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

[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.

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

It isn't a quote. I have not said that all methods are fine. I have said that I would be happy to go with the methods of people like ht, jakswan et al in working out whether TACTDJFF is morally right or wrong. They (and you) are decent people who would never argue otherwise except in internet discussions where the price of accepting it as so means you would logically need to agree to the existence of objective morality.

[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.

It isn't a quote. I have not said that all methods are fine. I have said that I would be happy to go with the methods of people like ht, jakswan et al in working out whether TACTDJFF is morally right or wrong. They (and you) are decent people who would never argue otherwise except in internet discussions where the price of accepting it as so means you would logically need to agree to the existence of objective morality.

So if it isn't a quote, then it isn't a misquote.

As to the rest of your confused and confusing reply here, what to make of it.

The first issue is that you assume that everyone has a method and it is simply explicable. There are those who go for these, obviously the classic is Bentham' s Felicific Calculus and that has its influences down through to Sam Harris today. Now while I find them simplistic and unrealistic, they are all based on an initial acceptance of dome axiom or other, which acceptance is done on a purely subjective basis, e.g
 You could just as easily accept Crowley' s 'Do as thou wilt'. So on that level it might be argued that a moral action is objectively wrong based on the subjective acceptance of the axiom, but that would overall still yield a subjective position. (It's quite odd how similar I find your position on morality to bluehillside's)

I try not to answer for people who are atheists simply because of that one non belief, so I am not really bothered about what they might be saying to you, and not should you be when talking about what I think. Christianity is not a pile of mince to me because you and Sassy disagree about admin, but rather I have yet to see a position on it that makes any logical sense.

In that sense, other than your wholly witless attempt at mind reading, can I suggest that if you want to engage in what I actually think, rather than the implied idea that I am lying just to avoid loosing an argument, that you do that on the basis of something I have written? After all I always extend that courtesy to you, when I accuse you of lying.

[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

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

I haven't 'just asserted' this at all.

The definition of 'objective' is 'independent of opinion'.

Having an opinion is necessarily subjective.

Having an opinion that OM exists is a subjective position about an (allegedly) objective thing.

Subjective position and objective thing contradict one another.

The contradictory points are in the same statement, hence it is self-contradictory.

Subjectivity wins, as it cancels any 'objective' contained within the opinion.

ht

[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.

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

It isn't a quote. I have not said that all methods are fine. I have said that I would be happy to go with the methods of people like ht, jakswan et al in working out whether TACTDJFF is morally right or wrong. They (and you) are decent people who would never argue otherwise except in internet discussions where the price of accepting it as so means you would logically need to agree to the existence of objective morality.

So if it isn't a quote, then it isn't a misquote.

As to the rest of your confused and confusing reply here, what to make of it.

The first issue is that you assume that everyone has a method and it is simply explicable. There are those who go for these, obviously the classic is Bentham' s Felicific Calculus and that has its influences down through to Sam Harris today. Now while I find them simplistic and unrealistic, they are all based on an initial acceptance of dome axiom or other, which acceptance is done on a purely subjective basis, e.g
 You could just as easily accept Crowley' s 'Do as thou wilt'. So on that level it might be argued that a moral action is objectively wrong based on the subjective acceptance of the axiom, but that would overall still yield a subjective position. (It's quite odd how similar I find your position on morality to bluehillside's)

I try not to answer for people who are atheists simply because of that one non belief, so I am not really bothered about what they might be saying to you, and not should you be when talking about what I think. Christianity is not a pile of mince to me because you and Sassy disagree about admin, but rather I have yet to see a position on it that makes any logical sense.

In that sense, other than your wholly witless attempt at mind reading, can I suggest that if you want to engage in what I actually think, rather than the implied idea that I am lying just to avoid loosing an argument, that you do that on the basis of something I have written? After all I always extend that courtesy to you, when I accuse you of lying.

Do calm down. I am not implying you are lying, even though you have said on a number of occasions that I am lying. Do you know what "lying" means? A lie is an intentionally false statement.

[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?

I haven't 'just asserted' this at all.

The definition of 'objective' is 'independent of opinion'.

Having an opinion is necessarily subjective.

