but they can still tell you why they think that something is morally wrong.

Suppose you and i grab a tennis racket and ball. We go to a back street with no lines on the street.

You hit the ball, as soon as it bounces i scream "out". Naturally, you will say, "out according to what", i will say "according to me it is out".

You will then say "how can it be out, there is no line we never agreed on anything". I will say "according to me it is out".

So, in this example, what am i saying. There is nothing on the road, no lines, we never agreed on anything, how can i say the ball is out?

Moral disagreement exists.  Moral disagreement exists regardless of whether or not there is an objective morality..and two people both allegedly schlepping objective morality can also have a moral disagreement.  

Well, i must have some imaginary line in my head. This line does not exist in reality, it is just something i made up in my head that does not exist in reality.

In this case, i am suffering from a delusion, ie, i am acting in accordance to something that does not exist in reality.

I get that you think this matters, for some reason, but it doesn't.  You're under the impression, as a christer, that a ghost tells you what's right and wrong - but the fact that you're suffering from this delusion doesn't make it any more or less right or wrong to do x, either to you or to anyone else.

If OM does not exist, ie, moral facts, then claiming a moral act as wrong is the same as the tennis example. You are suffering from a delusion.

I'm not a moral subjectivist....but, okay, and?  It;s still wrong, to whomever thinks it's wrong, for whatever reason or non-reason they think it's wrong?  What's the problem?  

Now you might say, well, what if you drew a line and you both agreed where the line should start and stop, all of a sudden, the line exists in reality. Now we are talking. However, the line that you and i draw has no reference to reality. What do i mean by this. Well, if  you and i drew a line, it is just something we both made up from our heads and we are playing according to this construct.

The line doesn't exist in reality any more than it did before just because you agreed on it.  You simply agreed to conform to a particular delusion together (hey,. just like christers..ish).  

This is also how subjective moral theorists arrive at moral agreement.  

It is no different to you and i saying, lets pretend you and i are batman and superman. We can act as if we are batman and superman, but in reality we are not. We are just living according to some delusion that we made up. A mental construct.

If acting like a moral agent is not being a moral agent...then what is?  

Thats all morality is if you want to say if OM does not exist, but want to live as if moral rights and wrongs exist.

Moral rights and moral wrongs exist in both objective -and- subjective moral views.  

If you say morality is subjective, according to me rape is wrong is just another way of saying, i am suffering from a delusion.

You -are- suffering from a delusion, and rape -is- wrong.  What's the problem?

[Little Henry]

I think alot of the confusion arises with the use of the words right and wrong in this context.

Agreed, but you aren;t going to be the one educating, on this count.  You;re in sore need of an education.

If objective morality (OM) does not exist, then the words are being used naively and incoherently. It doesn't make sense. What do i mean by this?

It means exactly what they've said.  Regardless of whether or not a person thinks that some act x is wrong according to some objective morality, or because that;s a consequence of their subjective morality...they are telling you that it's wrong.  

But this is an illusion.
I say child rape is right, you say its wrong. Who is right or wrong? We cannot be both right as this would violate one of the laws of logic, namely the law of non contradiction. To people cannot be both right with opposing views.

The words right and wrong ONLY exist in relation to facts.

That's borderline crazy.  The words exist even if moral facts of any matter don't..even if morality is entirely subjective.  We're both entirely capable of considering each other's fact free opinions wrong.

How can something be BOTH right and wrong? That violates one of the laws of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

A fact is something that is true or exists REGARDLESS of anyone's opinion, preference, taste or desire.

Sure, and the fact of the matter in a subjective moral assessment is that person a thinks x is wrong, regardless of anyone else's opinion, preference, taste or desire.  

If something is subjective it cannot be deemed wrong.
Taste in movies is subjective.
If i say the movie Taken 1 is better than Taken 2, am i right or wrong? Neither. It is incoherent to say i am right.
If you say Taken 2 is better than taken 1...then how can Taken 1 be both better and worse than Taken 2 at the same time.

