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

[jjohnjil]

No it's an indication that we implicitly assume OM..which leaves. Us with a choice to accept OM or to accept that our moral discourse and practice is a distortion.

No one can prove the ontological status of OM...thats a metaphysical question so it would be foolish to expect to be able to answer that within anything that looked like a scientific proof. What we can do with metaphysical questions is draw out the implications of our core beliefs about the world and see if we can give a consistent account of them.

The arguement for OM certainly isn't irresistible. You could just accept that when someone say bullies a gay kid to the point of suicide...that when you say its wrong you only mean its wrong for you and if a red neck homophobe has different tastes about gay kids dying then its ok for him to do it. I disagree though. I think its wrong for him to do it and by saying it is wrong i mean more than just that I disapprove of it ..I mean that its wrong independent of my opinion or his for good reasons we can identify that are nothing to do with anyone's moral tastes.

Evolution has meant that only those species who look after their offspring survive.  We therefore have a built-in need to care for our young and it has nothing to do with it being an outside agent that has set those feelings in stone.

Most animals care for their young, to a greater or lesser extent, everyone has seen the birds in their garden when a cat is after its chicks. Are you saying that it is more than evolutionary learnt behaviour?

Of course, if you believe in God you must think he has a hand in everything but first you have to show good evidence for God, not the other way around.

[Leonard James]

I think the problem lies in that we are talking about something that is non-existent outside the human mind. We have invented morality for obvious reasons, but outside the minds of our own species there is no such thing. Some higher animals have similar instincts which we call a rudimentary morality, but there it ends.

[jjohnjil]

I think the problem lies in that we are talking about something that is non-existent outside the human mind. We have invented morality for obvious reasons, but outside the minds of our own species there is no such thing. Some higher animals have similar instincts which we call a rudimentary morality, but there it ends.

It seems fairly obvious, Len, but for those who believe in an entity that created everything, it's understandable that they should credit such things to the Almighty.  If he could create universes with a sweep of his hand, objective  morality must be a doddle!

[Dryghtons Toe]

It seems fairly obvious, Len, but for those who believe in an entity that created everything, it's understandable that they should credit such things to the Almighty.  If he could create universes with a sweep of his hand, objective  morality must be a doddle!

Which might make sense as an argument if it wasn't for the fact that so many moral realists are also atheists.

Evolution has meant that only those species who look after their offspring survive.  We therefore have a built-in need to care for our young and it has nothing to do with it being an outside agent that has set those feelings in stone.

So why do we perceive our moral judgements as involving judgements with external standards then? Appealing to evolution doesn't answer that question. Some of our strongest emotional attachments like love may equally be put down to the evolutionary process but we don't think there is an objective answer to the question 'who is the right person to love?'...its a matter of our feelings and if someone else doesn't love someone we do we don't consider them as making a mistake. No one doubts that we have evolved t care for our young, but then so has enki lions, it doesn't stop them killing other lions cubs to ensure the dominance of their line. Assumptions of moral truth aren't limited to questions of children either, any moral issue we change our mind over we do so because we think our previous believes were wrong, not just because we have had a change in taste.

Many people of an older generation would have said they have a deep seated disgust at the thought of homosexual acts, and its very easy to see how we could construct an evolutionary argument to justify this in terms of reproduction...but that's not where such a discussion would end. We can construct similar evolutionary arguments to justify rape or male violence if we tried hard enough. None of that would mean we had to accept them as rational arguments for how we live our lives and think about what is morally right.

Most animals care for their young, to a greater or lesser extent, everyone has seen the birds in their garden when a cat is after its chicks. Are you saying that it is more than evolutionary learnt behaviour?

I'm saying that evolution is an entirely neutral fact in relation to this particular point in the realism/ irrealism debate (although it has a big impact on premise 2 if we ever get to it) as whether we see evolution as the process whereby we invent morality or the process through which we discover reality depends on the baggage we bring to it.

[jjohnjil]

It seems fairly obvious, Len, but for those who believe in an entity that created everything, it's understandable that they should credit such things to the Almighty.  If he could create universes with a sweep of his hand, objective  morality must be a doddle!

Which might make sense as an argument if it wasn't for the fact that so many moral realists are also atheists.

