Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Astonished]

Wow, a false equivalency of this magnitude is just...just staggering.

What would the point in calling a maintenance of your own analogy a false equivalence be?  I'm trying to find agreement here and when I do...you find a way to argue with yourself?

I mean, shit, a chocolate bar with 15% nuts is far more apt because I'm talking about the FRAMEWORK of a moral system and not whatever the hell it is you seem to be rambling about here.

Okay..but, if I now use your chocolate bar analogy...will you accuse me of leveraging a false equivalence for having done so?  Let's say that a chocolate bar is, objectively, 15% nuts.  Does that then ensure that I will be able to accurately identify either the ratio, the nut, r even that it has nuts?  Presumably, something could be wrong with my tastebuds.  That wouldn't make the chocolate bar any less than 15% nuts.  Suppose something -was- wrong with my tastebuds.  Is there no other way to figure out how much nut is in a chocolate bar?

You keep insisting there's this objectivity thing here which I continue to point out is not that, at least not the way you define it, and I personally can't define it because I'm convinced it doesn't exist.

I'm asking you if there can be.  You seem to be the kind of guy who could identify an objective fact about rape, for example.  

We can use all the objective data we want and still disagree about to which degree x and y are good or bad, hell, like I said, we can even use the same exact data point to do just that.

OFC we can..though, we assume that an insistence on objective data would help us to resolve those issues, those arguments..when we encounter them.  That;s already how we employ objective data, isn't it?  

So whatever little use objectivity has in the overall equation, it's vastly dominated by subjectivity.

I suppose, if you give it no effort, and no thought, and employ no tools, and refuse to engage in a back and forth discussion of those facts..then yeah..it's dominated by subjectivity.  

This, to me, suggests that we need that objective schema and those tools if we want to make competent moral judgements with any sort of reliability.

I don't know what was so hard to grasp about that. How much worse is it if someone commits murder vs. involuntary manslaughter if the circumstances that led to a person's death were identical?

If one person committed murder and the the other involuntary manslaughter the circumstances that led to those deaths -weren't- identical.....so?  That's a good place to try a little objective morality, though.  What is it, about the manslaughter charge, that makes it less bad?  Is it the lack of intent to do harm?  

I mean, I honestly couldn't think of a way to quantify that or even find any empirical data about how to go about determining that. Yes, objectively a person is dead and a person is at fault, but beyond that...fucking minefield. At some point subjectivity isn't just the one driving, it's kicked objectivity out the passenger door.

Well, then perhaps you should leave it to those who can?  We'll give you the list when we're done with it.  

Man, I swear we're speaking two different languages. Let me just break this down to the simplest shortest way possible. The goal posts are not objective, they're chosen by personal preference (with rationalization, which I supposed some portions of which could be determined objectively). The means by which to move toward good goal post and away from bad goal post are, for the most part, objective. Then there come the gradients of every little situation where objectivity is sorely, SORELY limited in its ability to determine solutions, disciplinary measures, etc., all of which are largely determined subjectively. In the grand scheme of all that is under the umbrella of morality, you could say that objectivity plays a part but a very minor one. I was talking about quantity, not utility. Yes, it's essential for moving up or down the scale as far as how the goal posts are defined but every other aspect is subjective. Maybe a pie chart would help. See the small slice? That's how much objectivity is involved. See the rest of the pie? That's where subjectivity is involved.

BTW, then let's hear your objective data for the hypothetical situation. Like, what role does intention play? And how much does it matter? Is there any way to determine either of those other than subjectively?

[The Grand Nudger]

Man, I swear we're speaking two different languages. Let me just break this down to the simplest shortest way possible. The goal posts are not objective, they're chosen by personal preference (with rationalization, which I supposed some portions of which could be determined objectively).

You are...objectively, wrong here.  These goalposts are not chosen by personal preference.  I didn't choose for rape to be bad, or for rape to be harmful.  Similarly, I didn't choose for the subject of morality to be harm.  

That's the foundation of objective morality.  Yes, I have opinions, we all have opinions.  Some opinions more closely toe the line with facts than others.  

