Right and Wrong has to be Absolute

Zombrex wrote: »

That is as different concept. I'm not denying that you can believe your subjective opinion that something is outrages is in fact the objective standard of the universe.

I'm saying that has no practical meaning because it is just your opinion that this is the case.

You can appeal to objective notions all I like, but all that is saying is that you feel in your opinion your notions of morality are in line with objective morality. You can't demonstrate it is in anyway meaningful fashion other than simply saying the rest of us should agree with you and if you don't you have to have a bigger stick.

As Morbet says these two situations are identical for all practical purposes.

Again I ask what problem do you believe is over come with an appeal to objective morality. Subjectively appealing to objective morality as the same outcome as subjectively appealing to subjective morality.

All that is different is that you just feel more confident in your own subjective assessment of morality.

No, that is untrue.

The difference is this - if we both believe that an objective morality exists, then we both have a vested interest in discovering what that morality is. We might disagree on it - but the door is open for us to debate and discuss with a common goal of discovering the truth.

If we don't believe that an objective morality exists, then there is no point in having such a debate or discussion, because your morality cannot by definition be better than mine, and vice versa.

Here's an illustration. We can debate about the height of the Empire State Building, and such a debate has actual meaning. The possibility exists that, in one way or another, we can discover the truth and come to agreement.

However, we cannot have a similar debate about the height of the statue of Ozymandias in Shelley's poem, because it is imaginary. You can insist it was three metres high, I can insist it is ten metres high, but the discussion is pointless because no objective reality lies behind any opinion on the subject.

This is where your obsession with having a bigger stick is profoundly depressing. Can you imagine how much more exciting life would be if you were more interested in discovering truth than you were in winning an argument?

And which Christians subjectively determine is true. And which Muslims subjectively determine isn't true.

I say it is wrong to kill babies and you that is just my opinion.

You say God says it is wrong to kill babies and I say that is just your opinion.

You don't escape subjectivity any more than I do. You just ignore it.

And you could make the exact same argument about you, JC, evolution and Creationism.

You say evolution is correct, and that is just your opinion.

JC says evolution is false, and that is just his opinion.

You pretend that there is an objective truth, but the fact that you and JC disagree automatically (by your skewed logic) renders it meaningless because of your subjectivity.

Where as your opinions are ...

My opinions are fallible, but based on a genuine desire to pursue an objective truth.

Which makes objective morality meaningless.

Shockingly bad logic. The fact that people are not yet aware of an objective truth does not thereby make the said objective truth meaningless.

You would scream blue murder if others used that poor kind of reasoning in relation to other areas of life. Before people knew that smoking caused cancer, was the objective truth about carcinogens in smoke meaningless?

Read his famous speech on slavery

http://www.biographyonline.net/polit...ce-speech.html

His tactics was to bring the reality of slavery to public attention, to shine a spot light on the suffering the individual slaves endured, to make the slaves real people in the minds of the population.

Facepalm!

The speech says, "As soon as ever I had arrived thus far in my investigation of the slave trade, I confess to you sir, so enormous so dreadful, so irremediable did its wickedness appear that my own mind was completely made up for the abolition. A trade founded in iniquity, and carried on as this was, must be abolished, let the policy be what it might,—let the consequences be what they would, I from this time determined that I would never rest till I had effected its abolition."

So, let's get this clear, Wicknight. You are seriously, with a straight face, arguing that the above quotation is not based on the principle that certain things are objectively wicked? You rather think that what Wilberforce was really saying was, "Actually chaps, slavery isn't wicked in any objective sense of the term, but an evolutionary quirk has caused me to subjectively dislike it"?

Jesus wept!

PDN wrote: »

The difference is this - if we both believe that an objective morality exists, then we both have a vested interest in discovering what that morality is. We might disagree on it - but the door is open for us to debate and discuss with a common goal of discovering the truth.

If we don't believe that an objective morality exists, then there is no point in having such a debate or discussion, because your morality cannot by definition be better than mine, and vice versa.

Once again you saying your morality is objectively better than someone else's has never convinced anyone of anything unless they agree with your moral position or you have a bigger stick.

That is exactly the same situation a moral nihilist finds himself in.

