My 'Truth' or 'YOUR 'truth'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And so the argumentum ad consequentiam continues...

No for me the search for the source of moral objectivity has led me to God. I still do not have all the facts.......but then I could say that the search for the source of knowledge of matter energy has ended in science.....likewise and again I do not have all the scientific facts.........

But enough of that......In the realms of where you guys are some of your chums are in fact my chums when it comes to objective morality. Now you may have a case that Objective morality has not yet been proven but moral relativism has been fatally disproven..........and at the moment it looks as though morality is in fact objective since that is where the evidence leads.

So to sum up Moral relativism disproven, Objective morality unproven.

Anybody want to actually say anything in defence of moral relativity rather than just attack objective morality?

Thought not.

[wigginhall]

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

That's just another assertion, Vlad.  You have made no actual argument.   As BR said above, the individual mind does not treat all moral positions equally.  For example, we could have capital punishment or not, but many people have a decided view on this, one way or another, and then a consensus is usually arrived at.   But note how positions change - we used to have public executions. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's just another assertion, Vlad. 

well try it yourself. Assert that one position is correct while believing that neither nor any has any primacy over another.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's just another assertion, Vlad.  You have made no actual argument.   As BR said above, the individual mind does not treat all moral positions equally.  For example, we could have capital punishment or not, but many people have a decided view on this, one way or another, and then a consensus is usually arrived at.   But note how positions change - we used to have public executions.

But the change is through concluding that one position was wrong...namely always wrong and therefore absolutely wrong at least in that sense.

[Gordon]

No for me the search for the source of moral objectivity has led me to God.

Perhaps you took a wrong turn and got lost.

Anybody want to actually say anything in defence of moral relativity rather than just attack objective morality?

Thought not.

So, your suggestion is that instead of attacking your arguments we should instead* attack* defend what you imagine  are our arguments and just ignore yours - sounds like Fabian strategy to me.

Won't work (since we are experienced at evading your troops of straw men).

* typo corrected.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps you took a wrong turn and got lost.

So, your suggestion is that instead of attacking your arguments we should instead attack what you imagine  are our arguments and just ignore yours - sounds like Fabian strategy to me.

Eh since when has a suggestion that you defend your own argument been a suggestion that you should attack it??

You are surely pushing the bounds of stupidity/evasion (delete as applicable).

Come on hot shot.....................defend moral relativity.

[BeRational]

well try it yourself. Assert that one position is correct while believing that neither nor any has any primacy over another.

Why would I do that.

I know my position on most things. Sometime a position will be posed that I have to think about and come to a decision.

It is not about stating one thing while trying to believe another, it is about weighing up consequences in your own subjective opinion.

I change my position on some moral actions as well, as I am sure lots of people do.

[bluehillside Retd.]

And again Trollboy crashes off the rails...

So to sum up Moral relativism disproven,

Asserting something doesn't disprove it. As Trollboy is incapable of it, it'd be nice if someone would at least attempt this alleged disproof by an argument rather than by just asserting it to be so.

Objective morality unproven.

Same as objective aesthetics then.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just a quick correction for Trollboy:

"No for me the search for the source of moral objectivity has led me to a belief in God".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And again Trollboy crashes off the rails...

Asserting something doesn't disprove it. As Trollboy is incapable of it, it'd be nice if someone would at least attempt this alleged disproof by an argument rather than by just asserting it to be so.

Same as objective aesthetics then.

There is some evidence that the required mental and physiological effect of aesthetics can be scientifically engineered........or are you suggesting there is a another dimension in aesthetics? In any case aesthetics is not morality. Careful now....you are in great danger of blowi ng your zeitgeist and consensus arguments here........just warning you about that as a friend.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just a quick correction for Trollboy:

"No for me the search for the source of moral objectivity has led me to a belief in God".

Well as I said before Hillside I have to be where you are at the moment so if that helps and isn't just another avoidance/playing for time tactic on your part................................................

[Gordon]

Eh since when has a suggestion that you defend your own argument been a suggestion that you should attack it??

You are surely pushing the bounds of stupidity/evasion (delete as applicable).

Come on hot shot.....................defend moral relativity.

Point taken - that was a typo: when re-jigging that sentence (I used 'attacking' earlier in the same sentence) I meant to say 'defend' so I'll amend the post (now done). Apologies for that.

Even so, it still seems like you were encouraging us to defend our own arguments instead of attacking yours. 

