My 'Truth' or 'YOUR 'truth'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Asserts Trollboy having just expressed only a personal and anthropocentric opinion on the matter.

Any prizes for guessing how he just jumped from his personal opinion to "an objective thing"?

There is nothing in my definition to limit morality to humans.

Unlike your own notion of pre morality in animals.

[bluehillside Retd.]

There is nothing in my definition to limit morality to humans.

And with one simple cheat Trollboy re-defines the word "humanity".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And with one simple cheat Trollboy re-defines the word "humanity".

What do you think I mean by it then Monostatos?

[Stranger]

The ultimate definition of what is Good is what promotes everyone's humanity and what is bad as that which reduces it.

That is an objective thing since it is out there and certainly not a question of taste as Monostatos suggests.

No, it obviously isn't objective. Quite apart from how you define "promotes everyone's humanity" in an objective way, you are still left with only the subjective opinion that it is "good" to do so.

[wigginhall]

It's strange how every objectivist selects a particular framework for morality, or a set of desired things, and then says, this is obviously objective.   Eh?   But you selected it. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

What do you think I mean by it then Monostatos?

And here we see Trollboy demanding that other people tell him what he means by a word. Leaving his latest diversion aside, here's what it actually means:

"Humanity

1. All human beings collectively; the human race; humankind.

2. The quality or condition of being human; human nature.

3. The quality of being humane; kindness; benevolence."

(Dictionary.com)

He is of course entitled to his personal opinion that, "The ultimate definition of what is Good is what promotes everyone's humanity and what is bad as that which reduces it" but how on earth he jumps from that personal opinion to "That is an objective thing..." is anyone's guess.

[wigginhall]

Just like that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Just like that.

I feel a Tommy Cooper joke coming on: "I got stung by a bee this morning...

...ten quid for a pot of honey!"

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just to note too that - even if we took Trollboy's personal opinion as somehow magically an objective moral truth too, it would lead to all sorts of practical problems if he tried to apply it. What if, say, humankind was about to be wiped out by a terrible disease but we found an Amazonian tribe with the genetic make up to cure it, only we'd we have to kill every one of them to obtain it? What would be the morally correct thing to do so as to satisfy his, "The ultimate definition of what is Good is what promotes everyone's humanity and what is bad as that which reduces it" opinion in that case?

Or how about the morality of birth control or of abortion - does "everyone" extend to the not yet born too?

Sadly his big book of divine rules doesn't deal with nuance, so I guess he'd be back to his personal opinions again if ever he tried to apply his choice of mantra.

Oh well.

[wigginhall]

Yes, the idea of everyone's humanity doesn't work really.   This is why there are moral dilemmas, after all. 

[BeRational]

Are humans not natural. You aren't looking properly.

Again you just evade.

I see the question has defeated you, and your position collapses.

Give up

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it obviously isn't objective. Quite apart from how you define "promotes everyone's humanity" in an objective way, you are still left with only the subjective opinion that it is "good" to do so.

There are certainly problems in definition of terms for moral realism. But these are certainly nowhere near as tricky as using moral relativity to define morality, or arbitrate in morals  and its lesser problem of moral relativists acting like. Moral objectivist so.

The problems of moral realism pale in this context.

[BeRational]

There are certainly problems in definition of terms for moral realism. But these are certainly nowhere near as tricky as using moral relativity to define morality, or arbitrate in moral realism and its lesser problem of moral relativists acting like. Moral objectivist so.

The problems of moral realism pale in this context.

You have lost already so give up.

[Shaker]

There are certainly problems in definition of terms for moral realism.

... the biggest one being your still-elusive demonstration of the objectivity of morality.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, the idea of everyone's humanity doesn't work really.   This is why there are moral dilemmas, after all.

What about personal moral dilemmas. They shouldn't exist in moral relativists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... the biggest one being your still-elusive demonstration of the objectivity of morality.

It's true I haven't pulled of as major a feet as Torridon showing earlier on that Science and particularly Biology is subjective..............

But I have removed moral relativism from its protective box and demonstrated how much it stinks.

The other thing I'm proud of is exposing Be rational for thinking that something yet undemonstrated is wrong or non existent.

.....on reflection, that's a good days work......ciao.

[wigginhall]

What about personal moral dilemmas. They shouldn't exist in moral relativists.

Why not?

[Shaker]

But I have removed moral relativism from its protective box and demonstrated how much it stinks.

Even if that were true instead of merely delusional, you haven't made your case. Pointing out weakness(es) in the opposition's argument(s) doesn't make your argument go through on the nod - if you think so, evidently you're driving the negative proof fallacy in Hope's absence.

[Nearly Sane]

Why not?

Because because because the Wizard of Vlad has asserted so

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why not?

Because it logically offers no actual moral difference between possibilities since all moralities are equally valid.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Why not?

There is no why not - Some undid Trolboy's wrong assertion about that several posts ago, so his repetition of it now is just another lie. Presumably he gets some satisfaction from his dishonesty, but I cannot for the life of me see what it might be. More fool us for feeding the troll I suppose, but as there's no guessing at what the problems might be that he just asserts for moral relativism then we'll probably never find out.

PS What on earth have Torridon's "feet" got to do with anything by the way?

[BeRational]

Because it logically offers no actual moral difference between possibilities since all moralities are equally valid.

No they are not.

It depends on a mind to give values to outcomes.

The consensus of which is our current morality.

Why is this beyond you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Because it logically offers no actual moral difference between possibilities since all moralities are equally valid.

And so the argumentum ad consequentiam continues...

...why I wonder can't Trollboy grasp the simple concept that it's as possible to ascribe probabilistic values of "good" and "bad" to moral positions as it is to music or art and to live accordingly without in any of these cases needing to benchmark against supposed objective standards?

He doesn't (presumably) think that aesthetic judgments aren't "real" when there's no "out there" objective values for them, so why on earth would he arbitrarily think otherwise about moral statements - other that is than his personal dislike of what he preceives as the consequences?

Weird.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Even if that were true instead of merely delusional, you haven't made your case. Pointing out weakness(es) in the opposition's argument(s) doesn't make your argument go through on the nod

I'm glad we have that straight.......................... tell that to Hillside and Be Rational.
However, Moral relativism has a fatal flaw in that it has no powers of arbitration in moral issues. So when anybody promotes there own or any moral position they are wearing their moral realist hat.

For example Hillside blows hot and cold about who is being a good boy or girl and who is being bad. Does he do so because he thinks he is doing the equivalent of saying Mozart is Good and Chas and Dave are Bad, does he heck, Does he say it believing it is as meaningful as Harry potter being the good guy and Voldemort being the Bad guy I.e. from moral irrealism like hell he does.

Does Be Rational believe that something is incorrect until shown to be correct.....you bet your sweet Bippy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

For example Hillside blows hot and cold about who is being a good boy or girl and who is being bad.

Must be exhausting endlessly cranking the handle of the Trollboy Liartron like that.