Having an opinion that OM exists is a subjective position about an (allegedly) objective thing.

OK so far.

Subjective position and objective thing contradict one another.

Nope. Incorrect. I could have a subjective opinion about the speed of light in a vacuum. That does not thereby make the speed of light in a vacuum a subjective thing.

The contradictory points are in the same statement, hence it is self-contradictory.

Subjectivity wins, as it cancels any 'objective' contained within the opinion.

ht

Are you serious?

[Dryghtons Toe]

...

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?

I haven't 'just asserted' this at all.

The definition of 'objective' is 'independent of opinion'.

Having an opinion is necessarily subjective.

Having an opinion that OM exists is a subjective position about an (allegedly) objective thing.

Subjective position and objective thing contradict one another.

The contradictory points are in the same statement, hence it is self-contradictory.

Subjectivity wins, as it cancels any 'objective' contained within the opinion.

ht

Sorry Ht Alans right.

That's fine down to the statement

"subjective position and objective thing contradict one another"

This is of course not true as already argued. I can have the subjective belief that alternate universes exist. If they exist they exist objectively and my opinion will be correct. The fact that I have an objective opinion about them won't have any affect on whether they exist or not and neither does my opinion of OM on the existence of OM.

And as Alan isn't saying he thinks OM's existence DEPENDS on our opinion about for its existence, then your argument just doesn't work. Sorry.

In fact you can state Alan's whole argument slightly differently without even mentioning OM or moral realism as follows:

Situation S = Tom is TACTDJFF and has the instinct/opinions/emotion that its ok to TACTDJFF.
Proposition P1 = HT thinks what is morally right is determined by our instincts, opinions and emotions.
Proposition P2 = HT thinks Tom's act of TACTDFF is morally wrong and would be wrong for anyone.

S, P1 and P2 form an inconsistent triad. Therefore in situation S you have to either reject P1 (emotivist anti-realism) or reject P2. Unfortunately P2 reflects some deep seated aspects of our moral practice and discarding them would not leave our morality intact.

[Dryghtons Toe]

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?

Andy you are assuming that moral realism means that we cannot account for different factors in a situation having an impact on what the correct thing to do is but this is not the case. Most moral realists accept that often a huge range of morally relevant factors need to be weighed up when deciding what the right thing to do is, so it might be the right thing to do to do X in one situation and the wrong thing to do in another. The difference between the moral realist and anti-realist is simply this - when all of the relevant factors have been weighed up, the moral realist thinks there is a right answer.

Not sure what you are getting at with the infallible bit though. Obviously the fact that you believe there are right answers to questions doesn't entail that people always get them right...why would we think that? We all make mistakes about other types of factual questions too don't we? I don't think the moon landings were faked, some people do...one of us is making a mistake....it doesn't prevent it being a fact that we either landed on the moon or we didn't.

Regards

DT

[Dryghtons Toe]

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.

It isn't a quote. I have not said that all methods are fine. I have said that I would be happy to go with the methods of people like ht, jakswan et al in working out whether TACTDJFF is morally right or wrong. They (and you) are decent people who would never argue otherwise except in internet discussions where the price of accepting it as so means you would logically need to agree to the existence of objective morality.

So if it isn't a quote, then it isn't a misquote.

As to the rest of your confused and confusing reply here, what to make of it.

The first issue is that you assume that everyone has a method and it is simply explicable. There are those who go for these, obviously the classic is Bentham' s Felicific Calculus and that has its influences down through to Sam Harris today. Now while I find them simplistic and unrealistic, they are all based on an initial acceptance of dome axiom or other, which acceptance is done on a purely subjective basis, e.g
 You could just as easily accept Crowley' s 'Do as thou wilt'. So on that level it might be argued that a moral action is objectively wrong based on the subjective acceptance of the axiom, but that would overall still yield a subjective position. (It's quite odd how similar I find your position on morality to bluehillside's)

I try not to answer for people who are atheists simply because of that one non belief, so I am not really bothered about what they might be saying to you, and not should you be when talking about what I think. Christianity is not a pile of mince to me because you and Sassy disagree about admin, but rather I have yet to see a position on it that makes any logical sense.