Evolution has meant that only those species who look after their offspring survive.  We therefore have a built-in need to care for our young and it has nothing to do with it being an outside agent that has set those feelings in stone.

So why do we perceive our moral judgements as involving judgements with external standards then? Appealing to evolution doesn't answer that question. Some of our strongest emotional attachments like love may equally be put down to the evolutionary process but we don't think there is an objective answer to the question 'who is the right person to love?'...its a matter of our feelings and if someone else doesn't love someone we do we don't consider them as making a mistake. No one doubts that we have evolved t care for our young, but then so has enki lions, it doesn't stop them killing other lions cubs to ensure the dominance of their line. Assumptions of moral truth aren't limited to questions of children either, any moral issue we change our mind over we do so because we think our previous believes were wrong, not just because we have had a change in taste.

Many people of an older generation would have said they have a deep seated disgust at the thought of homosexual acts, and its very easy to see how we could construct an evolutionary argument to justify this in terms of reproduction...but that's not where such a discussion would end. We can construct similar evolutionary arguments to justify rape or male violence if we tried hard enough. None of that would mean we had to accept them as rational arguments for how we live our lives and think about what is morally right.

Most animals care for their young, to a greater or lesser extent, everyone has seen the birds in their garden when a cat is after its chicks. Are you saying that it is more than evolutionary learnt behaviour?

I'm saying that evolution is an entirely neutral fact in relation to this particular point in the realism/ irrealism debate (although it has a big impact on premise 2 if we ever get to it) as whether we see evolution as the process whereby we invent morality or the process through which we discover reality depends on the baggage we bring to it.

IMV, morality is purely our highly developed sense of preserving our species - do as you would be done by. Yes, lions will protect their offspring's lives with their own life but then kill a different lion's cubs.  But that is power - no different from the Nazis killing Jewish children by the million! 

To say morality is anything other than our sophisticated brains deciding what is the right or wrong way to act is to say there is an outside agent telling our brains to breathe in and out or that we need water or food - or indeed your example of who to love.

Whether or not some atheists agree with me or not is immaterial to the argument. If I could see bringing in some higher entity to account for my morality would complicate the process even further because I would then need to know where it's morality came from.     

[Dryghtons Toe]

How is saying 'morality is a way of preserving our species' able to account for a complex moral decision like whether we should eat meat or not? Whether we should tolerate or condemn homosexuality? Whether or not we should allow the state to sentence people to death? Your statement sheds no light on why these issues should matter or how we go about making the decisions. I doubt we could imagine any plausible morality that would sanction actions which led to the destruction of our species but that doesn't mean we can make some crass reductionist account in any way adequate to explain our moral thought.

Your second paragraph is just as crass a caricature of realist morality too. Realists do not think that someone is telling their minds what is right or wrong - and that's even true of realists like me who are theists. Realists think there are moral facts which we can perceive, but its still us doing the perceiving and deciding.

[jjohnjil]

How is saying 'morality is a way of preserving our species' able to account for a complex moral decision like whether we should eat meat or not? Whether we should tolerate or condemn homosexuality? Whether or not we should allow the state to sentence people to death? Your statement sheds no light on why these issues should matter or how we go about making the decisions. I doubt we could imagine any plausible morality that would sanction actions which led to the destruction of our species but that doesn't mean we can make some crass reductionist account in any way adequate to explain our moral thought.

Your second paragraph is just as crass a caricature of realist morality too. Realists do not think that someone is telling their minds what is right or wrong - and that's even true of realists like me who are theists. Realists think there are moral facts which we can perceive, but its still us doing the perceiving and deciding.

So you think there is an objective moral answer to whether we eat meat or not and whether homosexuality is right or wrong!

Are you sure you're not confusing your moral values with objective moral values!

[Dryghtons Toe]

How is saying 'morality is a way of preserving our species' able to account for a complex moral decision like whether we should eat meat or not? Whether we should tolerate or condemn homosexuality? Whether or not we should allow the state to sentence people to death? Your statement sheds no light on why these issues should matter or how we go about making the decisions. I doubt we could imagine any plausible morality that would sanction actions which led to the destruction of our species but that doesn't mean we can make some crass reductionist account in any way adequate to explain our moral thought.

