Ben Shapiro vs Neil deGrasse Tyson: The WAR Over Transgender Issues

[The Grand Nudger]

Is killing immoral because it causes harm? Certainly not...still metaethically objective. Just wrong.

[Sheldon]

Is killing immoral because it causes harm?  Certainly not...still metaethically objective.  Just wrong.

Why is it objectively wrong to kill someone?

[Sheldon]

Yes, the earth is not flat, is not just a subjective opinion, as it rests on an amount of objectively verifiable evidence, that would make denial of it unreasonable. I tend to think of objectivity as a scale, the more objective the evidence, and the more objective evidence we have the more reliable the conclusions it supports. 

Excellent.  It's those types of assertions which metaethical objectivists would refer to as "valid" moral assertions.  They accurately report the thing they purport to report.  

Great give me an example of a moral assertion that doesn't rest on a subjective opinion and we're done. 

It's an objectivist moral assertion because it purports to report a fact of the matter of homosexual sex.

"Homosexual sex is bad because it spreads stds."

It is not objectively true that it is immoral, this is subjective opinion. The statement contains an inaccurate but partial truth, then makes a subjective claim it is bad, it's the second part you would need to demonstrate is objectively true, without resorting to a subjective opinion. 
If we agree with the subjective claim that result X is immoral,  then we can make an objectively true claim that actions that cause X are immoral, but ultimately they still rest on a subjective opinion. 

2. Homosexual sex is bad because it erodes the traditional family.
2. I am dubious this is true, as it seems like a slippery slope fallacy to me. 

It's objectively true but not an objectivist objection.   It is the claim that homosexual sex is bad because of some fact about our relativist norms, rather than homosexual sex.

Again even were it true that behaviour X erodes the traditional family, I don't see it is objectively true that eroding the traditional family is immoral, rather this is a subjective claim, as will be the claims that support why anyone thinks this I suspect. 

Another objectively true statement but not an objectivist objection.  It is the claim that homosexual sex is bad because some subject..god in this case, is against it.

It is only objectively true if you can objectively demonstrate a deity exists and thinks this, but even then, the assertion it is immoral would be a subjective one, even from a deity, why would it be otherwise?

4. By this rationale garden peas would be immoral for me. 

Correct...or, that immoral was garden peas. Where's the clownface emoji?

That a person finds behaviour X immoral because it is repulsive, might be true, but it does not follow that behaviour X is objectively immoral. 

So if for example, we agreed that causing unnecessary harm was immoral, we could then of course make objective claims, for example: kicking someone without any reason causes harm, ipso facto it is immoral, but it rests on a subjective moral assertion. If one asks why something is immoral, it ultimately rests on a subjective assertion.

[Sheldon]

I can support the objectivity of my assessment about harm with a corpse.

Now can you demonstrate that it is objectively true, that harming someone or something is immoral? All one need do is ask why something is immoral, and we end in a subjective assertion.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Is killing immoral because it causes harm?  Certainly not...still metaethically objective.  Just wrong.

So show it, rather than simply claim it. If killing is wrong, are sharks going to Hell?

[Sheldon]

Is killing immoral because it causes harm?  Certainly not...still metaethically objective.  Just wrong.

So show it, rather than simply claim it. If killing is wrong, are sharks going to Hell?

Well we could give as much latitude as possible here, and offer the lowest hanging fruit possible. As much as I enjoy these discussions, lets move it along. 

Can anyone demonstrate that it is objectively true: that it is immoral to torture babies for fun? 

I will start by again reiterating that I think it would be immoral, but that this is ultimately based on subjective opinion.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There's a point to my question and I'd like to hear him answer it.

[Ferrocyanide]

I think your definition doesn't work either. 

It's the dictionary's definition, not mine. I don't compile those, they reflect current common usage. 

 I didn't see anything circular reasoning in it or any begging but you said principles, which is unclear.

You assumed your conclusion in your opening premise.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I was talking about the dictionary definition. It doesn't have circular reasoning or begging, which is good. The problem is that it is vague.

Indeed, but what would you hope to achieve, you did this already with morality, when I claimed that the assertion that causing harm is immoral, is a subjective one, and you responded by saying "not "If you define (redefine in fact) morality as = causing harm is immoral." it fails because it isn't the definition,  which one can find in any dictionary, and that reflects common usage, and because it created the circular reasoning I pointed out.