The means by which to move toward good goal post and away from bad goal post are, for the most part, objective. Then there come the gradients of every little situation where objectivity is sorely, SORELY limited in its ability to determine solutions, disciplinary measures, etc., all of which are largely determined subjectively. In the grand scheme of all that is under the umbrella of morality, you could say that objectivity plays a part but a very minor one. I was talking about quantity, not utility. Yes, it's essential for moving up or down the scale as far as how the goal posts are defined but every other aspect is subjective. Maybe a pie chart would help. See the small slice? That's how much objectivity is involved. See the rest of the pie? That's where subjectivity is involved.

I thnk that you attribute a great many things to subjectivity that aren't subjective.  I think that, because you still have a clear misconception of what it means for something to -be- objective.  I can only explain that misconception in so many ways.  Tell me what part of determining solutions, or disciplinary measures, doesn;t refer to at least some objective facts?  
I see criminal justice, for example...and it's got a mountain of facts they refer to.  I;m sure that some of them are probably mistaken...but?  

BTW, then let's hear your objective data for the hypothetical situation. Like, what role does intention play? And how much does it matter? Is there any way to determine either of those other than subjectively?

Well, we've seen that intent to do harm is the difference between murder and manslaughter, haven't we?  So that's one role it plays in our assessment.  We entertain the concept of an accident...and accidents carry lesser moral condemnation.   In an accident, whatever harm was caused was not meant by the person who did it.  We can only arrive at that seperation, at that classification, by reference to objective facts.  The driver did not see the girl in the road, for example.  If we find a school crosswalk schedule in the drivers car and a list of names in red lipstick with the little girl at the top...........we hit the fucker over the head with a brick.

Repeat that same example with a racist loon who runs over the little girl because she's black. He doesn't think he's done anything wrong...but we all still know he intended to do that harm. There are probably some bigots that will show up and cheer for him at court. Does he get the manslaughter charge, with lesser condemnation and punishment....or do we slam that asshole with murder and hit him over the head with a brick too?

[Astonished]

Man, I swear we're speaking two different languages. Let me just break this down to the simplest shortest way possible. The goal posts are not objective, they're chosen by personal preference (with rationalization, which I supposed some portions of which could be determined objectively).

You are...objectively, wrong here.  These goalposts are not chosen by personal preference.  I didn't choose for rape to be bad, or for rape to be harmful.  Similarly, I didn't choose for the subject of morality to be harm.  

That's the foundation of objective morality.  Yes, I have opinions, we all have opinions.  Some opinions more closely toe the line with facts than others.  

The means by which to move toward good goal post and away from bad goal post are, for the most part, objective. Then there come the gradients of every little situation where objectivity is sorely, SORELY limited in its ability to determine solutions, disciplinary measures, etc., all of which are largely determined subjectively. In the grand scheme of all that is under the umbrella of morality, you could say that objectivity plays a part but a very minor one. I was talking about quantity, not utility. Yes, it's essential for moving up or down the scale as far as how the goal posts are defined but every other aspect is subjective. Maybe a pie chart would help. See the small slice? That's how much objectivity is involved. See the rest of the pie? That's where subjectivity is involved.

I thnk that you attribute a great many things to subjectivity that aren't subjective.  I think that, because you still have a clear misconception of what it means for something to -be- objective.  I can only explain that misconception in so many ways.  Tell me what part of determining solutions, or disciplinary measures, doesn;t refer to at least some objective facts?  
I see criminal justice, for example...and it's got a mountain of facts they refer to.  I;m sure that some of them are probably mistaken...but?  

BTW, then let's hear your objective data for the hypothetical situation. Like, what role does intention play? And how much does it matter? Is there any way to determine either of those other than subjectively?

Well, we've seen that intent to do harm is the difference between murder and manslaughter, haven't we?  So that's one role it plays in our assessment.  We entertain the concept of an accident...and accidents carry lesser moral condemnation.   In an accident, whatever harm was caused was not meant by the person who did it.  We can only arrive at that seperation, at that classification, by reference to objective facts.  The driver did not see the girl in the road, for example.  If we find a school crosswalk schedule in the drivers car and a list of names in red lipstick with the little girl at the top...........we hit the fucker over the head with a brick.