Your second paragraph is just as crass a caricature of realist morality too. Realists do not think that someone is telling their minds what is right or wrong - and that's even true of realists like me who are theists. Realists think there are moral facts which we can perceive, but its still us doing the perceiving and deciding.

So you think there is an objective moral answer to whether we eat meat or not and whether homosexuality is right or wrong!

Are you sure you're not confusing your moral values with objective moral values!

I've not said what I think the answer to these questions is. But yes I think there is a right answer to them.

Now back to the question you avoided....how can your account of morality shed any light on how we answer these questions?

[jjohnjil]

How is saying 'morality is a way of preserving our species' able to account for a complex moral decision like whether we should eat meat or not? Whether we should tolerate or condemn homosexuality? Whether or not we should allow the state to sentence people to death? Your statement sheds no light on why these issues should matter or how we go about making the decisions. I doubt we could imagine any plausible morality that would sanction actions which led to the destruction of our species but that doesn't mean we can make some crass reductionist account in any way adequate to explain our moral thought.

Your second paragraph is just as crass a caricature of realist morality too. Realists do not think that someone is telling their minds what is right or wrong - and that's even true of realists like me who are theists. Realists think there are moral facts which we can perceive, but its still us doing the perceiving and deciding.

So you think there is an objective moral answer to whether we eat meat or not and whether homosexuality is right or wrong!

Are you sure you're not confusing your moral values with objective moral values!

I've not said what I think the answer to these questions is. But yes I think there is a right answer to them.

Now back to the question you avoided....how can your account of morality shed any light on how we answer these questions?

No, I think the question that needs answering is - if it isn't down to our evolutionary learnt behaviour what or who decides what's moral and what isn't!  I imagine it would be God in your case, but you say there are atheists who take your view, what or who do you think they put it down to? 

[Dryghtons Toe]

How is saying 'morality is a way of preserving our species' able to account for a complex moral decision like whether we should eat meat or not? Whether we should tolerate or condemn homosexuality? Whether or not we should allow the state to sentence people to death? Your statement sheds no light on why these issues should matter or how we go about making the decisions. I doubt we could imagine any plausible morality that would sanction actions which led to the destruction of our species but that doesn't mean we can make some crass reductionist account in any way adequate to explain our moral thought.

Your second paragraph is just as crass a caricature of realist morality too. Realists do not think that someone is telling their minds what is right or wrong - and that's even true of realists like me who are theists. Realists think there are moral facts which we can perceive, but its still us doing the perceiving and deciding.

So you think there is an objective moral answer to whether we eat meat or not and whether homosexuality is right or wrong!

Are you sure you're not confusing your moral values with objective moral values!

I've not said what I think the answer to these questions is. But yes I think there is a right answer to them.

Now back to the question you avoided....how can your account of morality shed any light on how we answer these questions?

No, I think the question that needs answering is - if it isn't down to our evolutionary learnt behaviour what or who decides what's moral and what isn't!  I imagine it would be God in your case, but you say there are atheists who take your view, what or who do you think they put it down to? 

Nice evasion, refuse to answer then ask something else and hope that no one has noticed!

I have given account of how i think moral truth is grounded in reply 196 on this thread.

I'm not going to spend my time articulating a full  detail of an atheistic account of moral realism as I'm a theist and part of my arguement is that God is the best explanation of moral truth, nevertheless I did give a couple of nods to examples in reply 18 of this thread....if you want more go read a book by an atheist moral realist. There are many. On the last survey that was done on this that I know of the majority of professional philosophers are moral realists even though only a minority are theists.

[jjohnjil]

How is saying 'morality is a way of preserving our species' able to account for a complex moral decision like whether we should eat meat or not? Whether we should tolerate or condemn homosexuality? Whether or not we should allow the state to sentence people to death? Your statement sheds no light on why these issues should matter or how we go about making the decisions. I doubt we could imagine any plausible morality that would sanction actions which led to the destruction of our species but that doesn't mean we can make some crass reductionist account in any way adequate to explain our moral thought.

Your second paragraph is just as crass a caricature of realist morality too. Realists do not think that someone is telling their minds what is right or wrong - and that's even true of realists like me who are theists. Realists think there are moral facts which we can perceive, but its still us doing the perceiving and deciding.

