Objective morality is independent of opinion....or is it?

[jakswan]

If you mean then the actual content of the values (i.e. is X wrong) rather than the question of whether morality is objective then I’m not clear what form you think a proof of this would look like either? I’ve already talked about how someone who believed in OM might have a method for discovering it dependent on their view of OM, but I really don’t know what you are asking for when you say ‘prove’ here. “What is it that would satisfy you that it was proved in relation to questions of this nature?

There are two things, (1) morality (2) moral vales. If I base my morality on an axiom 'do least harm to humans' then there are objective values based on the axiom, so torturing children does more harm to humans therefore based on the axiom it would be objectively wrong.

Which is why when we have a debate over morality the axiom is assumed.

[Alien]

"Your position is (a) but you could be wrong, since its independent of your opinion." No. I could be wrong, because I am fallible. I don't think I am in this case though.

I'm not following shouldn't that read.

'you could be wrong'
'no yes'
'I could be wrong'

No.

[Dryghtons Toe]

If you mean then the actual content of the values (i.e. is X wrong) rather than the question of whether morality is objective then I’m not clear what form you think a proof of this would look like either? I’ve already talked about how someone who believed in OM might have a method for discovering it dependent on their view of OM, but I really don’t know what you are asking for when you say ‘prove’ here. “What is it that would satisfy you that it was proved in relation to questions of this nature?

There are two things, (1) morality (2) moral vales. If I base my morality on an axiom 'do least harm to humans' then there are objective values based on the axiom, so torturing children does more harm to humans therefore based on the axiom it would be objectively wrong.

Which is why when we have a debate over morality the axiom is assumed.

don't see how this answers the question...you've given a statement of how you think morality works...although anything derived from a relative axiom is not objective and its misleading to suggest it is..but that's another matter.

The question I wanted clarity on is what kind of proof are you asking for when you asked Alan to prove OM? What would a proof that satisfies you look like?

[jeremyp]

although anything derived from a relative axiom is not objective and its misleading to suggest it is..but that's another matter.

Incorrect.  Time is relative (lunchtime doubly so) but we have no trouble measuring it objectively.

[jakswan]

"Your position is (a) but you could be wrong, since its independent of your opinion." No. I could be wrong, because I am fallible. I don't think I am in this case though.

I'm not following shouldn't that read.

'you could be wrong'
'no yes'
'I could be wrong'

No.

Care to explain?

[Alien]

"Your position is (a) but you could be wrong, since its independent of your opinion." No. I could be wrong, because I am fallible. I don't think I am in this case though.

I'm not following shouldn't that read.

'you could be wrong'
'no yes'
'I could be wrong'

No.

Care to explain?

I could be wrong since I am fallible. You said my position was that I could be wrong since it's independent of my opinion. Those are different positions. So it was a "No" rather than a "Yes."

[jakswan]

don't see how this answers the question...you've given a statement of how you think morality works...although anything derived from a relative axiom is not objective and its misleading to suggest it is..but that's another matter.

Ok lets just park that for now.

The question I wanted clarity on is what kind of proof are you asking for when you asked Alan to prove OM? What would a proof that satisfies you look like?

I have no idea that is why I can't wait to hear what Al has to offer. I assume it will be method the demonstrates 'action X is morally wrong' independent of anyone's opinion.

[jakswan]

"Your position is (a) but you could be wrong, since its independent of your opinion." No. I could be wrong, because I am fallible. I don't think I am in this case though.

I'm not following shouldn't that read.

'you could be wrong'
'no yes'
'I could be wrong'

No.

Care to explain?

I could be wrong since I am fallible. You said my position was that I could be wrong since it's independent of my opinion. Those are different positions. So it was a "No" rather than a "Yes."

So could you be wrong about liking marmite?

[Alien]

"Your position is (a) but you could be wrong, since its independent of your opinion." No. I could be wrong, because I am fallible. I don't think I am in this case though.

I'm not following shouldn't that read.

'you could be wrong'
'no yes'
'I could be wrong'

No.

Care to explain?

I could be wrong since I am fallible. You said my position was that I could be wrong since it's independent of my opinion. Those are different positions. So it was a "No" rather than a "Yes."

So could you be wrong about liking marmite?

No, I definitely do not like marmite.

[Dryghtons Toe]

although anything derived from a relative axiom is not objective and its misleading to suggest it is..but that's another matter.

Incorrect.  Time is relative (lunchtime doubly so) but we have no trouble measuring it objectively.