You can't fucking say that any act is always wrong 100% of the time! What the fuck?!

That doesn't answer the question of HOW MUCH difference and from the answer, I don't think you can actually produce empirical data that supports it. I think degrees are subjective and make up the bulk of the discussion because every conceivable situation will have that large grey area to fill in. Unless it's an objective policy to give catch-all solutions to any old situation.

And if you think I still have a misconception about what is objective, define it better. I pointed out why your previous definition breaks down and you didn't have any way to undo that so you'll either have to do better or we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[The Grand Nudger]

You can't fucking say that any act is always wrong 100% of the time! What the fuck?!

An objective morality -doesn't- say that, and neither did I, so?  Here, lets try another example.

Let;s say that the person who gets run over was an assualt rifle wiedling madman spraying bullets into the crowd, and a person intentionally ran them over.  

Is that bad, neutral, good?  What objective facts of this moral matter are at play when we give him a Heroes Parade?

---

Fun aside - the simplicity of an objective moral framework is super useful for an evolved moral agent.  Don;t want to have to spend too much time agonizing over the moral stuff..what with the moral stuff being so intimately connected with your survival.

Quick, mostly right decisions will suffice, and are probably preferred (selectively, I mean) to a sort of moral malaise in our every act.

[Astonished]

You can't fucking say that any act is always wrong 100% of the time! What the fuck?!

An objective morality -doesn't- say that, and neither did I, so?  Here, lets try another example.

Let;s say that the person who gets run over was an assualt rifle wiedling madman spraying bullets into the crowd, and a person intentionally ran them over.  

Is that bad, neutral, good?  What objective facts of this moral matter are at play when we give him a Heroes Parade?

And here I thought you were unable to understand the exact concept you just outlined. I already gave a rather grim but arguable example of how rape might not be harmful or at least it would outweigh the negative consequences (extinction) which you didn't seem to either acknowledge or at least didn't care to say 'rape is bad in all but some odious hypothetical scenarios' which is why I have such a hard time nailing down this 'objective' thing when there's always exceptions to the damn rule.

Here's an actual problem with your little scenario there, though. Should the driver have tried to avoid killing the gunner so as to stop him from firing but provide an opportunity for rehabilitation? Would it have been okay if the only victim that would have fallen due to this restraint were a senior citizen with no family or friends to miss him (since that means the same amount of people, namely 1, would have died)? I mean, fuck, if that's not subjective, what the fuck is? Or how would any empirical data help justify either case? Sure, in hindsight you could look at the shooter's mental health history and how likely they are to rehabilitate, but in the moment? That don't count for shit. Opinion still dominates what ultimately determines what gets written down as being the right thing, but you're not going to get a consensus (or at least only a reluctant one) even if what little contribution the objective data provides plays a role in that kind of 'woulda coulda shoulda' debate.

[The Grand Nudger]

An objective morality -doesn't- say that, and neither did I, so?  Here, lets try another example.

Let;s say that the person who gets run over was an assualt rifle wiedling madman spraying bullets into the crowd, and a person intentionally ran them over.  

Is that bad, neutral, good?  What objective facts of this moral matter are at play when we give him a Heroes Parade?

And here I thought you were unable to understand the exact concept you just outlined. I already gave a rather grim but arguable example of how rape might not be harmful or at least it would outweigh the negative consequences (extinction) which you didn't seem to either acknowledge or at least didn't care to say 'rape is bad in all but some odious hypothetical scenarios' which is why I have such a hard time nailing down this 'objective' thing when there's always exceptions to the damn rule.

I don't think that you provided a basis for rape being a moral good...only a biological necessity.  You would still be a rapist, who caused harm.  The subject of morality ois not biological necessity...and we, personally, are doing no harm in an extinction.  It would not be our fault, through simple refusal to rape...that the human race is or has gone extinct.

The situation is absurd, but still does not break or alter a harm based objective morality.  Talk about utility, eh?  