[Andy]

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

Why should we value the promotion of everyone's humanity? What makes it objective?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why should we value the promotion of everyone's humanity? What makes it objective?

That as they say is a fantastically great question.

[BeRational]

That as they say is a fantastically great question.

The answer is that I do not care about your opinion on things. I form my own subjective opinion informed by lots of things, even your input, but eventually I decide if I think something is right or wrong.

Is that what you do too?

If not, how do you decide?

[Andy]

That as they say is a fantastically great question.

Will it get an answer?

[bluehillside Retd.]

In the face of Trollboy's continued evasions, would anyone care to hazard a guess at why moral relativism might be "disproven"? So far as I can tell he starts with the odd notion that something must be absolute to be real, so - um - real morality must be objectively true then. Oddly though, he seems to think that, say, having an opinion on a piece of music being good or bad can be a real opinion without recourse to a supposed gold standard of musical worth.

So leaving aside his busted flush of an assertion, why might moral relativism be "disproven"? What I see is a world exactly as I'd expect it to look with people partially intuiting and partially reasoning their way to moral positions - probabilisitic, uncertain, messy, changeable as that might be - and living their lives accordingly. It's not so much that that's "proven" - it's just the way that it demonstrably is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Andy,

Why should we value the promotion of everyone's humanity? What makes it objective?

Nothing does - it was just Trollboy's turn on the assertotron.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Will it get an answer?

yes.

Anything less than the promotion of humanity dehumanises and is therefore deemed immoral.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Andy,

yes.

Anything less than the promotion of humanity dehumanises and is therefore deemed immoral.

Trollboy meant there of course "no": just repeating his personal opinion on something doesn't magically make it objectively true. And that's before he even gets to trying to define "promotion of humanity" (such anthropocentrism!) and to telling us how he'd go about applying it - would killing the Amazonian tribe for example "promote humanity" or not according to his personal choice of a mantra I wonder?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the face of Trollboy's continued evasions, would anyone care to hazard a guess at why moral relativism might be "disproven"? So far as I can tell he starts with the odd notion that something must be absolute to be real, so - um - real morality must be objectively true then. Oddly though, he seems to think that, say, having an opinion on a piece of music being good or bad can be a real opinion without recourse to a supposed gold standard of musical worth.

So leaving aside his busted flush of an assertion, why might moral relativism be "disproven"? What I see is a world exactly as I'd expect it to look with people partially intuiting and partially reasoning their way to moral positions - probabilisitic, uncertain, messy, changeable as that might be - and living their lives accordingly. It's not so much that that's "proven" - it's just the way that it demonstrably is.

Except that when you try to demonstrate that with your equation of morals with taste it is clear that the ''way it is'' is not how you say it is. 1) we all act like objective moralists 2) aesthetics is not morality 3) An appeal to authority in matters of art, music etc. militates against your consensus and zeitgeist assertions and that makes your ideas contradictory.

Finally why are you evading a positive defence for moral relativism? Is it finally ''The Turd that would not Buff Up''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Andy,

Trollboy meant there of course "no": just repeating his personal opinion on something doesn't magically make it objectively true. And that's before he even gets to trying to define "promotion of humanity" (such anthropocentrism!) and to telling us how he'd go about applying it - would killing the Amazonian tribe for example "promote humanity" or not according to his personal choice of a mantra I wonder?

Pray tell me how does morality operate outside this definition.....and while you are at it tell us how morality operates within moral relativism?

[BeRational]

Pray tell me how does morality operate outside this definition.....and while you are at it tell us how morality operates within moral relativism?

YOU have the burden of proof as YOU say that morality is objective.

Please demonstrate this assertion, or stop asserting it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Point taken - that was a typo: when re-jigging that sentence (I used 'attacking' earlier in the same sentence) I meant to say 'defend' so I'll amend the post (now done). Apologies for that.

Even so, it still seems like you were encouraging us to defend our own arguments instead of attacking yours.

If this turns out to be a forum where people are just interested in attacking other peoples views without feeling the need to defend their own, then as Duncan Bannatyne would say...............I'm out.

[Andy]

yes.

Anything less than the promotion of humanity dehumanises and is therefore deemed immoral.

You're supposed to be answering why it is objectively moral to promote everyone's humanity. This is just going around in a circle, axiomatically stating that promoting everyone's humanity is moral therefore anything less is immoral. Try again.