In that sense, other than your wholly witless attempt at mind reading, can I suggest that if you want to engage in what I actually think, rather than the implied idea that I am lying just to avoid loosing an argument, that you do that on the basis of something I have written? After all I always extend that courtesy to you, when I accuse you of lying.

Hi NearlySane,

NearlySane

Sam Harris is not an example of modern moral realism, its not even a viable contribution to the debate. He's only gotten attention because of his atheist celebrity credentials but there is nothing valuable in it in terms of philosophy. Atheist/humanist philosopher Simon Blackburn summed it up very well I think, when he said "Harris..... joins the prodigious ranks of those whose claim to have transcended philosophy is just an instance of their doing it very badly."

It does seem odd though that a theist should not believe in a transcendent moral good - its unheard of as far as I know amongst theist philosophers. Certainly a classic view of God is that part of the definition of God is goodness - that God's character (as opposed to his commands) is the ground for goodness. Whether or not you accept that, if you are a theist you will presumably believe that God has a purpose for the universe and that part of that purpose is to bring into existence conscious beings whom God wants to flourish. Anyone who believes this, and who also shares the view (in common with all the major faith traditions) that in order to flourish (in the fullest sense of the world both physically, emotionally and spiritually) that we need to develop certain virtues of character, then that is a basis for OM. Its not based on abstract rules or principles, but on teleological facts of Gods purpose as manifest in the facts of what it takes for a conscious being to flourish.

Regards

DT

[jakswan]

I agree some acts are morally wrong and that this does not depend on me thinking it so.

My beliefs are consistent with morality being subjective.

No, they are not. You have said that some acts are morally wrong and in the second part of the sentence say that they fit the definition of objective morality.

Nope something I think something being morally wrong depends on me thinking it so. Your argument is a busted flush.

[Andy]

...

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?

I don't believe it to be right or wrong because I don't believe that it's a possible scenario. My point is that the example you use only looks at one factor, that being a motivation, to try and use as a catch all for every single possible scenario where someone tortures a child to death for fun. Just for fun isn't realistic, and using this while trying to spread it over any scenario negates the whole idea of "just". That's why I've asked you to be more specific.

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)?

As I've said and explained above, I don't believe doing X just for our motivation is possible or realistic.

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??

You can't apply one rule to others and a different one for yourself. You state, and I agree, that to say something is always right/wrong is to state that it is right/wrong even if nobody was alive to believe it so - no matter what, till the end of time, forever and ever amen etc. If, however, you're leaving yourself open to the possibility that it could be the opposite, even if you currently can't even begin to conceive of a situation where it would be, then you are contradicting your belief that it is always wrong. To stay consistent and to not contradict yourself, I'd say that to the best of your knowledge, you don't know of any situation where it would be right. This keeps you away from a claim of absolute certainty as you factor in your fallibility and limitations of knowledge.

However, the above is again spreading only one factor, (or a few) to cover a multitude of different scenarios, instead of attempting to take into account any and all factors that can have an influence.

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

Right, so we're getting somewhere now with dropping the "just". To the best of my knowledge, I currently can't conceive of a situation where I would believe it to be right, but I'm under no illusions, as with anything else, that there could potentially be a situation where I would believe it to be right. What about you?

Now that the "just" has been dropped, I put it out there to anyone to try and come up with a situation where you believe it is right to torture a child to death for fun.

[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?

Andy you are assuming that moral realism means that we cannot account for different factors in a situation having an impact on what the correct thing to do is but this is not the case. Most moral realists accept that often a huge range of morally relevant factors need to be weighed up when deciding what the right thing to do is, so it might be the right thing to do to do X in one situation and the wrong thing to do in another. The difference between the moral realist and anti-realist is simply this - when all of the relevant factors have been weighed up, the moral realist thinks there is a right answer.

Actually, that's partly the point I'm trying to make when only one factor is used to cover all situations. Saying things are done just for this and just for that, is unrealistic, as there are "often a huge range of morally relevant factors need to be weighed up when deciding what the right thing to do is, so it might be the right thing to do to do X in one situation and the wrong thing to do in another". My point is if you're going to try and argue for OM, then you require to incorporate the relevant factors, and not just one. In other words, be more specific.