Let me use some examples.
It is a fact that the earth rotates around the sun. It does not matter what i or anyone's else's opinion, preference or desire is, the earth rotates around the sun. If i said the sun rotates around the earth, then i am wrong. I am only wrong because the statement was in relation to a fact.

If i sat an exam, and the question asked was, "does the sun rotate around the earth" and i answered with "yes", then i would get a cross. Would i get a cross because of how the examiner or marker feels? There preference? Desire? No. They would give me a cross because they would compare my answer against the FACT.

If i said chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake, i am neither right or wrong because it is not a fact that chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake.
Suppose you sat an exam and the question was asked, "does chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake?" Well, if you said yes, will you get a tick or a cross?
Well, you wouldnt get a tick or a cross, because it is not a fact. There is no fact if chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake.

Suppose you said yes, and somehow you get a cross, well you would immediately see the marker or examiner. How could the examiner justify giving you a cross? Suppose they said carrot cake tastes better than chocolate, but you prefer chocolate cake over carrot, then who is right or wrong? No one.
You cannot give a tick or a cross.
This is because taste in food is subjective. The words right and wrong cannot be used in relation to non facts.

Equivocative use of the word "wrong" is only an example of why you can't accurately summarize others moral positions or moral agency.  It's an example of why -you- are wrong...but not...case in point.....in any moral sense.

I am sorry, but right or wrong only exist in relation to facts.

[ignoramus]

It was law to kill Jews, homosexuals, etc at one stage. No one says the law was wrong unless the society/theocracy of the day decided it was.
Why is it a fact that societies ought to flourish? It may be desirable but how does that make it a fact that they ought to? Evolution. If something won't flourish, then others will in their place. No consciousness needed. Just ask the black plague virus.
If i punch you in the face and it hurts you, why is that wrong? Why is it wrong to impose on others? Because others will also say that it feels bad, therefore not good.
You do have physical receptors in your skin/body to tell you if something feels good or bad, don't you? Nature gave you that.

[Little Henry]

Saying OM does not exist but then saying "moral act X is wrong according to me" does not make sense.

Trouble is we all say it -X is wrong!- and have been doing so since before people were able to articulate why, let alone reason regarding why it is wrong.  Moral behavior is part of our species deal.  You like to imagine something fantastical that no one can detect maintains the moral facts.  That to me is absurd.

You think it is absurd for people to go on saying acts are wrong when we understand that it is our feeling and not our reason that is doing the talking.  I say that is as it's always been.  So what?

So are you saying we as humans when looking at moral acts such as when ISIS throw homosexuals off buildings and we deem that action as wrong as sufferring from a delusion and we are just using the words right and wrong naively? Or are you saying that our moral experience tells us that some things are really right or wrong?

---

The jails are full of people "suffering delusions" which hurt others in society.
We take the grey area out of the tennis lines and hardcode them as black and white laws for the most part.

We get booked for speeding. Nobody got booked for almost speeding.

The same thing applies to laws. They are just made up and have no reference to reality, like sporting rules.
The rules of baseball have no reference to reality.

[The Grand Nudger]

But this is an illusion.

No it's not.  They really do think that some act x is wrong.  This isn't hard to understand. 

I say child rape is right, you say its wrong. Who is right or wrong?

I;m right, and you're wrong.  So very, very wrong.  I think that you'll find this to be the case most of the time.  

We cannot be both right as this would violate one of the laws of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

That's true, we can't both be right according to the same metrics simultaneously in contradiction to each other.  Not sure why it matters...since we're not both right, in this case.  I'm right, and you're wrong...so?

To people cannot be both right with opposing views.

-in relation to a shared set of metrics..this is true, again, agreed...but again..it doesn't matter...sine we're not both right.  

How can something be BOTH right and wrong? That violates one of the laws of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

Who knows, but you're the only one babbling about it, contending that rape is somehow morally right.  