So you think there is an objective moral answer to whether we eat meat or not and whether homosexuality is right or wrong!

Are you sure you're not confusing your moral values with objective moral values!

I've not said what I think the answer to these questions is. But yes I think there is a right answer to them.

Now back to the question you avoided....how can your account of morality shed any light on how we answer these questions?

No, I think the question that needs answering is - if it isn't down to our evolutionary learnt behaviour what or who decides what's moral and what isn't!  I imagine it would be God in your case, but you say there are atheists who take your view, what or who do you think they put it down to? 

Nice evasion, refuse to answer then ask something else and hope that no one has noticed!

I have given account of how i think moral truth is grounded in reply 196 on this thread.

I'm not going to spend my time articulating a full  detail of an atheistic account of moral realism as I'm a theist and part of my arguement is that God is the best explanation of moral truth, nevertheless I did give a couple of nods to examples in reply 18 of this thread....if you want more go read a book by an atheist moral realist. There are many. On the last survey that was done on this that I know of the majority of professional philosophers are moral realists even though only a minority are theists.

Having read through your 196 again, I agree that you have described morality very well but not the Objective Morality that Alan imagines it to be - and that is what this whole thread is about!  He says that Objective Morality is a fact, whether or not anyone agrees with it, but you seem to think it's what is universally agreed to be moral.

If indeed you mean the sort of behaviour that we agree all civilised people should follow, then I am with you. If however you think some outside agent has laid down certain ways of behaviour which it/he/she wants us to follow then I think you're wrong.

It means that there could be objectively moral behaviour that none of us agree with but how would we know what it is?  If we don't know what it is we would have to decide what we think it is - and that is subjective not objective!

I not only think it's wrong, I think it's dangerous!  Islamic terrorists imagine God looks down on them kindly if they take the lives of unbelievers - and not just unbelievers in God or even unbelievers in Mohammad but unbelievers in their distorted view of Islam!  This is what is possible when you think morality is something other than what you instinctively feel to be right.   

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this so I wll now bow out of this debate. 

[Dryghtons Toe]

Having read through your 196 again, I agree that you have described morality very well but not the Objective Morality that Alan imagines it to be - and that is what this whole thread is about!  He says that Objective Morality is a fact, whether or not anyone agrees with it, but you seem to think it's what is universally agreed to be moral.

No thats entirely incorrect I think its a fact regardless of whether anyone agrees it or not and it is not dependent on anyone's or even everyone's agreement. There is nothing in my reply 196 that should make you believe otherwise if properly understood and I'd be interested to know what it is that I've said that would make you possibly think that I am advocating morality = universal agreement.

If indeed you mean the sort of behaviour that we agree all civilised people should follow, then I am with you. If however you think some outside agent has laid down certain ways of behaviour which it/he/she wants us to follow then I think you're wrong.

Very few modern theists support a classic divine command theory of how morality is related to God. Neither I or Alan have advocated this view as far as I can see.

It means that there could be objectively moral behaviour that none of us agree with but how would we know what it is?  If we don't know what it is we would have to decide what we think it is - and that is subjective not objective!

How we discover OM depends on the account we give of it, but again I have addressed this in post 196 so you don't seem to have read it very carefully.

I not only think it's wrong, I think it's dangerous!  Islamic terrorists imagine God looks down on them kindly if they take the lives of unbelievers - and not just unbelievers in God or even unbelievers in Mohammad but unbelievers in their distorted view of Islam!  This is what is possible when you think morality is something other than what you instinctively feel to be right.

Its interesting that a couple of times in the history of anit-realist ethics, its advocates have made the mistake of thinking that anti-realism somehow gives a preference to those who are tolerant of other peoples opinions and necessarily respect the views of others - most however have quickly recognised that this is not a claim they can make and is of course totally illogical - if there is no objective standard of morality then there is no reason to suppose that toleration or respect of peoples rights is a good thing - its only good for you if you think its good if someone else doesn't then there's nothing you can say that makes them wrong - they just disagree with you about tolerance and respecting rights. The realist by contrast can say that, if toleration of peoples opinions and rights is morally correct then it is the correct thing to do irrespective of peoples opinions about them and that the Islamic terrorists are simply making a mistake if they think otherwise. The fact that someone can have a mistaken view about morality that leads them to do evil things is no more the fault of realism than the fact that people can have evil instincts under an irrealist view. The difference is that the moral realist has the resources to say 'you are wrong to do that' while the irrealist can only, at best,  consistently say 'i disaprove of you doing that'.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this so I wll now bow out of this debate.