PDN wrote: »

Here's an illustration. We can debate about the height of the Empire State Building, and such a debate has actual meaning. The possibility exists that, in one way or another, we can discover the truth and come to agreement.

However, we cannot have a similar debate about the height of the statue of Ozymandias in Shelley's poem, because it is imaginary. You can insist it was three metres high, I can insist it is ten metres high, but the discussion is pointless because no objective reality lies behind any opinion on the subject.

We also cannot have the same debate about whether God exists and is the true standard of objective morality because, as Christians happily point out when it goes this fact goes in their favor, such an argument is untestable and can only be reached through subjective personal determination, not objective empiricism (1 theory of electromagnetism 40,000 religions blah blah blah).

Again you are in exactly the same position as a moral nihilist, you have to either convince someone to agree with you subjectively (which is far easier among moral nihilist than it is among two moral objectivists who both believe their conflicting ideas are 'true' in an objective sense), or you have to carry a bigger stick.

You can keep pretending otherwise but that doesn't make it so.

PDN wrote: »

And you could make the exact same argument about you, JC, evolution and Creationism.

You say evolution is correct, and that is just your opinion.

JC says evolution is false, and that is just his opinion.

And then I would say JC look at all this empirical evidence. Go away and do the same experiments and you will get the same results. Look at the same data you will get the same measurements.

Evolution is empirically verifiable. God is the source of the objective morality of the universe isn't (something Christians are perfectly happy with because it means they can never be proved wrong).

It is literally just your opinion. You read the Bible and in your opinion its true. You had events in your life happen that are in your opinion the result of God's presence and love.

This is what I keep saying, notions of objective morality that are entirely subjective are identical from a practical point of view to subjective morality.

PDN wrote: »

My opinions are fallible, but based on a genuine desire to pursue an objective truth.

I'm not disputing that, that is in fact the worrying thing about believers in objective morality, they tend to confuse their entirely subjective views with some truth of the universe which makes them far more dogged in holding on to their subjective opinions long after others would have moved on.

The point is that any conclusion you arrive at will be entirely subjective.

PDN wrote: »

Shockingly bad logic. The fact that people are not yet aware of an objective truth does not thereby make the said objective truth meaningless.

Slavery became immoral when people decided they would no longer practice slavery. Saying it was objectively moral before this means nothing. Slaves were still slaves, slavery still happened.

And I would point out just because people decide slavery is immoral doesn't mean it is objectively immoral.

Before slavery was considered immoral someone could just as easily say Slavery is objectively moral that is truth. You would no say that they are wrong, but that is just your opinion. They would say you are wrong, that is just their opinion.

In reality you have absolutely no idea if slavery is moral is or isn't the actual objective moral truth of the universe, and you never will. Such a concept is unmeasurable. It isn't like the hight of the Empire State building, it isn't like the decay rate of an atom.

All that happens is people come up with subjective opinions (slavery is moral, slavery is immoral) and tend, as is human nature, to believe that their subjective opinions are the objective truth of the universe.

PDN wrote: »

You would scream blue murder if others used that poor kind of reasoning in relation to other areas of life. Before people knew that smoking caused cancer, was the objective truth about carcinogens in smoke meaningless?

But you don't know that slavery is immoral is the objective truth of the universe. You didn't determine that PDN. People just decided that they used to think A and now they think B. They decided that because the world got smaller through human communication (including the work of Wilberforce), and the suffering of slaves got more personal.

Wilberforce didn't do a test that showed that we were all understanding the objective truth of the universe wrong. He didn't take a more accurate measurement of the objective standard.

All the people who before Wilberforce (and after) who thought that slavery is objectively moral were as "right" as they always had been (as in they have no idea either if it actually was objectively right or not).

Which is what I mean by meaningless.

The only way you can convince someone it is objectively wrong is to convince them it is subjectively wrong and hope the person is as arrogant as most believers in objectively morality so that he/she will think their subjective notions of morality actually reflect the objective notions of the universe.

PDN wrote: »

The speech says, "As soon as ever I had arrived thus far in my investigation of the slave trade, I confess to you sir, so enormous so dreadful, so irremediable did its wickedness appear that my own mind was completely made up for the abolition. A trade founded in iniquity, and carried on as this was, must be abolished, let the policy be what it might,—let the consequences be what they would, I from this time determined that I would never rest till I had effected its abolition."