Not sure what you are getting at with the infallible bit though. Obviously the fact that you believe there are right answers to questions doesn't entail that people always get them right...why would we think that? We all make mistakes about other types of factual questions too don't we? I don't think the moon landings were faked, some people do...one of us is making a mistake....it doesn't prevent it being a fact that we either landed on the moon or we didn't.

I went down the infallible line to negate the belief of something always being right/wrong based on limited factors.

[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.

It isn't a quote. I have not said that all methods are fine. I have said that I would be happy to go with the methods of people like ht, jakswan et al in working out whether TACTDJFF is morally right or wrong. They (and you) are decent people who would never argue otherwise except in internet discussions where the price of accepting it as so means you would logically need to agree to the existence of objective morality.

So if it isn't a quote, then it isn't a misquote.

As to the rest of your confused and confusing reply here, what to make of it.

The first issue is that you assume that everyone has a method and it is simply explicable. There are those who go for these, obviously the classic is Bentham' s Felicific Calculus and that has its influences down through to Sam Harris today. Now while I find them simplistic and unrealistic, they are all based on an initial acceptance of dome axiom or other, which acceptance is done on a purely subjective basis, e.g
 You could just as easily accept Crowley' s 'Do as thou wilt'. So on that level it might be argued that a moral action is objectively wrong based on the subjective acceptance of the axiom, but that would overall still yield a subjective position. (It's quite odd how similar I find your position on morality to bluehillside's)

I try not to answer for people who are atheists simply because of that one non belief, so I am not really bothered about what they might be saying to you, and not should you be when talking about what I think. Christianity is not a pile of mince to me because you and Sassy disagree about admin, but rather I have yet to see a position on it that makes any logical sense.

In that sense, other than your wholly witless attempt at mind reading, can I suggest that if you want to engage in what I actually think, rather than the implied idea that I am lying just to avoid loosing an argument, that you do that on the basis of something I have written? After all I always extend that courtesy to you, when I accuse you of lying.

Do calm down. I am not implying you are lying, even though you have said on a number of occasions that I am lying. Do you know what "lying" means? A lie is an intentionally false statement.

You are quite clearly implying that I and others are not making honest statements to avoid admitting that OM exists - I.e. making intentionally false statements. So now you are lying about that as well and by that I mean making an intentionally false statement, again.

[Alien]

I agree some acts are morally wrong and that this does not depend on me thinking it so.

My beliefs are consistent with morality being subjective.

No, they are not. You have said that some acts are morally wrong and in the second part of the sentence say that they fit the definition of objective morality.

Nope something I think something being morally wrong depends on me thinking it so. Your argument is a busted flush.

Put that in English and I'll reply to it.

[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?

I don't believe it to be right or wrong because I don't believe that it's a possible scenario. My point is that the example you use only looks at one factor, that being a motivation, to try and use as a catch all for every single possible scenario where someone tortures a child to death for fun. Just for fun isn't realistic, and using this while trying to spread it over any scenario negates the whole idea of "just". That's why I've asked you to be more specific.

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)?

As I've said and explained above, I don't believe doing X just for our motivation is possible or realistic.

OK, I think it is a valid question to put to people, but let's go your way for a bit.  Would that part of a person's motivation which is to do it for fun be morally wrong if they were torturing a child to death?

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??

You can't apply one rule to others and a different one for yourself. You state, and I agree, that to say something is always right/wrong is to state that it is right/wrong even if nobody was alive to believe it so - no matter what, till the end of time, forever and ever amen etc. If, however, you're leaving yourself open to the possibility that it could be the opposite, even if you currently can't even begin to conceive of a situation where it would be, then you are contradicting your belief that it is always wrong. To stay consistent and to not contradict yourself, I'd say that to the best of your knowledge, you don't know of any situation where it would be right. This keeps you away from a claim of absolute certainty as you factor in your fallibility and limitations of knowledge.

I disagree. All I am doing is acknowledging that I may be wrong about something. I might be wrong about the speed of light in vacuo, but that does not thereby make the speed of light in vacuo subjective.