Ok well that's up to you but I don't think its not been so much of a disagreement as you totally misrepresenting what I and other moral realists think, but as you wish.

[Alien]

So all methods are fine and the method that says torturing a child to death for fun is great,according to Alan

Nope. Misquote. Deliberate?

[Alien]

Alan has clarified above that he thinks that the reason anyone who accepts an example of OM has, in order to be consistent accept that OM exists. Asking for a method (independent of opinion or otherwise) is entirely tangential to that point - as Alan is not saying your opinion makes it objective he is saying you are implicitly accepting OM in what you already believe and therefore to be consistent need to accept OM. If we assume ReRational is lying and does not think TACTDJFF is ok and also further accepts that no possible opinion to the contra could ever make it ok, no matter what some sick individual might think, then you are stating that you believe in OM. Its a fair question for Alan to ask, and is also, assuming you do think that TACTDJFF is always wrong regardless of opinion, fair to ask you to justify what it is that leads you to think that. Its about examining your intuitions about morality - ones that imply morality is objective. If you disagree its wrong for everyone you are affirming something massively at odds with our moral intuitions. If you agree you are, in order to be consistent, affirming OM.

For most people who would not try and bend over backwards to avoid stating the fact that we assume OM in our morality, it is then legitimate to go on and ask 'how can we account for OM?' or 'how do we know the content of OM?' The second of these questions depends on the answer you give to the first, but its a separate question to the one Alan is quite legitimately asking and which BeRational et al are doing everything possible to avoid answering including, as everyone seems to accept, blatantly saying the opposite of what he thinks is the case.

I'd like to apologize to everyone for not putting my posts as clearly as Dryghtons Toe has. His summary is spot on.

[Alien]

...

At best, they can say that they are of the opinion that OM exists - which of course is self-contradictory.

Best you read that again, ht. Did you really mean to say that?

[Alien]

Alan has clarified above that he thinks that the reason anyone who accepts an example of OM has, in order to be consistent accept that OM exists.

That would certainly seem to be Alan's opinion - other opinions are available.

Why do you think they would be correct though?

[horsethorn]

...

At best, they can say that they are of the opinion that OM exists - which of course is self-contradictory.

Best you read that again, ht. Did you really mean to say that?

Yes.

Opinion.

OM.

Contradictory.

Within same comment.

Ergo self-contradictory.

ht

[Andy]

Alan has clarified above that he thinks that the reason anyone who accepts an example of OM has, in order to be consistent accept that OM exists. Asking for a method (independent of opinion or otherwise) is entirely tangential to that point - as Alan is not saying your opinion makes it objective he is saying you are implicitly accepting OM in what you already believe and therefore to be consistent need to accept OM. If we assume ReRational is lying and does not think TACTDJFF is ok and also further accepts that no possible opinion to the contra could ever make it ok, no matter what some sick individual might think, then you are stating that you believe in OM. Its a fair question for Alan to ask, and is also, assuming you do think that TACTDJFF is always wrong regardless of opinion, fair to ask you to justify what it is that leads you to think that. Its about examining your intuitions about morality - ones that imply morality is objective. If you disagree its wrong for everyone you are affirming something massively at odds with our moral intuitions. If you agree you are, in order to be consistent, affirming OM.

For most people who would not try and bend over backwards to avoid stating the fact that we assume OM in our morality, it is then legitimate to go on and ask 'how can we account for OM?' or 'how do we know the content of OM?' The second of these questions depends on the answer you give to the first, but its a separate question to the one Alan is quite legitimately asking and which BeRational et al are doing everything possible to avoid answering including, as everyone seems to accept, blatantly saying the opposite of what he thinks is the case.

I'd like to apologize to everyone for not putting my posts as clearly as Dryghtons Toe has. His summary is spot on.

What if you don't believe X is always wrong?
What if you don't believe that our motivations live in a vacuum?
What if you don't believe you are infallible?
What if you believe that different circumstances negate the idea that X is done just for your motivation?

