RE: Objective morality as a proper basic belief
June 24, 2017 at 9:35 am
(This post was last modified: June 24, 2017 at 9:37 am by Little Henry.)
(June 24, 2017 at 8:30 am)Khemikal Wrote:(June 24, 2017 at 12:21 am)Little Henry Wrote: It seems when we make moral claims, ie, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, we are saying something with an intent for that statement to be fact. We are not just expressing preferences/likes/desires, but trying to say something that is fact.Agreed.
Quote:Here is an example.Sure, when we talk about our tastes we're merely expressing some fact about our own personal tastes..most of the time.
Lets take something that we know is subjective, say the taste of food. If i say the taste of grapes are better than the taste of olives, it is obvious to me that this statement is just expression of taste, preference. I am not trying to say something that is fact. I mean, it is not a fact that grapes indeed taste better than olives. Think about it, if you and i had argument and you said olives taste better than than grapes, then who is right or wrong? Well neither of us can be right or wrong and neither of us can be both right as that would violate the law of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.
You dont have to argue about this, i mean, you dont argue with people about what tastes better, you just know that you are expressing your preferences and tastes.
Correct, but nothing about the subject ITSELF we are talking about.
Quote:However, when we discuss morality, the conversation changes, we seem to be trying to say something that is FACT.I guess it would depend on what you were eating and why a person found it disgusting. They might have some moral objection to meat - or example..but yeah, for the most part "how can you eat that shit?" is a rhetorical question.
Lets say you and i sat at a cafe and i ordered some food that you didnt like or found disgusting, will you tell me i am wrong for eating that enjoying that food? Of course not. That would be incoherent. At most you will say, "how do you even like that that is disgusting". But you will fall short in saying that i am doing something wrong.
Ok, lets keep it simple...lets assume it is a piece of fruit.
Quote:Now lets say after i finish my meal, i say, "for the past 6 months, i have had a little girl in my garage who i have been raping and torturing", your response will be different. You will immediately say that what i have been doing is wrong. You will say that with the intent that you are saying something that is fact.Is this cafe in hell?
Quote:If morality was indeed subjective, then your response would be similar to that of the food i was eating, that is, "how do you even like that that is disgusting", but you will stop short of saying that i have done something wrong.
But when we talk about morality, we use the words right and wrong with an intent for it to be FACT.
Sure. That's how we use them, regardless of whether or not they are. As evidenced by all of those people who make moral pronouncements that are clearly non-factual.
Some of our moral pronouncements might correlate to moral facts of a matter, but which are they and how would we go about establishing them? That we take something to be a fact won't actually make it factual, nor will it's use as a factual proposition.
So if i told you i have been raping a young girl, will you tell me that for a fact i am doing something wrong?
(June 24, 2017 at 8:39 am)LastPoet Wrote:(June 24, 2017 at 12:21 am)Little Henry Wrote: It seems when we make moral claims, ie, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, we are saying something with an intent for that statement to be fact. We are not just expressing preferences/likes/desires, but trying to say something that is fact.
Here is an example.
Lets take something that we know is subjective, say the taste of food. If i say the taste of grapes are better than the taste of olives, it is obvious to me that this statement is just expression of taste, preference. I am not trying to say something that is fact. I mean, it is not a fact that grapes indeed taste better than olives. Think about it, if you and i had argument and you said olives taste better than than grapes, then who is right or wrong? Well neither of us can be right or wrong and neither of us can be both right as that would violate the law of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.
You dont have to argue about this, i mean, you dont argue with people about what tastes better, you just know that you are expressing your preferences and tastes.
However, when we discuss morality, the conversation changes, we seem to be trying to say something that is FACT.
Lets say you and i sat at a cafe and i ordered some food that you didnt like or found disgusting, will you tell me i am wrong for eating that enjoying that food? Of course not. That would be incoherent. At most you will say, "how do you even like that that is disgusting". But you will fall short in saying that i am doing something wrong.
Now lets say after i finish my meal, i say, "for the past 6 months, i have had a little girl in my garage who i have been raping and torturing", your response will be different. You will immediately say that what i have been doing is wrong. You will say that with the intent that you are saying something that is fact.
If morality was indeed subjective, then your response would be similar to that of the food i was eating, that is, "how do you even like that that is disgusting", but you will stop short of saying that i have done something wrong.
But when we talk about morality, we use the words right and wrong with an intent for it to be FACT.
Are you saying you need a god to be good? I am assuming you as American, and I am Portuguese, would eating snails be as offensive as raping you? In other words would something i do that harms no one else equal to harming others? Is that what your god tells you?
I am saying, without God, there is no such thing as good or evil. Just a collection of desirables and undesirables acts, but not good/bad, right or wrong.