Proofs of Objective Morality

Author: logicae ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 28
  • logicae
    logicae avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 14
    0
    0
    4
    logicae avatar
    logicae
    Hey guys! *This post is not for debating for and against objective morality* Rather I would like to challenge everyone to think and search for the evidence of objective morality. The goal I think is to understand what we currently know and take for granted.

    I will start us off with what I know: 

    First and foremost is the world's tendency towards a moral law. Maybe it is harder for us to see directly, but everything we do is guided by a reasoning of "do or ought not do." It is easily seen when we say "should I", as you do when you make the decision to eat breakfast or go to work. This means we have an evaluation before we make an act. We obviously don't see these type of premeditation in animals (try keeping a hungry chicken from food for example XD), which points us to something else special for us. 

    Now we look at our actions to see where objectivity lies. To be objectively moral means to have an objective standard by which you measure things to. When you are cut in line, or are cheated, beaten etc, we always expect the person hurting us to understand the wrongness of what he did, appealing to a common standard (which is why we want him punished). This doesn't mean that we have to follow this standard, but that we both see it. We don't expect these same standards of animals (try telling a mosquito to stop sucking blood ;), but instead expect it of those around us.

    This is big, because just as we have an innate untaught sense to eat, this standard guides us beyond the likes of animals, explaining why people from all cultures and backgrounds all point to murder and atrocities such as Hitler's exterminations as objectively wrong.

    (once more I only ask for brain storming on the topic of objective morality not a debate on it ;)
    Please know it that I do not want a search from the perspective of a moral creator (though surly it leads it it), instead I ask we use our combined minds to reveal what we can know by observation.

    I would love to see more examples of how the moral law affects our lives or how we would be without morality. These two things certainly bring us to understand how the moral law exists.

    "A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true" - Socrates
    "Force always attracts men of low morality" -Albert Einstein
    "Truth is certainly a branch of morality and a very important one to society" -Thomas Jefferson

    Thank you all,
    To truth!
    -logicae 


  • PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 3,131
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect avatar
    PressF4Respect
    --> @logicae
    Are you trying to prove that ALL morals are objective, or that there just are some objective morals?
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @logicae
    First and foremost is the world's tendency towards a moral law. Maybe it is harder for us to see directly, but everything we do is guided by a reasoning of "do or ought not do." It is easily seen when we say "should I", as you do when you make the decision to eat breakfast or go to work. This means we have an evaluation before we make an act. We obviously don't see these type of premeditation in animals (try keeping a hungry chicken from food for example XD), which points us to something else special for us. 
    This is essentially begging the question.
    We abide by moral law because it looks like it.
    A is true because it seems to be true.

    No actual attempt was made to explain moral law is the case nor our standard in determining that is objective. It is basically a feels arguments. I feel that this is true therefore it is true.
    Now we look at our actions to see where objectivity lies.
    Bearing in mind no attempt was made to say there is objectivity under whatever definition or standard he uses so it is assumed to be true.
    Now we look at our actions to see where objectivity lies. To be objectively moral means to have an objective standard by which you measure things to. When you are cut in line, or are cheated, beaten etc, we always expect the person hurting us to understand the wrongness of what he did, appealing to a common standard (which is why we want him punished). This doesn't mean that we have to follow this standard, but that we both see it. We don't expect these same standards of animals (try telling a mosquito to stop sucking blood ;), but instead expect it of those around us.
    Basically objectivity exists irrespective of us. There has been no "Proofs" shown except if you call "appealing to a common standard" a proof even though objectivity is supposed to be irrespective of us. Basically we can't influence so how do we know it exists?
    This is big, because just as we have an innate untaught sense to eat, this standard guides us beyond the likes of animals,
    Animals also have innate untaught sense to eat. What you said above doesn't even make sense. If you are appealing to science I guarantee the same backing is with animal biology if we even had data on this.
    explaining why people from all cultures and backgrounds all point to murder and atrocities such as Hitler's exterminations as objectively wrong.
    "all"? That is a pretty hefty claim because white supremacists like Richard Spencer can't denounce Hitler. There is no room for anything in all so even the example you brought doesn't help your case. Link
    (once more I only ask for brain storming on the topic of objective morality not a debate on it ;)
    Literally said you have these "Proofs" but moved the goalposts to "brain storming". I see this as well I can't really find data on what I feel is right so I'll wait for it to occur. Not realize there is data directly contradicting the very things you say which should mean you actually look into your axioms/core beliefs but alas I don't think that has occurred.
    "A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true" - Socrates
    "A system of morality which is based not on happiness is stupid" - me 
    "Force always attracts men of low morality" -Albert Einstein 
    "Speaking about something you don't know about is stupid" - me
    "Truth is certainly a branch of morality and a very important one to society" -Thomas Jefferson
    "Truth is whatever we make it to be" - me

  • logicae
    logicae avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 14
    0
    0
    4
    logicae avatar
    logicae
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Hello, remember that this forum is not a debate for or against objectivity. Once more it is a discussion about the proofs for objectivity. 
    Thanks for the comment though, 

    To truth!
    -logicae

  • logicae
    logicae avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 14
    0
    0
    4
    logicae avatar
    logicae
    --> @PressF4Respect
    I will press F: F

    Anyway welcome to the forum! To answer your question this forum sets out to explore the natural law or moral law as philosphers such as Thomas Aquinas have acknowledged. 