I do agree, however, that I "don't know of any situation where it (TACTDJFF) would be right". However, I am of the opinion that there are no situations where it would be morally right, particularly since I have defined the situation, i.e. (just) for fun.

However, the above is again spreading only one factor, (or a few) to cover a multitude of different scenarios, instead of attempting to take into account any and all factors that can have an influence.

Yes, we all seem to have mixed motives in just about everything we do, but if one of our motives in torturing a child to death is that of doing it for fun, would you not agree that that motive is morally wrong.

I sincerely hope you would and would expect all our regular contributors here to agree (if they were not in a discussion on the Christian Topic message board and aware of where agreeing that objective morality existing might lead them).

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

Right, so we're getting somewhere now with dropping the "just". To the best of my knowledge, I currently can't conceive of a situation where I would believe it to be right, but I'm under no illusions, as with anything else, that there could potentially be a situation where I would believe it to be right. What about you?

I think I've answered this above. Let me know if you think I have not.

Now that the "just" has been dropped, I put it out there to anyone to try and come up with a situation where you believe it is right to torture a child to death for fun.

Excellent. Good luck with that. Shall we supply a list of names and see who comes up with one? I suggest:

horsethorn
NearlySane
Gordon
BeRational
JeremyP

Edited: I'll have a think today. I think you may be right in seeing a need to drop the "just" bit in TACTD(J)FF.

[Alien]

...

You are quite clearly implying that I and others are not making honest statements to avoid admitting that OM exists - I.e. making intentionally false statements. So now you are lying about that as well and by that I mean making an intentionally false statement, again.

Let me make this clear. I am not implying you or anyone else is lying. We can all blind ourselves to stuff, me included and you included. What I am saying is that you are being illogical.

Stop being so paranoid.

[Nearly Sane]

...

You are quite clearly implying that I and others are not making honest statements to avoid admitting that OM exists - I.e. making intentionally false statements. So now you are lying about that as well and by that I mean making an intentionally false statement, again.

Let me make this clear. I am not implying you or anyone else is lying. We can all blind ourselves to stuff, me included and you included. What I am saying is that you are being illogical.

Stop being so paranoid.

You are stating that a number of people are making deliberately false statements - which by your own definition is lying.

[Nearly Sane]

On reading Alan's reply to Andy, he now seems to be stating that people are or have avoided saying that TACTD(J)FF is morally wrong because they don't want to say it as it will show that they would logically have to accept OM. This is untru in that people have stated that they think this ,as indeed many other things, are wrong. In this case I don't think Alan is deliberately telling the untruth so is not lying, but it seems to me to illustrate that he is so involved in his case, that he is unable to even read what people have written without ending up misrepresenting it.


So, I will try once again to make this clear and hope that it filters through. I think TACTDJFF is wrong, as is, in my opinion, TACTDFF, TACTD and TAC, and indeed T. I also think marmite tastes good. The moral position is based on my subjective view of what is right and wrong. The taste position on what I think of as good and bad in eating.

[jjohnjil]

TACTDFF is an almost universal agreed no no, but that doesn't make it OM.

The possession of a mobile phone is now an almost universal MUST but there is nothing objective about it.

[jakswan]

I agree some acts are morally wrong and that this does not depend on me thinking it so.

My beliefs are consistent with morality being subjective.

No, they are not. You have said that some acts are morally wrong and in the second part of the sentence say that they fit the definition of objective morality.

Nope something I think something being morally wrong depends on me thinking it so. Your argument is a busted flush.

Put that in English and I'll reply to it.

I suggest you take a course on comprehension but I'll try to dumb it down for you.

In order for something to be objective it has to be independent of anyone's opinion. I think torture is wrong and that does depend on my opinion.

I'm being consistent, please its been over a year, this argument surely is over? Even you must be running out of obfuscation rabbit holes to run down. 

[Andy]

OK, I think it is a valid question to put to people, but let's go your way for a bit.  Would that part of a person's motivation which is to do it for fun be morally wrong if they were torturing a child to death?

I've pretty much answered this already. I can't think of a realistic situation where I'd believe it was right, but that's not to say there can never be one and that I think it's always wrong.