If something is subjective it cannot be deemed wrong.

OFC it can be.  Being subjective isn't some sort of magic talisman.

Taste in movies is subjective.
If i say the movie Taken 1 is better than Taken 2, am i right or wrong? Neither. It is incoherent to say i am right.
If you say Taken 2 is better than taken 1...then how can Taken 1 be both better and worse than Taken 2 at the same time.

You're wrong at a fundamental level, they both sucked, hard.  

I am sorry, but right or wrong only exist in relation to facts.

You keep saying that, but you don;t seem to understand that you're waffling back and forth between two senses of the word.

Look, this is getting unwieldy.  Rather than repeatedly tell people that they can;t do something that they so obviously can do, and rather than tell people that whatever it is they;re doing is incoherent without knowing the first thing about their reasons....why not just ask in a non douchebaggy way?  I told you at the outset I didn't think that morality is subjective....but your christer zeal must have missed that. Think about how silly you look, after all these pages?

What would jesus do?

(imma go grab a rental car right quick like, hopefully you'll find a way to improve the discourse by the time I get back)

[Little Henry]

Saying OM does not exist but then saying "moral act X is wrong according to me" does not make sense.

Sure it does.  OM doesn't have to exist...and even if it does a person might not have access to it (you obviously don't, Mr "why cant i rape that girl and steal your house?"), but they can still tell you why they think that something is morally wrong.

Suppose you and i grab a tennis racket and ball. We go to a back street with no lines on the street.

You hit the ball, as soon as it bounces i scream "out". Naturally, you will say, "out according to what", i will say "according to me it is out".

You will then say "how can it be out, there is no line we never agreed on anything". I will say "according to me it is out".

So, in this example, what am i saying. There is nothing on the road, no lines, we never agreed on anything, how can i say the ball is out?

Moral disagreement exists.  Moral disagreement exists regardless of whether or not there is an objective morality..and two people both allegedly schlepping objective morality can also have a moral disagreement.  

But if OM doesnt exist, then as in the tennis example, they are just delusions in our heads.

If moral facts dont exist, then it is just like playing with no lines. Saying OM doesnt exist, but then claiming moral rights wrongs is admitting that we are all just suffering from a delusion, like the tennis game i used above in the back street.

Well, i must have some imaginary line in my head. This line does not exist in reality, it is just something i made up in my head that does not exist in reality.

In this case, i am suffering from a delusion, ie, i am acting in accordance to something that does not exist in reality.

I get that you think this matters, for some reason, but it doesn't.  You're under the impression, as a christer, that a ghost tells you what's right and wrong - but the fact that you're suffering from this delusion doesn't make it any more or less right or wrong to do x, either to you or to anyone else.

Of course it does...if no objective facts exist, then it is just something you made up. A man made construct.

According to you, a Theist is someone who is delusional because according to you, God does not exist and the Theist is imagining God exists  and is acting according to it.
Well, if OM does not exist, and then saying rape is wrong means you are no different to the Theist. It is just a mental construct you made in your head. It doesnt exist in reality and you act according to this delusion the same as the Theist does.

If OM does not exist, ie, moral facts, then claiming a moral act as wrong is the same as the tennis example. You are suffering from a delusion.

I'm not a moral subjectivist....but, okay, and?  It;s still wrong, to whomever thinks it's wrong, for whatever reason or non-reason they think it's wrong?  What's the problem?  

Ok, so you believe moral facts exist? If this is the case, we can stop arguing here and we can turn our attention to the grounding of these moral facts which will differ between you and i.

Now you might say, well, what if you drew a line and you both agreed where the line should start and stop, all of a sudden, the line exists in reality. Now we are talking. However, the line that you and i draw has no reference to reality. What do i mean by this. Well, if  you and i drew a line, it is just something we both made up from our heads and we are playing according to this construct.