    Thanks for the question, 
    To Truth!
    -logicae

  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @logicae
    Hello, remember that this forum is not a debate for or against objectivity. Once more it is a discussion about the proofs for objectivity. 
    Thanks for the comment though, 
    <br>
    It doesn't matter what you call it. You didn't show any proof to even meet the singular let alone plural of proofs. Only your feelings. I'll wait for you to meet the title you set out. 

  • logicae
    logicae avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 14
    0
    0
    4
    logicae avatar
    logicae
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    No hard feelings man ;), 

    To Truth!
    -logicae

  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @logicae
    It's all just a little beyond you isn't it.
    BTW this is a thread not a forum.
    Good luck, I'm sure you'll need it.
  • logicae
    logicae avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 14
    0
    0
    4
    logicae avatar
    logicae
    --> @disgusted
    Hello, hey I'm all for semantics, but a forum by definition is a place that people exchange information. I'm looking for information on Objective Morality, but it's ok if you disagree (you can still participate). If you are not interested you can look elsewhere for something to do.

    To Truth!
    -logicae
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @logicae
    So tell me about objective morality, where does it originate?
  • logicae
    logicae avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 14
    0
    0
    4
    logicae avatar
    logicae
    --> @disgusted
    Good question, 

    To answer that we need to know where objectivity comes from. 

    Here's a question: why is 2+2=4?

    To Truth!
    -logicae

  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @logicae
    So you have no answer, that's ok I already new that.
  • logicae
    logicae avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 14
    0
    0
    4
    logicae avatar
    logicae
    --> @disgusted
    Sorry you think that way, in order to find the answer you seek, at least I hope you do, you need to understand objectivity. If you are here merely blinded by a bias of some sort, then I can't help you. 

    Regardless, have a good new year!

    To Truth!
    -logicae
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    It's what you said not what I  think
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,478
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    It is basically a feels arguments. I feel that this is true therefore it is true.
    Moral intuition is an emotion.

    In the same way that freewill is an emotion.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,478
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @logicae
    ...you need to understand objectivity.
    Please explain "objectivity".

    And please avoid all forms of sample-bias and opinion.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,478
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @logicae
    Here's a question: why is 2+2=4?
    TAUTOLOGY.
  • logicae
    logicae avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 14
    0
    0
    4
    logicae avatar
    logicae
    --> @3RU7AL
    I am wondering if you are a naturalist, as many of your statements assume everything is material. 
    Beyond that I will see what I can do. Do stop me if you detect bias of opinion creeping in. 

    "Here's a question: why is 2+2=4?"
    "TAUTOLOGY."

    Perhaps you didn't see where I was going with this question. Then I ask the same for you: Why is 2+2 = 4? This is the only way you can understand what is objective or what is true regardless of opinion.

    To Truth!
    -logicae
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,478
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @logicae
    Why is 2 + 2 = 4?
    For the exact same reason a bliggablorth and a flamcromp are both types of grensvolds.

    TAUTOLOGY.

    It's true by definition.

    "2" is rigorously defined and there is a broad consensus among initiates of the occult order of "mathemajicks" that if you double it, then you get "4".

    It's simply a restatement of the definitions.  The "answer" matches the definitions.

    To anyone unfamiliar with (uninitiated) "mathemajicks" a "2" is just a nonsensical meaningless squiggle (just like bliggablorth).

    It's an astronomical leap of logic to say, 1 + 1 = 2 therefore I love you.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,478
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @logicae
    I am wondering if you are a naturalist, as many of your statements assume everything is material. 
    Mmmm, nope. [LINK]
  • logicae
    logicae avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 14
    0
    0
    4
    logicae avatar
    logicae
    --> @3RU7AL
    I apologize if the question seems trivial, because it points to an important end. 

    "It's true by definition" "2" is rigorously defined and there is a broad consensus among initiates of the occult order of "mathematics" that if you double it, then you get "4"

    Yes true, that is the way we understand it, but if I then told you that 2+2 = 5 what would you think? Would you simply say I was going against popular opinion or against reality?

    To Truth!
    -logicae
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,478
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @logicae
    Yes true, that is the way we understand it, but if I then told you that 2+2 = 5 what would you think? Would you simply say I was going against popular opinion or against reality?
    I would ask you to make your definitions (of "2" and "+" and "=" and "5") EXPLICIT.

    In the exact same way, if someone makes a vague claim (bald assertion, appeal to ignorance) like, "there is only one god", I will ask them to make their definition of "god" explicit.

    In the exact same way, if someone makes a vague claim (bald assertion, appeal to ignorance) like, "freewill is for-realzies", I will ask them to make their definitions of "freewill" and "real" explicit.

    In the exact same way, if someone makes a vague claim (bald assertion, appeal to ignorance) like, "morality is objective", I will ask them to make their definitions of "morality" and "objective" explicit.
  • logicae
    logicae avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 14
    0
    0
    4
    logicae avatar
    logicae
    --> @3RU7AL
    "I would ask you to make your definitions (of "2" and "+" and "=" and "5") EXPLICIT."

    You do not know what 2, 5, +, and = means?

    To Truth!
    -logicae

  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,478
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @logicae
    For example, perhaps 2 bligmops + 2 bligmops = 5 apples.

    Where a bligmop = 1.25 apples.
  • logicae
    logicae avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 14
    0
    0
    4
    logicae avatar
    logicae
    --> @3RU7AL
    Not so, because numbers are not associated with units like apples or variables until you do so (as you did above). This is besides the point. Notice I did not add anything extra to 2+2 = 5. Can you answer the question I asked? Otherwise I'm afraid we cannot continue. 

    To Truth!
    -logicae