Veganism

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm saying that there's no agreement.

You're wrong about that.  Just wildly wrong.  Objectively speaking. That may not certify that moral realism is true - fundamental intersubjectivity is a strong possibility....but, like any number of failed (attempted-alleged-purported) assertions of fact....it's just plain wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

The only cat-truth that I know is that those little four-legged sociopaths don't do morality. Give a cat a moral quandary and it'll provide you with a culinary solution. It's a fascinating glimpse into the reality that human morality arises from the fact that we're a social animal. Cats (and dogs) have completely different social structures.

They do, actually, specifically in the subjective/relative critical sense.  They're not actually legit pyschos doing whatever strikes their fancy.  They have a predictably mammalian social order that might otherwise be known as a cat morality...and their structures are not so far removed from our own, which is probably a part of why they make suitable domesticates for us. All three of us are capable of considering some of the things that we, as humans, are capable of contemplating. A hard line has to be placed between descriptive and metaethical tenses when we consider this relationship ofc. Cats, imo, aren't even capable of knowing better - of that sort of consideration or granularity. That's one difference that answers the opq, isnt it? We're both remarkably kind to to our progeny, despite their being edible. We're all kin selectors.

So when a cat tortures some poor mole, eats the asshole first...slowly...I don't think it's because the cat is specifically cruel....but if a person did the same...I'd have questions....

The point, though, is that a cat truth, like a moral truth, would be true by any other name. It is true or false for the same reasons that any other truth assertion is true or false. We may have suspiscions about moral truths...and they may be justified...but if so, we have equally justified suspicions about any other truth statement. Up to and including whether 1 and 1 make 2.

[Paleophyte]

I'm saying that there's no agreement.

You're wrong about that.  Just wildly wrong.  Objectively speaking.  That may not certify that moral realism is true - fundamental intersubjectivity is a strong possibility....but, like any number of failed (attempted-alleged-purported) assertions of fact....it's just plain wrong.

OK, then how do you explain the fact that for any given moral precept, some humans will say that it's right and others will say that it's wrong. That doesn't sound like agreement to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

How do you explain that some people will tell you the sum of 1 and 1 is 4? This is just academic, though. I don't think you or I would point to killing and eating other animals as our best behavior? It's a thing we do, yes, but not the best, or kindest, or most well considered thing we do.....right?

-and again, moral agreement is a thing - we do not actually disagree on moral principles as much as our moral practice might suggest. If moral agreement is the thing that would certify moral objectivity we have it as a matter of incontrovertible fact. It's real. It's demonstrable. Even in practical disagreement -even in actual error. That is often what we disagree over. The application of a shared moral principle. As in, two parties agree we should protect children, and violently disagree about what that protection looks like?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm saying that there's no agreement.

You're wrong about that.  Just wildly wrong.  Objectively speaking.  That may not certify that moral realism is true - fundamental intersubjectivity is a strong possibility....but, like any number of failed (attempted-alleged-purported) assertions of fact....it's just plain wrong.

I disagree. Other cultures see or saw slavery as moral; many haven't or didn't. Other cultures saw cannibalism as ritualistic attempts to gain the strengths of one's enemies and thus moral; others have always seen it as immoral. Some cultures have seen military expansionism as not only justified but as a morally-supported by this or that existential or religious dicta; others abjure it.

It's true that there is plenty of agreement, but it's also true that there is plenty of disagreement, both culturally and individually. I don't think that subtracts from the broader point, that if there is indeed an objective standard for morality, we humans have a real hard time actually finding it and convincing others of it.

I agree that agreement or disagreement makes no comment on the truth any morality put forth.

[Disagreeable]

It is a false analogy. In your archery analogy, the target exists in physical space. Both the archer and the spectators can see it, touch it, and agree on where the bullseye is located. In morality, there is no "visible" target.

This just begs the question.

Unlike a physical object, we cannot point to a "Moral Fact" in the natural world.

I can point to someone being tortured.

When an archer misses, they know they missed because the arrow is in the dirt. When societies disagree on morality (e.g., the ethics of euthanasia or wealth distribution), there is often no consensus on who "missed" and who "hit."

The fact that people disagree doesn't mean that people can't get it right sometimes.

If morality were as objective as target practice, we would expect to see a convergence of belief over time as "skill" increases.

It can be argued that we do see that. Women's rights, gay rights, the abolition of slavery.

So, moral "progress" is actually just moral change—a shift in cultural sensibilities rather than a closer approximation of a pre-existing truth.

That's your assumption.

[Disagreeable]

No, I'm not. Please stop making things up and saying that I'm saying them. Those strawmen have got no brains.

You did say that moral agreement is just what's fashionable, for instance.

I can't be bothered going and digging up all the quotes of you saying the things I said that you said. I'm not strawmanning you. But you *are* begging the question a lot.

I'm saying that there's no agreement. Historically, spatially, and culturally, people have believed that wildly different things were moral. Just like the drunken archer, whose scatter of arrows are not in agreement.

Obviously sometimes people agree on morality. So there is some agreement. You're just discounting it and saying "That doesn't count." What is the actual argument for any apparent agreement not being real agreement? Why is it just what's fashionable?

[Disagreeable]

So what you're saying is that there are moral truths, but our species just can't seem to figure out what they are? Sounds sus. How do you know?

Ironic of you to say I strawmanned you and now you misrepresent what I said.

I didn't say that we can't ever figure out what the moral truths are. I said that that isn't required for there to be moral truths.

If people don't/can't do moral, then it doesn't matter, does it? You might as well be talking about walking at right angles to reality for all that's worth.

It's not what I said.

[Disagreeable]

I'm saying that there's no agreement.

You're wrong about that.  Just wildly wrong.  Objectively speaking.  

Indeed.

You're wrong about that.  Just wildly wrong.  Objectively speaking.  That may not certify that moral realism is true - fundamental intersubjectivity is a strong possibility....but, like any number of failed (attempted-alleged-purported) assertions of fact....it's just plain wrong.

OK, then how do you explain the fact that for any given moral precept, some humans will say that it's right and others will say that it's wrong. That doesn't sound like agreement to me.

If two people both think that rape is wrong then that's agreement right there. Obviously there is some agreement. But you have said before that all we have is what's fashionable. So you're just discounting the agreement, but you haven't actually given an argument, you've just begged the question.

It's true that there is plenty of agreement

So there is agreement, then. So it makes no sense for anybody to keep pretending like there is only disagreement and no agreement. And if the agreement somehow doesn't count: why not?

[Thumpalumpacus]

So there is agreement, then. So it makes no sense for anybody to keep pretending like there is only disagreement and no agreement. And if the agreement somehow doesn't count: why not?

Because ad populum argumentation, on either side, is fallacious. In essence, argumentum ad populum is an appeal to subjectivity, which rather undermines any argument that morality is objective. One hundred people can be just as wrong as one person, and that cuts both ways.

If morality is objective, it needs to be shown how it exists outside human experience -- because human experience is inherently subjective.