The line doesn't exist in reality any more than it did before just because you agreed on it.  You simply agreed to conform to a particular delusion together (hey,. just like christers..ish).  

This is also how subjective moral theorists arrive at moral agreement.  

It is no different to you and i saying, lets pretend you and i are batman and superman. We can act as if we are batman and superman, but in reality we are not. We are just living according to some delusion that we made up. A mental construct.

If acting like a moral agent is not being a moral agent...then what is?  

It is made up if it doesnt exist in reality, like you and i pretending we are batman superman.

Thats all morality is if you want to say if OM does not exist, but want to live as if moral rights and wrongs exist.

Moral rights and moral wrongs exist in both objective -and- subjective moral views.  

This doesnt make sense.

If you say morality is subjective, according to me rape is wrong is just another way of saying, i am suffering from a delusion.

You -are- suffering from a delusion, and rape -is- wrong.  What's the problem?

The same way as when i said the ball is out when the ball was hit even though there is no line?

---

It was law to kill Jews, homosexuals, etc at one stage. No one says the law was wrong unless the society/theocracy of the day decided it was.
Why is it a fact that societies ought to flourish? It may be desirable but how does that make it a fact that they ought to? Evolution. If something won't flourish, then others will in their place. No consciousness needed. Just ask the black plague virus.
If i punch you in the face and it hurts you, why is that wrong? Why is it wrong to impose on others? Because others will also say that it feels bad, therefore not good.
You do have physical receptors in your skin/body to tell you if something feels good or bad, don't you? Nature gave you that.

So what if it doesnt flourish. Under naturalism, atheism, life came from the accidental bi product of lightning hitting some pond somewhere (that is 1 theory at least). How does that mean that it ought to flourish?
If humans and all living things were ceased tomorrow, did something wrong happen? bad happen?
Well, neither, under atheism, things just happen. You cannot get an OUGHT from an IS

---

But this is an illusion.

No it's not.  They really do think that some act x is wrong.  This isn't hard to understand. 

The same way as i really though the ball is out?

I say child rape is right, you say its wrong. Who is right or wrong?

I;m right, and you're wrong.  So very, very wrong.  I think that you'll find this to be the case most of the time.  

[quote pid='1573920' dateline='1498316478']
According to who or what am i wrong?Consider this.
I say the sun rotates around the earth, am i right or wrong? You say wrong. Tell me why i am wrong. Is it just or opinion or are you appealing to something outside your opinion?
I say rape is right, you say its wrong.  Tell me why i am wrong. Is it just or opinion or are you appealing to something outside your opinion?
[/quote]

We cannot be both right as this would violate one of the laws of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

That's true, we can't both be right according to the same metrics simultaneously in contradiction to each other.  Not sure why it matters...since we're not both right, in this case.  I'm right, and you're wrong...so?

So you admit if something is subjective you cannot put a right or wrong against it?

To people cannot be both right with opposing views.

-in relation to a shared set of metrics..this is true, again, agreed...but again..it doesn't matter...sine we're not both right.  

So child rape is neither is right or wrong?

How can something be BOTH right and wrong? That violates one of the laws of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

Who knows, but you're the only one babbling about it, contending that rape is somehow morally right.  

Just pointing out logical conclusion of it.

If something is subjective it cannot be deemed wrong.

OFC it can be.  Being subjective isn't some sort of magic talisman.

Law of non contradiction say it cannot be.

Taste in movies is subjective.
If i say the movie Taken 1 is better than Taken 2, am i right or wrong? Neither. It is incoherent to say i am right.
If you say Taken 2 is better than taken 1...then how can Taken 1 be both better and worse than Taken 2 at the same time.

You're wrong at a fundamental level, they both sucked, hard.  

I am sorry, but right or wrong only exist in relation to facts.

You keep saying that, but you don;t seem to understand that you're waffling back and forth between two senses of the word.