In any case, sure, even in an objective morality the compelling interest to do a bad thing can exist. Doesn't even have to be so dire as our extinction. It can be wanting something so bad that you steal it, even though you know that theft is wrong. That's something we do. We might come up with plenty of ways to excuse ourselves, or others. The moral judgement hasn't changed though..or we wouldn't need those excuses.

Here's an actual problem with your little scenario there, though. Should the driver have tried to avoid killing the gunner so as to stop him from firing but provide an opportunity for rehabilitation?

Maybe, again, why is this a problem for an objective morality?

Would it have been okay if the only victim that would have fallen due to this restraint were a senior citizen with no family or friends to miss him (since that means the same amount of people, namely 1, would have died)?

Probably, we value individual rescues as heroic acts.

I mean, fuck, if that's not subjective, what the fuck is?

You referred..in each of those cases, to objective facts of the matter.  Perhaps the question you should be asking...is what in any of it is subjective?

Or how would any empirical data help justify either case? Sure, in hindsight you could look at the shooter's mental health history and how likely they are to rehabilitate, but in the moment? That don't count for shit.

Sure, time won't always be on our side?  What's the problem?

Opinion still dominates what ultimately determines what gets written down as being the right thing, but you're not going to get a consensus (or at least only a reluctant one) even if what little contribution the objective data provides plays a role in that kind of 'woulda coulda shoulda' debate.

You keep saying that..but it's still not my opinion that makes rape bad, nor would it be any less bad if I had a different opinion of it. Yes, we all have opinions but to repeatedly say so as this were informative as to anything other than our all having opinions is puerile. So what...we all have opinions. Can opinions be based on facts, are opinions based on facts? Can moral opinions be based on moral facts?

[Mister Agenda]

[quote=Mister Agenda]

Because we can't have the subjective opinion that it's important to condemn such acts?

It essentially means nothing. If OM does not exist, then you are just expressing your preference, just like 1 person expresses their preference for blondes over brunette or NFL over golf. You are not making a statement with an intent for it to be a fact are you? So who really cares.Or are you?

If you don't care what I'll do to you if I catch you at it, that's imprudent. Do you think being raped (or shot for raping someone) is essentially nothing? That sounds like a mere assertion that doesn't stand up to casual scrutiny.

[quote=Mister Agenda]
I subjectively feel more strongly about murder preferences than food preferences.

Who cares. If OM does not exist, then who cares if you like pizza or burgers or the other way around. Thats all it really means.

I care. By definition. And enough people agree with me to make your life very problematic if you go around raping people, so you should care too, if you care about your freedom and survival.

[quote=Mister Agenda]
Yes, my subjective morality obligates me to do so.

But if OM does not exist, it cannot be wrong. Just undesirable. 

The point of that distinction being what? There are good reasons not to allow rape, but if you don't agree with those reasons, that just illustrates the subjective nature of morality. Just calling it objective doesn't fix that. And there's the question of how do you prove your version of OM is the 'right' one? And if it were 'properly basic' we could have universal agreement on the basics instead of weak general agreement. Let's face it, if we're having a moral argument and you go with 'I'm right because my moral beliefs are properly basic', it's just a wordy way of saying 'I can't back up what I'm saying'.

[quote=Mister Agenda]
Yeah, the difference between those two things, that seems to be a tough one for Christians unless they have a God commanding them not to do it...which he doesn't, btw.

?????

??

[The Grand Nudger]

The point of that distinction being what? There are good reasons not to allow rape, but if you don't agree with those reasons, that just illustrates the subjective nature of morality.

Wouldn't that, more accurately, demonstrate something about that persons subjective nature or morality?  Has anything about rape changed...for a person not agreeing with those good reasons?

[Mister Agenda]

[quote=Mister Agenda]
How did you jump from morality being subjective to it being nonexistent?

Because if something is subjective, it cannot be wrong. Just undesirable as best.

Taste in movies is subjective. If i liked a movie you dont, am i wrong for liking that movie?

Of course not, and I don't believe that you really think we do.