So, let's get this clear, Wicknight. You are seriously, with a straight face, arguing that the above quotation is not based on the principle that certain things are objectively wicked?

No I'm not, as you are well aware PDN.

I've no issue with Wilberforce, being religious, being an objectivist. Please stop straw manning me because you have run out of coherent argument over the practical difference between objective and subjective morality.

Can you point out where Wilberforce demonstrated that these people were reading or understanding the objective standard wrong? Can you point out where he gave a more accurate experiment to determine the correct value of objective morality?

Of course he didn't do any of those things because the objective standard of reality is unknowable. There is nothing to measure, there is nothing to test.

He convinced people that slavery is wrong not by any of this but by bringing the plight of slaves close to home, putting their suffering in the persons living room. He made a subjective appeal, he just like most religious people believed his subjective opinion on the matter was the objectively "right" one.

PDN wrote: »

You rather think that what Wilberforce was really saying was, "Actually chaps, slavery isn't wicked in any objective sense of the term, but an evolutionary quirk has caused me to subjectively dislike it"?

Again I'm not arguing Wiliberforce wasn't an objectivist. I'm saying it wouldn't have mattered he didn't convince people of the immorality of slavery by pointing out some flaw in how they were reading the objectivity moral truth of the universe.

A moral nihilist version of Wiliberforce would have made the same argument (bringing the suffering closer to the people he is speaking to, making it related to them, increasing empathy with the slaves) and had the same effect.

People feel greater empathy to people they feel familiarity with and when they understand their suffering. They don't change their moral opinions when someone just says Well clearly the objective moral standard says B not A. People just ignore that and dismiss the person as following a mistaken notion of the truth (ie just about every religious war or disagreement in history).

You keep going on about how terrible it would be in a world of moral nihilists but you seem to really struggle explain what exactly the practical differences would be.

Or to put it another way, what do you think Morbet have done differently to Wilberforce if he wanted to convince people to stop supporting the slave trade?

Zombrex wrote: »

A moral nihilist version of Wiliberforce would have made the same argument (bringing the suffering closer to the people he is speaking to, making it related to them, increasing empathy with the slaves) and had the same effect.

That would actually be a moral relativist version of Wilberforce.
Why would a nihilist be concerned with the suffering of slaves, unless he was one?

recedite wrote: »

That would actually be a moral relativist version of Wilberforce.
Why would a nihilist be concerned with the suffering of slaves, unless he was one?

Moral nihilism is not selfishness or self-centeredness.

The moral nihilist version of Wilberforce would have been concerned with the suffering of slaves for the same reason the Christian version of Wilderforce was, an evolved sense of empathy and concern for suffering of others.

Moral nihilism is a philosophical position over what morality is, not a moral position in of itself.

Zombrex wrote: »

an evolved sense of empathy and concern for suffering of others.

I would call that an intuitive sense of morality. I thought the position of the nihilist is that there is no morality?

ISAW wrote: »

So you are not a relativist in anything other than morality?
Is that absolutely true?

I'm a relativist on anything that is purely a product of human opinion, morality, what flavor of ice cream is best, is Jim Carey funny, what is the best way to propose to your wife.

There are no objectively right or wrong answers to those questions.

I do believe the true spin of a Hydrogen atom does have an objectively right and wrong answer.

You know all this, allah knows I've explained it to you enough freaking times.

Morbert wrote: »

Moral nihilists can debate moral principles and enact change in other moral nihlists. We adopt, on an operational level, platonic moral rules and frameworks that express fairness and compassion, and we can engage in discourse because the majority of people value acts of fairness and compassion. Moral nihilists establish moral "theorems" the same way mathematicians develop mathematical theorems. The statement "Murder is wrong.", like the statement "2 + 2 = 4", requires unphysical premises to be adopted, and we show that moral principles necessarily follow from other moral principles. A pro-life moral nihilist, for example, would argue that you must be opposed to abortion if you are opposed to killing innocent children. This is, in fact, how most people argue in favour of their morality. Slavery was abolished not because some objective anti-slavery rule was "discovered", but because people argued that slaves were people like us, and it was not fair to force people to suffer a life of slavery.