Look, this is getting unwieldy.  Rather than repeatedly tell people that they can;t do something that they so obviously can do, and rather than tell people that whatever it is they;re doing is incoherent without knowing the first thing about their reasons....why not just ask in a non douchebaggy way?  I told you at the outset I didn't think that morality is subjective....but your christer zeal must have missed that.  Think about how silly you look, after all these pages?  

What would jesus do?

(imma go grab a rental car right quick like, hopefully you'll find a way to improve the discourse by the time I get back)

Is that all now? You resort to mockery?

---

I am off to bed now.

I will check back later.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ooh, semantical masturbation. I'm impressed.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I think you're conflating and equivocating topics to mash out a seeming contradiction.

Subjectivity does not preclude objective results, nether does it preclude someone saying 'that's wrong', and neither does it preclude a society basing legislative and judicial precedents and structural frameworks upon it. . Some people may believe rape is ok, but you'd be hard pushed to find many that would agree with that. In wars the women are often the prize and people turn a blind eye to it, or worse, actively encourage it (example above from downbeatplumb). Does that not directly evidence the subjective nature of it?

Morality is a human construct and has been established over the course of both our biological and societal evolution. Precedent, consensus, and the interactions of agential and structural discourses about what value we place on both society and its laws/rules. That's the cornerstone of a discussion on morality and ethics, and as such I think that would be a good place to start.

[henryp]

Instead of 'objective morality', why don't you consider it objective practicality in achieving a goal.

How do we set up a society that works for everyone? Well, if everyone's gang raping girls, that's, I'd argue, objectively not going to work out great for the girls. So gang rape is out.

If we lived in a society where the goal was men matter, and no one else, gang rape is back on the table. Unless a bunch of men don't want their wives and daughters gang-raped, and they conclude outlawing gang rape is probably the most practical way to solve that problem. But there's room for debate there.

I think this generic idea is reflected if you look back through history. What is the goal, and what you call morality is actually how the goal is practically achieved.

[The Grand Nudger]

But if OM doesnt exist, then as in the tennis example, they are just delusions in our heads.

Firstly,  learn to fucking quote.  Just do it.  Sometime between now and when you next post, because this shit is a nightmare.  Consider it a moral duty, referent to an objective morality, if that helps.

The tennis example isn't a moral example, there is no moral component to it, and it doesn't matter whether or not it's delusional in whatever sense you mean that.  It's completely uninformative...and even if we strech it as far as credulity wiull allow it exposes no problem or issue with morality, objective or subjective.  Two people may refer to two disparate sets of rules for tennis in their heads..or they may refer to two disparate sets of rules for tennis in some book they have.  

If moral facts dont exist, then it is just like playing with no lines. Saying OM doesnt exist, but then claiming moral rights wrongs is admitting that we are all just suffering from a delusion, like the tennis game i used above in the back street.

No one's playing any game, hopefully, with their moral concepts.  It's pretty serious stuff.  Moral objectivists have their lines, moral subjectivists have their lines.  We all have our lines.  

Of course it does...if no objective facts exist, then it is just something you made up. A man made construct.

Why would it matter if it were?  If the notion that rape is wrong was entirely man made and referred to nothing other than people thinking that rape was wrong..would it be any more or less wrong?  Would it be any more or less anyone's opinion that rape was wrong?  No, because it -doesn't- matter.  

According to you, a Theist is someone who is delusional because according to you, God does not exist and the Theist is imagining God exists  and is acting according to it.

Sure, no point in wasting ink trying to communicate why -I- think you're delusional, because it doesn't matter to our discussion.  If ghosts aren't telling you what's right and wrong, you still think that some act x is wrong.  It doesn't actually matter whether or not ghosts are telling you that.  

Similarly, if it's.."just like, a subjectivists opinion..man," that some act is wrong....it's still their opinion that some x is wrong.  You don't really have to agree with them (and vv) as to why it's wrong, but you both agree that it is.  This is how objective and subjective moral theorists can come to moral agreement. It;s how believers and non-believers can come to moral agreement. There's alot of moral overlap between all four groups, and between the moral statements of all four groups.