Personally, I believe in an objective basis for morality given an axiom like 'what promotes human health, liberty, and well-being is good and what diminishes those things is bad', but if you can't accept that axiom, we can't agree on a basis for morality. Moral reasoning involves logic, and logic is grounded in axioms. We can reach the same conclusions with different axioms, but the process of getting to those conclusions will be different, and that we'll reach the same ones is not a given.

ISIS is using a different axiom as the basis for their moral reasoning than I do. Is your axiom more like theirs or more like mine? I can accept mine as a brute fact of our nature as a reasoning social species. If you want to tack a 'because God' onto it, we can still be on the same page in our moral conclusions.

But this just begs the question. You are talking about prudence or prudential value here. Let me give an example.

If you want to be fit and healthy, then you ought to eat fruit, veges, exercise, dont smoke, drink etc etc. However is it a fact that you ought to be fit and healthy? If you are not fit and healthy have you done something wrong? No.

All you have done is begged the question or assumed the end goal ("what promotes human health, liberty, and well-being is good and what diminishes those things is bad'") and described such as acts that dont achieve these as being bad or wrong.

What, you don't think it's a 'properly basic belief'? It's not self-evident to you? Then you're not going to think my morality is actually objective are you? While I believe it's an axiom (self-evident), you think it's an opinion. And your 'properly basic belief' fares no better. 'Properly basic beliefs' and 'axioms' are the same thing. Whatever question you think I'm begging, you begged in advance.

[quote=Mister Agenda]
These things that you mentioned "what promotes human health, liberty, and well-being is good and what diminishes those things is bad' are just preferences, desires. They are not facts that humans OUGHT to achieve or do. You cannot derive an ought from an IS.

That is true. My axiom is an 'ought' in the first place, not derived from an 'is'. If you can't see that it's a 'properly basic belief' I can only despair of what kind of morality you're likely to wind up with without it.

[quote=Mister Agenda]
Also, you have made a value judgements,ie good and bad. Why are these things good or bad? Sure they maybe desirable, but how do you cross the bridge and say they are good?

If i want to maximise sufferring and eliminate the human species, have i done something bad?

You haven't done something bad in your own eyes. If you've acted on that desire, you've done something bad in my eyes. I don't have to cross the bridge, I'm already there.

Morality being subjective doesn't mean you can't make value judgments. It just acknowledges that your value judgments are subjective. Do you really believe your value judgments aren't subjective?

---

Let me ask you

If i told you me and my friends have been raping and torturing a child for fun for the past 6 months, have we been doing something wrong? Like if i say 1+1=3 wrong? LIke if i say the earth is flat wrong? or if i say the sun rotates around the earth wrong?

Or do you only find me and my friends acts distasteful or undesirable....like if we told you we have been eating a fruit you really hate?

This should give you an idea where I am coming from?

Functional empathy should tell you the difference between how raping a child is wrong and how 1+1=3 is wrong. One is a factoid, the other is an outrage. The real question is: What is wrong with you? In your scenario, you and your friends should be removed from society for the safety of children and to punish you for your crimes. If you don't agree with my moral reasoning, that's not enough to keep you and your friends out of lockup.

And no one should have to explain this to you. The idea of the scenario you suggest makes me want to see the perpetrators harshly punished. Are you trying to say if the scenario turns my feels up to 10, it makes my assessment of the morality of the situation objective?

[Amarok]

As I have said his explanation fares no better

atheist -Why are gods attributes good

Theist- Because there gods attributes

Atheist -Why should I care about gods commands

Theist - Because there based on gods nature

Atheist Why should I think gods nature is maximally great

Theist because it's gods nature

And on and on

---

As for his notion that desires are not a basis for morality . That's just dumb . Desires and goals are a primary motivator to morality to deny there role is just idiotic.

---

You cannot derive an ought from an IS.

Bullshit wanna who disagrees with you HUME

The is ought fallacy was a criticism of people like you

As Richard Carrier rightly points out

The only time he is quoted ever saying anything that sounds otherwise, he was speaking of religious moralists who don’t link the ought to an is about desire—he was not saying you can’t get an ought from an is, rather, he was saying you can, and that it is therefore a failure of those moralists that they don’t. He then goes on to explain what they should be doing to correctly derive an ought from an is