It is, of course, possible to contrive scenarios where no discourse is possible. I cannot have a meaningful discussion with a sociopath, for example, because they do not value fairness and compassion. And I can contrive scenarios where moral absolutists cannot have a meaningful discussion (If one holds an irrational conviction, for example). But I still maintain that the difference between moral nihilists and moral absolutists are largely academic, and that debate about moral principles is in no way hindered by moral nihilism.

Excellent post.

I wonder how many people here would happily torture babies if it turned out that the objective moral standard of the universe actually said that was morally ok?

I suspect a far more likely outcome would be that people would simple refuse to accept that this was actually the objective moral standard of the universe.

(This is similar to the question if God told you to go out and rape your daughter would you do it or would you simply refuse to believe that it was God actually telling you to do that because God wouldn't do that).

Robin a few months back had a great paper about how humans ultimately just pick external moral frameworks that match their already held and established moral view points.

recedite wrote: »

Well, I can't see empathy being compatible with moral nihilism. The above quote seems to be comparing moral relativism with moral absolutism.
Why would a moral nihilist feel disgust at torture, if not because he felt it was immoral? IMO the nihilist would only oppose torture if, by being seen to oppose torture, he could advance his own plans.

Again that is not what moral nihilism means.

You are confusing nihilism with selfishness or self-centredness. That is not what nihilism means.

recedite wrote: »

Then I repeat the question; Why would a moral nihilist feel disgust at torture, if not because he felt it was immoral?

He does feel it is immoral.

He just doesn't think that has wider mean beyond him feeling it is immoral. What a nihilist wouldn't say is that Torture is immoral is a true statement. He wouldn't say it is a false statement either. Such ideas have no meaning independent of how the person themselves is feeling.

Moral nihilism is about the nature of morality, not about what you feel about certain moral questions.

recedite wrote: »

Then I repeat the question; Why would a moral nihilist feel disgust at torture, if not because he felt it was immoral?

I think a way of looking at it is, like Wicknight says, that moral nihilism is a comment on the nature of morality.

So as far as I can gather a moral nihilist stance could one that says 'a moral is an expression of an opinion or emotion in relation to an action or view' where as a moral realist stance could be one that says 'a moral is a description of the nature of an action or view"... {something tells me that might not make perfect sense but I'll press on regardless}.

So if a moral nihilist says "torture is wrong", what they believe they are saying is, "Ewww torture, that's a horrible oul racket" where as if a moral realist says "torture is wrong", what they believe they are saying is, "torture inherently possesses the attribute of wrongness"...

recedite wrote: »

Then I repeat the question; Why would a moral nihilist feel disgust at torture, if not because he felt it was immoral?

Or do you mean 'why does a[......]'?

Well there is a reasonable argument to be made that we have evolved to be disgusted by seeing other humans suffer. For what I would have thought were fairly obvious reasons...


[Disclaimer: Like I said earlier in the thread I have a bit of a problem getting my head around all this philosophy of morality stuff {and the stuff I can get a firm grasp on I have trouble verbalising} so take anything I say with a pinch of salt as nothing more than my fleeting and malleable current understanding of things.]

clever pretense but lacks detail or sufficient proof...

recedite wrote: »

I think the concept of comedy or funniness must exist, for something to be described as funny.

Then you aren't a nihilist

I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, I'm just pointing out that nihilism has nothing to do with selfishness or self-centeredness.

It is a philosophical position about the nature of human notions like morality, humour, love, beauty.

recedite wrote: »

What you are saying though, is that is OK for different people to respond to comedy in different ways. You don't have to laugh if you don't find it funny.
In the same way, if someone enjoys torturing others, is that is a valid response to morality? Is that their right?

There is nothing about moral nihilism that says it is or it isn't. Again moral nihilism isn't a moral position, it is a statement about what morality is in the first place.

To answer the question though, no I wouldn't say it is their right and I would attempt to stop them if they were torturing another.

There is nothing in moral nihilism or moral relativism that says you have to respect the moral positions of others. If someone is doing something you disagree with or do not want to happen you can either try and convince them to stop or you can force them to stop.