Analysis of MisterChris&#39;s argument &quot;Obj morality exists&quot;

Debates: 45

Posts: 2,897

10.19.2020 03:09AM

-->

@seldiora

As can I thoroughly negate subjectivism for its weakness. Then what are we left with?

One of the big principles of philosophy is that very little can be actually known for certain. That is why the field exists as such. You may think moral objectivism is unlikely, but truly we have no idea and are just pissing in the wind.

#32

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

10.19.2020 03:22AM

-->

@MisterChris

The universal standard existing does not depend on what we interpret it to be. That's kind of the whole point of objectivity. Some accredit it as the will of a benevolent God for humanity's welfare, others say the standard exists for human self-preservation or for no end goal at all. I'm leaning towards the former but I will admit I have my doubts. This is not something I'm thoroughly convinced on. I'm simply defending the argument to prove it is viable

This is not so much a clearly defined moral axiom as the assertion that one exists in a wobbly wobbly timey wimey sort of way. That is heartwarming and all but if you cannot actually present the standard then I will have no choice but to reject the idea that it exists.

#33

Debates: 45

Posts: 2,897

10.19.2020 03:37AM

-->

@secularmerlin

you do you homie

#34

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

10.19.2020 12:56PM

-->

@MisterChris

Ok dismissed. If you ever want to discuss it seriously let me know.

Topic's author

#35

Debates: 158

Posts: 352

10.25.2020 06:21PM

-->

@MisterChris

I think the better way to phrase your arg is Roy's argument from the essential rights of mankind. That makes your argument much clearer (https://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-no-universal-moral-standard./1/)

#36

Debates: 45

Posts: 2,897

10.25.2020 06:22PM

-->

@seldiora

I'll read it, thanks for the link

Topic's author

#37

Debates: 158

Posts: 352

10.26.2020 12:59AM

Fully combined argument for anyone who wants to make MisterChris's argument:

Q1: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles, for example, concerning life, liberty, and happiness.

Q2: In the case of humans, it is because what our species believes its transcendental set of moral principles are (derived from "nature of man").

Despite different views, all of them concern similar ideas (freedom, love, etc.)

Q3: All humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously, shown within disputes that are comparable to a universal standard.

Q4: If no such standard existed, discussions would be pointless as any point of view may be dismissed immediately.

C1: Morality is objective.

13 days later

Topic's author

#38

Debates: 158

Posts: 352

11.09.2020 12:35AM

Q1: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles, for example, concerning life, liberty, and happiness.

Q2: In the case of humans, it is because what our species believes its transcendental set of moral principles are (derived from "nature of man").

Despite different views, all of them concern similar ideas (freedom, love, universal rights, etc.).

Q3: All humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously, shown within disputes that are comparable to a universal standard.

Q4: The reasoning behind this, is that humans are genetically disposed to protect one self, their family, and their cultures. The weighing of survival and suffering among different cultures, is seen throughout human history, which proves the basic ideals being backed by entirety of humanity.

Q5: If no such standard existed, discussions would be pointless as any point of view may be dismissed immediately.

C1: Morality is objective.

#39

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.09.2020 05:05PM

-->

@MisterChris

@seldiora

A. Intuition.

P1: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles.

P2: All humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously.

C1: Morality is objective.

Seldiora messed up here whenever they only objected to MisterChris's second premise though his first premise is cleverly disguised as something that seems apparent, the use of the word, well, use is what unwraps it.

Let's take a closer look at premise 1 to illustrate what I'm talking about.

If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles.

If morality is objective

Notice that the premise starts with an If, emulating the popular If x, then y, style of deductive reasoning, a conditional statement to simplify for the general public. Essentially, this is true IF and ONLY IF the next phrase can be demonstrated true.

then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles.

A couple of things, first of all, use? Why use? It is a non-sequitur to conclude that because one uses an objective moral standard that there is one. Why is this the case? Its essentially conflating what the use of a thing is and the actual objective claim of the standard. Everyone could be using the same standard and be wrong. We have seen occurrence after the occurrence of this happening throughout history.

For example; Everyone believed the earth to be flat at one point, yet does this mean that the earth is necessarily flat? Essentially this is a fancy version of an appeal to populism, and this premise leads to a syllogism which is not valid. MisterChris is presuming that use of x and x's objective correctness are the same, when in fact they are not and MisterChris does not demonstrate that they are.

This is not to say that MisterChris's second premise is true either, let's investigate it as well:

All humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously.