Can I then conclude that I don't have to accept that OM exists?

[Alien]

...

At best, they can say that they are of the opinion that OM exists - which of course is self-contradictory.

Best you read that again, ht. Did you really mean to say that?

Yes.

Opinion.

OM.

Contradictory.

Within same comment.

Ergo self-contradictory.

ht

Try putting it logically. Not trying to be funny, but you have just asserted this. What is your actual reasoning?

[Alien]

Alan has clarified above that he thinks that the reason anyone who accepts an example of OM has, in order to be consistent accept that OM exists. Asking for a method (independent of opinion or otherwise) is entirely tangential to that point - as Alan is not saying your opinion makes it objective he is saying you are implicitly accepting OM in what you already believe and therefore to be consistent need to accept OM. If we assume ReRational is lying and does not think TACTDJFF is ok and also further accepts that no possible opinion to the contra could ever make it ok, no matter what some sick individual might think, then you are stating that you believe in OM. Its a fair question for Alan to ask, and is also, assuming you do think that TACTDJFF is always wrong regardless of opinion, fair to ask you to justify what it is that leads you to think that. Its about examining your intuitions about morality - ones that imply morality is objective. If you disagree its wrong for everyone you are affirming something massively at odds with our moral intuitions. If you agree you are, in order to be consistent, affirming OM.

For most people who would not try and bend over backwards to avoid stating the fact that we assume OM in our morality, it is then legitimate to go on and ask 'how can we account for OM?' or 'how do we know the content of OM?' The second of these questions depends on the answer you give to the first, but its a separate question to the one Alan is quite legitimately asking and which BeRational et al are doing everything possible to avoid answering including, as everyone seems to accept, blatantly saying the opposite of what he thinks is the case.

I'd like to apologize to everyone for not putting my posts as clearly as Dryghtons Toe has. His summary is spot on.

What if you don't believe X is always wrong?

As in TACDJFF? You don't believe TACTDJFF is always wrong? You don't necessarily have to believe in the existence of objective morality. Do be aware of the price you are paying if that is the case. Do you really not believe it is always wrong?

What if you don't believe that our motivations live in a vacuum?

I don't "believe that our motivations live in a vacuum". So what?

What if you don't believe you are infallible?

I don't believe I am infallible. So what?

What if you believe that different circumstances negate the idea that X is done just for your motivation?

Then it would surely fall outside it being done "just for fun" - assuming I have understood you correctly here.

Can I then conclude that I don't have to accept that OM exists?

If you answer my questions above, I'll try to answer the above. Are they meant to be linked with an "and" in each case or an "or"?

[Nearly Sane]

 

So all methods are fine and the method that says torturing a child to death for fun is great,according to Alan

Nope. Misquote. Deliberate?

Reductio, deliberate, and meant to challenge the meaning of your post by the reductio. Did you miss that or did you just want to write 'misquote'?

[Andy]

Alan has clarified above that he thinks that the reason anyone who accepts an example of OM has, in order to be consistent accept that OM exists. Asking for a method (independent of opinion or otherwise) is entirely tangential to that point - as Alan is not saying your opinion makes it objective he is saying you are implicitly accepting OM in what you already believe and therefore to be consistent need to accept OM. If we assume ReRational is lying and does not think TACTDJFF is ok and also further accepts that no possible opinion to the contra could ever make it ok, no matter what some sick individual might think, then you are stating that you believe in OM. Its a fair question for Alan to ask, and is also, assuming you do think that TACTDJFF is always wrong regardless of opinion, fair to ask you to justify what it is that leads you to think that. Its about examining your intuitions about morality - ones that imply morality is objective. If you disagree its wrong for everyone you are affirming something massively at odds with our moral intuitions. If you agree you are, in order to be consistent, affirming OM.

For most people who would not try and bend over backwards to avoid stating the fact that we assume OM in our morality, it is then legitimate to go on and ask 'how can we account for OM?' or 'how do we know the content of OM?' The second of these questions depends on the answer you give to the first, but its a separate question to the one Alan is quite legitimately asking and which BeRational et al are doing everything possible to avoid answering including, as everyone seems to accept, blatantly saying the opposite of what he thinks is the case.