Well, if OM does not exist, and then saying rape is wrong means you are no different to the Theist. It is just a mental construct you made in your head. It doesnt exist in reality and you act according to this delusion the same as the Theist does.

Tu qoque...god you believers will settle for the silliest shit.  Mental constructs do exist in reality.  Calling something a mental construct does nothing to establish that it doesn't exist.  Their opinion is still their opinion even if it's just an opinion and...obviously, their opinion exists.  

Ok, so you believe moral facts exist? If this is the case, we can stop arguing here and we can turn our attention to the grounding of these moral facts which will differ between you and i.

I do, I told you that at the outset.  I would probably stop arguing with you if you stopped saying silly shit.

It is made up if it doesnt exist in reality, like you and i pretending we are batman superman.

Aren;t you and I pretending to be batman and superman..in reality?  Things being made up, doesn;t mean that they don;t exist..calling them made up explicitly denotes that they do exist..as something somebody "made up".  

This doesnt make sense.

I don't think you have a firm grasp on sense, so it's unsurprising to me that you would think that.  Your opinion is wrong, and made up..but it exists, in reality, in you.  

The same way as when i said the ball is out when the ball was hit even though there is no line?

Then you believe that the ball is out - there is a line, to you.  What's the problem?  
 

The same way as i really though the ball is out?

Probably not, since moral subjectivists will refer to a long list of reasons why they think "the ball is out" or why they think the line is where it is..but yeah, sure..fundamentally the same way.  This is equally true of moral objectivists like yourself or myself.  

According to who or what am i wrong?Consider this.

I think the person who needs to start doing a little considering might be you.............

I say the sun rotates around the earth, am i right or wrong? You say wrong. Tell me why i am wrong. Is it just or opinion or are you appealing to something outside your opinion?

Factually or logically wrong.

I say rape is right, you say its wrong.  Tell me why i am wrong. Is it just or opinion or are you appealing to something outside your opinion?

You mean..morally wrong?

See...-this- is why you are wrong...you literally cannot be right - your argument is fallacious.   

We cannot be both right as this would violate one of the laws of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

That's true, we can't both be right according to the same metrics simultaneously in contradiction to each other.  Not sure why it matters...since we're not both right, in this case.  I'm right, and you're wrong...so?

So you admit if something is subjective you cannot put a right or wrong against it?

Read that entire exchange again...and tell me where you began to believe that anything I said above is accurately described by you..in that last line?  Stop.

To people cannot be both right with opposing views.

-in relation to a shared set of metrics..this is true, again, agreed...but again..it doesn't matter...sine we're not both right.  

So child rape is neither is right or wrong?

If you have to ask you're no more a moral agent than a duck, again.

Just pointing out logical conclusion of it.

A logic free logical conclusion.  That's a novel idea.  I think you just made it up, in your head, does that mean it doesn't exist?

Law of non contradiction say it cannot be.

You seem to think that moral subjectivity ha a problem with the law of non-contradiction..it doesn't.  A moral subjectivist doesn;t think that some act is both right and wrong simultaneously.  Go, ask them.  Ask any of these moral subjectivists if they think that rape is both right and wrong?  That would probably yield more insight than frothing at the mouth like a common christer loon, repeatedly insisting that they -must- believe that.  

I am sorry, but right or wrong only exist in relation to facts.

-and it's a fact that taken 1 and 2 sucked...they sucked so hard, they hit the floor of suck, where all examples of suckiness are equally sucky.  Therefore one -cannot- be suckier than the other...there's no room left at the bottom.

Is that all now? You resort to mockery?

---

You deserve every bit of it...and probably more.  See...look..a moral judgement..and I just made up up, with my head..as a human being...and it even exists!

I'm a never-ending fountain of derision for people like yourself. Just like jesus, no matter how much I give, I've always got more for the next guy.