All humans use and appeal to this standard..

This demonstrates why we should not use intuitive arguments to present their case, as they are often flawed, or presumptuous in some regard. Saying that every single human use one standard is a massive burden, and a single example would demonstrate this premise wrong, but if we were to continue, looking at the aside..

if only subconsciously

Not only is this presumptuous, but if a human mind is what appeals to this standard, and this standard is objective because humans use it, then definitionally it can not be objective. As objective is something which is true independent of a mind.

Therefore this conclusion

Morality is objective

Is rendered bunk, neither valid nor sound, as well as heavily fallacious.

Topic's author

#40

Debates: 158

Posts: 352

11.09.2020 05:12PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Roy's argument enhances that idea by saying, humans need to exist to have human objective moral ideals. We are merely here to observe our own transcendental moral objectives. For example, Praying mantis eat their own kind after mating, making cannibalism objectively permissible within the realm of mantis objective morality. On the other hand, we have consistently valued ourselves and our own society with no exception, observing the human universal objective morality. You might be confusing "objective moral system" which does not exist, with objective right and wrong.

#41

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.09.2020 05:20PM

-->

@seldiora

You might be confusing "objective moral system" which does not exist, with objective right and wrong.

In order for there to be objective right and wrong, there must be a standard to base those on. Without one, there is no objective reason to prefer those rights and wrong. They are unproved essentially.

On the other hand, we have consistently valued ourselves and our own society with no exception, observing the human universal objective morality.

That isn't objective, that is presumptuous and fallacious, it does not matter if humans have valued the same thing forever, that does not equate to an objective moral standard. I would recommend actually parsing a claim before using it as a proposition.

humans need to exist to have human objective moral ideals.

Human objective morals - Applying objective to any species, isn't objective, its presumes an axiom where humans objectively matter, which has not been demonstrated.

We are merely here to observe our own transcendental moral objectives.

This is claim twofold - that humans exist for any particular reason, and that moral objectives are transcendental - both need to be demonstrated.

Praying mantis eat their own kind after mating, making cannibalism objectively permissible within the realm of mantis objective morality

No, this presumes that mantis's objectively matter, which has not been demonstrated.

Topic's author

#42

Debates: 158

Posts: 352

11.09.2020 05:39PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

the reasoning behind Roy's argument is that there is no demonstration necessary, because Declaration of Independence says it is "self evident" (ex. you do not need to demonstrate 1=1, or 60 seconds are one minute, and other objective truths). You'd have to prove otherwise to destroy the fundamental rights of humanity.

#43

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.09.2020 05:42PM

-->

@seldiora

I could care less what "Roy" thinks is self-evident - that is a huge claim, then what he must prove is simple shifted, why is it self evident? 60 seconds equaling one minute is by virtue of the definition of one minute, 60 seconds, the same is not true for objective morality. It is not true by its definition. You must now prove why this standard is self-evident, shifting the BoP is fallacious, as it still falls on the one who made the claim.

Topic's author

#44

Debates: 158

Posts: 352

11.09.2020 05:55PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

I see your issue. I've read through a paper about morality, and it notes the philosophies combine together. They form "a mixture of rules, attitudes, behaviours and evaluations which tendtowards universality, but do not demand it" , so does not have absolute dominance over the theory of right and wrong (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/41174293.pdf). So now the question is, does the objective morality stance require an objective agent which to enact the universal human rights, which have been founded as essential for society? I'm not 100% sure myself. I'll try to figure it out.

#45

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.09.2020 05:59PM

-->

@seldiora

Perhaps, I personally don't buy objective morality at all, as I'm sure you're aware. So I find the entire discussion kind of useless, with regards to their necessarily being an agent anyways.

Topic's author

#46

Debates: 158

Posts: 352

11.09.2020 06:06PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

also you contradicted yourself because you said even a person without feeling or motivation can still have right, merely due to personhood. This proves that being human is all it takes to get human rights https://www.debateart.com/debates/2587-a-person-without-feelings-or-motivations-cannot-have-rights

#47

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.09.2020 06:09PM

-->

@seldiora

I said legally, and I never said this was objectively the case, also notice: Human Rights, as in referring to humans, I don't think human rights are objective, but if you presume human rights as we did in that debate, we could make objective claims of who would get them.

#48

Debates: 9

Posts: 755

11.15.2020 04:06PM

I like how this is basically a reversal of the Arg. from Disagreement

#49

Debates: 9

Posts: 755

11.21.2020 11:52PM

-->

@MisterChris

P1: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles.