I'd like to apologize to everyone for not putting my posts as clearly as Dryghtons Toe has. His summary is spot on.

What if you don't believe X is always wrong?

As in TACDJFF? You don't believe TACTDJFF is always wrong? You don't necessarily have to believe in the existence of objective morality. Do be aware of the price you are paying if that is the case. Do you really not believe it is always wrong?

As in anything where you whittle down the reason for doing it as solely for your own motivation. I'm not making exceptions here in order to appeal to emotion.

What if you don't believe that our motivations live in a vacuum?

I don't "believe that our motivations live in a vacuum". So what?

Then you don't believe that TACTDJFF as a legitimate example for OM, as the motivation has been influenced by other factors, potentially out of the control of the subject.

What if you don't believe you are infallible?

I don't believe I am infallible. So what?

So you don't think it is always wrong as you are open to the possibility that there are circumstances where TACTDJFF could be right, even though you currently can't think of any where it would be?

What if you believe that different circumstances negate the idea that X is done just for your motivation?

Then it would surely fall outside it being done "just for fun" - assuming I have understood you correctly here.

Correct. I don't believe you could invent a scenario where the motivation is the only factor. That's backed up by you asking if it's always wrong - you're asking under all circumstances. You need to be more specific and drop the "just".

Can I then conclude that I don't have to accept that OM exists?

If you answer my questions above, I'll try to answer the above. Are they meant to be linked with an "and" in each case or an "or"?

Well, it was a rhetorical question. And both.

[Alien]

So all methods are fine and the method that says torturing a child to death for fun is great,according to Alan

Nope. Misquote. Deliberate?

Reductio, deliberate, and meant to challenge the meaning of your post by the reductio. Did you miss that or did you just want to write 'misquote'?

I'll settle for pointing out that it was a misquote.

[Nearly Sane]

So all methods are fine and the method that says torturing a child to death for fun is great,according to Alan

Nope. Misquote. Deliberate?

Reductio, deliberate, and meant to challenge the meaning of your post by the reductio. Did you miss that or did you just want to write 'misquote'?

I'll settle for pointing out that it was a misquote.

it isn't a quote, so you would be factually wrong as well as being disingenous.

[Alien]

...

What if you don't believe X is always wrong?

As in TACDJFF? You don't believe TACTDJFF is always wrong? You don't necessarily have to believe in the existence of objective morality. Do be aware of the price you are paying if that is the case. Do you really not believe it is always wrong?

As in anything where you whittle down the reason for doing it as solely for your own motivation. I'm not making exceptions here in order to appeal to emotion.

I don't understand your point. "Torturing a child to death just for fun" states the motivation. Would it ever be right?

What if you don't believe that our motivations live in a vacuum?

I don't "believe that our motivations live in a vacuum". So what?

Then you don't believe that TACTDJFF as a legitimate example for OM, as the motivation has been influenced by other factors, potentially out of the control of the subject.

Oh, I agree that our motivations can be influenced by other factors, but would it ever be right to torture a child to death just for fun (no matter how that person got to that point)?

What if you don't believe you are infallible?

I don't believe I am infallible. So what?

So you don't think it is always wrong as you are open to the possibility that there are circumstances where TACTDJFF could be right, even though you currently can't think of any where it would be?

That is not correct. I do think it is always wrong. I might be incorrect to believe that, but I very much doubt it. Until someone can show me a reason why torturing a child to death just for fun might be morally OK, I'll stick to think it is always morally wrong. Now please chip in with your own answer. Do you think it could ever be other than morally wrong to torture a child to death (just) for fun??

What if you believe that different circumstances negate the idea that X is done just for your motivation?

Then it would surely fall outside it being done "just for fun" - assuming I have understood you correctly here.

Correct. I don't believe you could invent a scenario where the motivation is the only factor. That's backed up by you asking if it's always wrong - you're asking under all circumstances. You need to be more specific and drop the "just".

Happy to drop the "just". Do you think it could ever be other than morally wrong to torture a child to death for fun?

Can I then conclude that I don't have to accept that OM exists?

If you answer my questions above, I'll try to answer the above. Are they meant to be linked with an "and" in each case or an "or"?

Well, it was a rhetorical question. And both.

OK.