You can't apply one rule to others and a different one for yourself. You state, and I agree, that to say something is always right/wrong is to state that it is right/wrong even if nobody was alive to believe it so - no matter what, till the end of time, forever and ever amen etc. If, however, you're leaving yourself open to the possibility that it could be the opposite, even if you currently can't even begin to conceive of a situation where it would be, then you are contradicting your belief that it is always wrong. To stay consistent and to not contradict yourself, I'd say that to the best of your knowledge, you don't know of any situation where it would be right. This keeps you away from a claim of absolute certainty as you factor in your fallibility and limitations of knowledge.

I disagree. All I am doing is acknowledging that I may be wrong about something. I might be wrong about the speed of light in vacuo, but that does not thereby make the speed of light in vacuo subjective.

I do agree, however, that I "don't know of any situation where it (TACTDJFF) would be right". However, I am of the opinion that there are no situations where it would be morally right, particularly since I have defined the situation, i.e. (just) for fun.

Again, I think you are contradicting yourself by acknowledging that you may be wrong about it while also being of the opinion that there are no situations where it would be right. I'm all for agreeing with the former, but the latter is an assertion that I don't see how you can back up. Perhaps I am being pedantic, but normally I would expect you to be specific, and perhaps state something along the lines of "being of the opinion that there are no situations that you can currently conceive of where it would be morally right".

However, the above is again spreading only one factor, (or a few) to cover a multitude of different scenarios, instead of attempting to take into account any and all factors that can have an influence.

Yes, we all seem to have mixed motives in just about everything we do, but if one of our motives in torturing a child to death is that of doing it for fun, would you not agree that that motive is morally wrong.

I think this has been answered enough times now.

When I mention factors, I'm not limiting that to motives. I'm talking about anything and everything, from motives to external influences beyond the control of the subjects.

There's also one big elephant in the room here that's yet to have been mentioned this time around (although I have in the past), and that's free will. You believe it and I don't, but for the sake of the hypothetical, if there is no free will, are they at fault for being motivated by fun and are they still morally wrong?

I sincerely hope you would and would expect all our regular contributors here to agree (if they were not in a discussion on the Christian Topic message board and aware of where agreeing that objective morality existing might lead them).

You need to stop trying to appeal to emotion. This is why I often change it from your TACTD(J)FF to simply X in order to cover this in general terms because the scenario and it's emotional appeal is irrelevant if we are trying to look at this objectively.

Now that the "just" has been dropped, I put it out there to anyone to try and come up with a situation where you believe it is right to torture a child to death for fun.

Excellent. Good luck with that. Shall we supply a list of names and see who comes up with one? I suggest:

horsethorn
NearlySane
Gordon
BeRational
JeremyP

Edited: I'll have a think today. I think you may be right in seeing a need to drop the "just" bit in TACTD(J)FF.

No, no list of names. I said this is for anyone. That's me, you, the list of people you mentioned and everyone else missed off. This isn't a game of who can piss the furthest.

The ironic thing is, the person (or people) I did expect an answer from was you. Now I've said I can't think of a situation where I would believe it is right, but I thought you would be able to.
Set the scene - we have a person who wants to torture a child to death for fun, but they feel reluctant to do so because as far as they understand, they are taking a young life when they feel they don't deserve it. If only this person could get a 100% guarantee that they should torture this child to death for fun because it is the morally right thing to do. God then informs them that it is the morally right thing to do...

[wigginhall]

I would guess that there are people who think it OK to torture kids for fun, e.g. Ian Brady.  Well, I can see the counter-argument immediately, that 'it is still wrong', even if someone thinks it good.   What's the next step in this ghastly spiral?  That opinion doesn't matter in the question of objective morality, even though we are asked for our opinion?! 

[Enki]

Hi Alan,

When reading through your response to Andy(mess 289) you said this:

I sincerely hope you would and would expect all our regular contributors here to agree (if they were not in a discussion on the Christian Topic message board and aware of where agreeing that objective morality existing might lead them).

This seemed to be a response to you asking whether Andy would agree that, even if there were other motives, the idea of TACTD just for fun is morally wrong.