Well, we can always work on the definition. How about this one?
immoral = an action that causes harm to a human.

Not really, one cannot arbitrarily redefine words, this is just sophistry. I might as easily claim morality means subjective, what would I gain from such a nonsensical claim?

I think the definition of the word morality makes it unclear and it gives the impression that morality is completely subjective. I think that morality is at least partially objective since it derives from reality.

I agree it is immoral, but this must ultimately rest on a subjective opinion, not an objective one, but please explain why you think this without ultimately resorting to a subjective opinion. I have tried and cannot, perhaps you can. I must say I am dubious.

I already explained it but I will be happy to explain it again in the hopes that it becomes clear:
All humans have pain sensors. It is an objective fact. If you punch a person in the face, a signal is generated and it reaches the brain and the human feels pain. Are we an agreement that so far, all this is objective fact?
Pretty much all humans don’t like that. They will all want to have a rule that says “don’t punch people in the face because it causes pain” <===is this rule subjective?

I disagree, in this instance it is my subjective opinion that punching someone would not be immoral, as it would stop a greater harm, demonstrating that punching someone is not objectively immoral by the way, but relative to a complex set of consequences.

That’s what I said, it is a case that is subjective since you want to punch someone for X reason. The X reason being that you saw an immoral action taking place and you wanted to somehow stop it.
There is no guidebook, no program that tells you what you must perform specifically to stop a rape in your particular scenario. It was entirely up to your abilities and circumstances. Out of many possibilities, for some reason, you chose punch in the face.

The rape part was objectively immoral. Person X had activated pain sensors in person Y. His goal was not for preventing an immoral action.

I don't see what your glass analogy is for, but best decision would depend on your subjective moral worldview, and mine involves not causing unnecessary harm, and where possible preventing it, thus I consider punching someone immoral, but not objectively so, as the example explains.

The glass analogy? A person takes an action that causes damage to the piece of glass with the goal of reducing the overall damage to the glass. How he should do that is subjective.
It is similar to your rape case. A damage is occurring to person X. You make a decision to somehow stop it damage from progressing further by doing some damage.

Another example would be, a person is infected at the fingertip by some agent. We can cut off the finger or arm to save him. Where to cut is something that is subjective.

[Angrboda]

This is a lot like people who say that the extinction of humans would be bad. Or that the reverse, that humans flourishing would be good. While the number of humans may increase or decrease, and that can be determined objectively, whether either is good or bad cannot be determined objectively. But for some people, it is a base assumption that humans are good. Thus any measures which objectively increase or decrease the prosperity of humans inherits the value judgment, and its vector, from this subjective assessment. Thus they derive that human extinction is bad and that global warming is bad, refusing to ever consider whether or not the basis of such claims is sound. This type of blindness is not particularly uncommon. I'm sure I have a similar blindness regarding some things. But blindness it is, nonetheless.

One might even build a bridge between the two. "Losing a finger is bad because it's harm -- it objectively diminishes me." But why is diminishing you necessarily bad? Where did that axiom come from. If I diminished all humans by killing them, that would certainly be bad in the eyes of said humans, but the cows and chickens might rejoice. One can ask the perennial question, Cui bono? If it is a question of who loses and who gains, then it is going to be inherently subjective. Objective reality cares not whether I do or do not lose a finger, whether I do or do not lose a life, whether the world does or does not lose a species.

I suspect that any value judgment, that something is either good or bad is inherently subjective. I think I've talked to Nudger about such before. He just changes the subject or evades any question posed. I suspect this is an artifact of a desire to prove oneself right, over and above a desire to know what's true, but that is mere speculative psychologizing, so I will not assert it as necessarily the case.

[Ferrocyanide]

Is killing immoral because it causes harm?  Certainly not...still metaethically objective.  Just wrong.

Why is it objectively wrong to kill someone?

It causes pain, it causes harm.

This is how the human body functions. It goes for other animals as well, as long as they have a brain and nervous system.
Humans are emotional machines. The same goes for other animals as well.


When you cut yourself or something infects you or an animal bites you, you sense pain.
This probably has served the purpose of helping the animal survive.

Our morality is layered on the above fact.
If we had no such emotions, then we would not have rules such as "don't kill your fellow man", "don't punch your fellow man", etc.

You would have no desire to survive.