Throughout this thread it’s been quite consistent for OM to refer to the view that moral truths are factual statements that exist independently of what anyone’s opinion is about their truth. A moral statement derived from an axiomatic opinion is not objective in this sense. It’s because of this need for clarity over the various ways we can use the term ‘objective’ that philosophers more often use the term moral realism now days.

The question remains the same though if it was rephrased in terms of moral facts,,,, how would you propose Alan prove that a particular moral statement is a moral fact as Jakswan asked him to do? What form of answer would you want to see that you would meet your requirement for ‘proof’?

[jeremyp]

Throughout this thread it’s been quite consistent for OM to refer to the view that moral truths are factual statements that exist independently of what anyone’s opinion is about their truth. A moral statement derived from an axiomatic opinion is not objective in this sense.

In what way can an opinion by axiomatic?

[Dryghtons Toe]

Throughout this thread it’s been quite consistent for OM to refer to the view that moral truths are factual statements that exist independently of what anyone’s opinion is about their truth. A moral statement derived from an axiomatic opinion is not objective in this sense.

In what way can an opinion by axiomatic?

Jakeswan gives the example of minimising human suffering as a basic principle of his belief. Despite his acceptance of this as a foundational axiom for his morality There are many who do not accept this form of negative Utilitarianism as in any way adequate for guiding moral action.

[jakswan]

There are many who do not accept this form of negative Utilitarianism as in any way adequate for guiding moral action.

Drit, like whom?

[Dryghtons Toe]

Well I think you could pretty much pick any name in modern moral philosophy because I'm not sure i can name anyone who does endorse negative utilitarianism..

Want a name? Alisdair McIntyre was voted the philosophers philosopher and as a leading moral philosopher im sure he'll do as an example. Robert Nozick is another...Thomas Nagel....

[jakswan]

Well I think you could pretty much pick any name in modern moral philosophy because I'm not sure i can name anyone who does endorse negative utilitarianism..

Want a name? Alisdair McIntyre was voted the philosophers philosopher and as a leading moral philosopher im sure he'll do as an example. Robert Nozick is another...Thomas Nagel....

So basing morals on doing least harm / causing most happiness is negative utilitarianism?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well I think you could pretty much pick any name in modern moral philosophy because I'm not sure i can name anyone who does endorse negative utilitarianism..

Want a name? Alisdair McIntyre was voted the philosophers philosopher and as a leading moral philosopher im sure he'll do as an example. Robert Nozick is another...Thomas Nagel....

So basing morals on doing least harm / causing most happiness is negative utilitarianism?

I would have thought that the presence of the psycho and sociopath would have put paid to the greatest happiness angle.

[jakswan]

Well I think you could pretty much pick any name in modern moral philosophy because I'm not sure i can name anyone who does endorse negative utilitarianism..

Want a name? Alisdair McIntyre was voted the philosophers philosopher and as a leading moral philosopher im sure he'll do as an example. Robert Nozick is another...Thomas Nagel....

So basing morals on doing least harm / causing most happiness is negative utilitarianism?

I would have thought that the presence of the psycho and sociopath would have put paid to the greatest happiness angle.

I'm neither of those thanks.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well I think you could pretty much pick any name in modern moral philosophy because I'm not sure i can name anyone who does endorse negative utilitarianism..

Want a name? Alisdair McIntyre was voted the philosophers philosopher and as a leading moral philosopher im sure he'll do as an example. Robert Nozick is another...Thomas Nagel....

So basing morals on doing least harm / causing most happiness is negative utilitarianism?

I would have thought that the presence of the psycho and sociopath would have put paid to the greatest happiness angle.

I'm neither of those thanks.

But isn't that exactly what you would say if you were one?

[Dryghtons Toe]

Well I think you could pretty much pick any name in modern moral philosophy because I'm not sure i can name anyone who does endorse negative utilitarianism..

Want a name? Alisdair McIntyre was voted the philosophers philosopher and as a leading moral philosopher im sure he'll do as an example. Robert Nozick is another...Thomas Nagel....

So basing morals on doing least harm / causing most happiness is negative utilitarianism?

Yes

[Leonard James]

Well I think you could pretty much pick any name in modern moral philosophy because I'm not sure i can name anyone who does endorse negative utilitarianism..

Want a name? Alisdair McIntyre was voted the philosophers philosopher and as a leading moral philosopher im sure he'll do as an example. Robert Nozick is another...Thomas Nagel....