This may be true, but I don't think it supports your argument.

Say I'm arguing that when I kick this ball, it'll go 10 feet. I cite evidence showing that when you kick this ball, it goes at least five feet. I say "If this ball goes 10 feet, we can expect it to go at least five feet".

"This ball goes at least five five feet."

"Therefore, this ball goes 10 feet"

Both of the first two premises are true, but the final premise is a non-sequitur. I think that's a fair analogy for your argument.

#50

Debates: 9

Posts: 755

11.22.2020 05:41PM

-->

@MisterChris

What I'm getting at is that Premise 1 isn't a sufficient condition for Premise 3.

#51

Debates: 45

Posts: 2,897

11.22.2020 05:47PM

-->

@Username

That's where our views diverge then, because I would turn around and say that in order for morality to be subjective, it must follow that the same set principles are not universally appealed to. To me it seems impossible everyone would agree to the same set of principles under a subjective framework.

#52

Debates: 9

Posts: 755

11.22.2020 05:54PM

-->

@MisterChris

To me it seems impossible everyone would agree to the same set of principles under a subjective framework.

I don't think universality implies truth. If it did, and everyone believed the sun revolved around the earth, it would be true.

There's plenty of ways to understand moral universalism outside of "it's just true".

One could be that certain moral principles are necessary for societal cohesion which helps people survive or whatever. All that shows is that people want societal cohesion and survival; not necessarily that those things are objectively good.

Another explanation could be biological altruism, the existence of which is disputed. However, once again, people having a natural inclination to be nice to each other doesn't imply that kindness is an objective good.

It's important not to conflate human instinct with moral truth.

#53

MarkWebberFan

Debates: 2

Posts: 291

MarkWebberFan

11.22.2020 06:46PM

I think this is a very impressive thread. Regarding one of your premises:

Q2: In the case of humans, it is because what our species believes its transcendental set of moral principles are (derived from "nature of man").
Despite different views, all of them concern similar ideas (freedom, love, universal rights, etc.).

I'm not confident about these ideas you speak of. I find it particularly difficult to believe that these 'moral principles' would contain similar ideas. Love is expected to flourish after intimacy. Once I understand that my partner speaks out of a caring passion for my well-being, I reciprocate exactly the same amount of passion. These are similar impressions that originate from "similar ideas". But what about love stories that arise out of pity (i.e. knights rescuing damsels in distress)? I'm trying to understand how you would characterize a masochist experiencing pleasure as an impression of "happiness"?

I think a person could pervert a "similar idea" to her own vile ends (which may then cause pain to some and pleasure to others). I don't believe in the second premise.

#54

Debates: 45

Posts: 2,897

11.22.2020 06:58PM

-->

@Username

I don't think universality implies truth. If it did, and everyone believed the sun revolved around the earth, it would be true.

That is not a fair comparison. You're comparing external science with internal principle... a hypothesis of the unknowns of the solar system, to a moral code that we know and use innately.

One could be that certain moral principles are necessary for societal cohesion which helps people survive or whatever. All that shows is that people want societal cohesion and survival; not necessarily that those things are objectively good.

Ah, but isn't there being a set of principles that universally leads to societal cohesion and survival... well, universal? How is that any less objective? Does it not transcend humanity that, despite all our bickering, we agree to a certain set of moral principles for the sake of the species? Maybe it isn't metaphysical, and is rooted in our biological drive to succeed, but it's definitely objective.

#55

Debates: 9

Posts: 755

11.22.2020 07:09PM

-->

@MisterChris

That is not a fair comparison. You're comparing external science with internal principle... a hypothesis of the unknowns of the solar system, to a moral code that we know and use innately.

Why is that distinction relevant? The point is that things don't become true when everyone believes in them. If it doesn't work for external science, why should it work for internal principle?

Ah, but isn't there being a set of principles that universally leads to societal cohesion and survival... well, universal? How is that any less objective? Does it not transcend humanity that, despite all our bickering, we agree to a certain set of moral principles for the sake of the species? Maybe it isn't metaphysical, and is rooted in our biological drive to succeed, but it's definitely objective.

Okay, once again, I'm totally failing to understand how universality implies objectivity.

The problem is that you assume things are good because people want to do them, or that they're neccessary for a species. This assumption rests on several others. One of them is that it's morally good to preserve a species. Another is that the human biological drive to preserve their species or proliferate proves that it's objectively good. None of these assumptions are supported by your syllogism or can really be established as brute facts.

#56

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457