However, for my own part, I am somwhat puzzled by the response that I have quoted above. I have already stated several times that in my opinion it is morally wrong, and that I see no reason to invoke OM, so no problem on the first part. However, I'm not at all sure what the second part actually means.

Are you suggesting that by stating that I think it is morally wrong, I accept the idea that OM definitely exists? In which case, I would disagree, and for reasons which I have made clear previously.

Or/and are you suggesting that my disagreement is predicated on the idea that belief in OM would, in some way, lead to the conclusion that a god, especially the Christian God, exists, and, consequentially therefore, I would simply reject the whole idea of OM because I don't believe in any god? Again, if this is what you meant, I would disagree. I have tried to look at the whole idea of OM in its own right. My own conclusions, such as they are, take into account the cultural influences of religions as one facet of our moral behaviour but are not based on, or even coloured by, any ideas associated with the existence/non existence of gods at all. 

And, furthermore, are you suggesting that I may well have a different view of OM if I were not on 'the Christian Topic message board'? I am at a loss to make any sense of this unless you mean that I only hold to my ideas about OM in the presence of or when arguing with Christians. If this is what you meant then I would again disagree. I am always prepared to alter my views according to how convincing I find the evidence and arguments, but my views would not alter simply according to whom I am debating/discussing with.

A little clarification of your above quote would not not come amiss. Ta muchly.

[Dryghtons Toe]

Actually, that's partly the point I'm trying to make when only one factor is used to cover all situations. Saying things are done just for this and just for that, is unrealistic, as there are "often a huge range of morally relevant factors need to be weighed up when deciding what the right thing to do is, so it might be the right thing to do to do X in one situation and the wrong thing to do in another". My point is if you're going to try and argue for OM, then you require to incorporate the relevant factors, and not just one. In other words, be more specific.

Hi Andy, sorry I'm afraid I'm missing what your asking for here. I don't know what the 'one' is you refer to - do you mean the TACTDJFF situation?? If so as far as i'm concerned the point of this example is just to indicate some of our intuitions about moral truth. OM, in my view is about the virtues of character necessary for our flourishing. Right action is what a virtuous person would do after weighing up al the morally relevant factors in a situation.

I went down the infallible line to negate the belief of something always being right/wrong based on limited factors.

Ok well that's a red herring in terms of understanding what moral realists are claiming. Even many philosophers who believe in principles (as opposed to  particularists like me who do not) often don't believe they take the form 'X is always wrong' but rather 'x will always weigh negatively when considered in a calculation of about what the is the right thing to do'.

Regards

DT

[Dryghtons Toe]

I would guess that there are people who think it OK to torture kids for fun, e.g. Ian Brady.  Well, I can see the counter-argument immediately, that 'it is still wrong', even if someone thinks it good.   What's the next step in this ghastly spiral?  That opinion doesn't matter in the question of objective morality, even though we are asked for our opinion?!

+ also in reply to Enkis post:

Opinion doesn't matter in the case of objective morality. As Alan has clarified the reason he has asked for your opinion is to make the point that IF you think TACTJFF is wrong and wrong for everyone, then the fact that you think it is wrong for everyone is inconsistent with the statement 'what is morally right depends on the instincts/emotions/opinions of the person making them or social group they are part of'.

See inconsistent triad example in reply 281 above.

Regards

DT

[Dryghtons Toe]

On reading Alan's reply to Andy, he now seems to be stating that people are or have avoided saying that TACTD(J)FF is morally wrong because they don't want to say it as it will show that they would logically have to accept OM. This is untru in that people have stated that they think this ,as indeed many other things, are wrong. In this case I don't think Alan is deliberately telling the untruth so is not lying, but it seems to me to illustrate that he is so involved in his case, that he is unable to even read what people have written without ending up misrepresenting it.


So, I will try once again to make this clear and hope that it filters through. I think TACTDJFF is wrong, as is, in my opinion, TACTDFF, TACTD and TAC, and indeed T. I also think marmite tastes good. The moral position is based on my subjective view of what is right and wrong. The taste position on what I think of as good and bad in eating.

Alan didn't just ask you whether it was wrong. Crucially he asked you whether you thought it would be wrong for everyone.