So basing morals on doing least harm / causing most happiness is negative utilitarianism?

Yes

Wow! Then I'm a negative utilitarianist! We learn something every day. 

[Dryghtons Toe]

Well I think you could pretty much pick any name in modern moral philosophy because I'm not sure i can name anyone who does endorse negative utilitarianism..

Want a name? Alisdair McIntyre was voted the philosophers philosopher and as a leading moral philosopher im sure he'll do as an example. Robert Nozick is another...Thomas Nagel....

So basing morals on doing least harm / causing most happiness is negative utilitarianism?

Yes

Wow! Then I'm a negative utilitarianist! We learn something every day. 

Every days a school day

[jakswan]

Well I think you could pretty much pick any name in modern moral philosophy because I'm not sure i can name anyone who does endorse negative utilitarianism..

Want a name? Alisdair McIntyre was voted the philosophers philosopher and as a leading moral philosopher im sure he'll do as an example. Robert Nozick is another...Thomas Nagel....

So basing morals on doing least harm / causing most happiness is negative utilitarianism?

Yes

I don't think so.

[Dryghtons Toe]

don't see how this answers the question...you've given a statement of how you think morality works...although anything derived from a relative axiom is not objective and its misleading to suggest it is..but that's another matter.

Ok lets just park that for now.

The question I wanted clarity on is what kind of proof are you asking for when you asked Alan to prove OM? What would a proof that satisfies you look like?

I have no idea that is why I can't wait to hear what Al has to offer. I assume it will be method the demonstrates 'action X is morally wrong' independent of anyone's opinion.

Well the reason i ask is because with metaphysical questions asking for proof just doesn't make sense, at least if you are talking of anything other than a purely logical proof and so if Alan can't 'prove' this as I doubt he can it wouldn't be a failure of his arguement but rather a failure to ask an intelligible question. Lots of type of questions aren't subject to proof, for example some temporal ones aren't either for different reasons... if I said it was a fact I was listing to New Model Army when I was driving home last night in my car alone, and you asked me to prove it, my inability to do so wouldn't be an indication that it wasn't true...only that you had asked a daft question inappropriate to the type of fact we were discussing.

Adding 'independent of opinion' potentially makes your question even dafter depending on what you mean by that if you simply mean that Alan's view of OM should not derive its objectivity from people's opinion about it all wel and good, although I recall Alan being explicit about not thinking this, but if your making the same mistake Horsethorn has repeatedly done of implying that if something is an opinion it is only an opinion and can't also be an objective fact then that's clearly not true.

[Leonard James]

...but if your making the same mistake Horsethorn has repeatedly done of implying that if something is an opinion it is only an opinion and can't also be an objective fact then that's clearly not true.

If it's an objective fact then how can anybody truthfully refer to it as just their opinion?

[jakswan]

Well the reason i ask is because with metaphysical questions asking for proof just doesn't make sense, at least if you are talking of anything other than a purely logical proof and so if Alan can't 'prove' this as I doubt he can it wouldn't be a failure of his arguement but rather a failure to ask an intelligible question.

I never asked for proof I asked for a method, you were the one who brought up proof in message 34 and several times since.

Lots of type of questions aren't subject to proof, for example some temporal ones aren't either for different reasons... if I said it was a fact I was listing to New Model Army when I was driving home last night in my car alone, and you asked me to prove it, my inability to do so wouldn't be an indication that it wasn't true...only that you had asked a daft question inappropriate to the type of fact we were discussing.

I wouldn't ask for proof I'd use a method and assign a loose probability to it.

Adding 'independent of opinion' potentially makes your question even dafter depending on what you mean by that if you simply mean that Alan's view of OM should not derive its objectivity from people's opinion about it all wel and good,

Wel and good then.

although I recall Alan being explicit about not thinking this,

Sure.

The definition of objective morality as used in the argument for the existence of God from the existence of objective morality is that something is morally right or wrong independent of how many people think it so.

but if your making the same mistake Horsethorn has repeatedly done of implying that if something is an opinion it is only an opinion and can't also be an objective fact then that's clearly not true.

No, no one has stated that.

All we are saying is that an opinion (always subjective) has no impact on the value of things that are objective. An opinion can have the same value as an objective fact, no one has said otherwise. That is not hard for to understand is it?

Its pretty simple Al has asserted TACTDJFF is morally wrong independent of how many people think it so.

We are asking Al to back up his assertion with a method for how he arrived at this 'objective fact' as you refer to it.