Inherently wrong actions?

[Acim]

Yes, I do. When I speak of "objective moral facts," I am using the term "objective" as defined in number 7 and 8 (i.e., "opposed to subjective"): http://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective?s=t

The thesis of moral realism proposes that there exist objective moral facts: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/ The concept of objective moral facts is analogous to the concepts of objective mathematical facts or the objective facts of logic. E.g., it is an objective mathematical fact that 23 is a prime number. 23 is prime not just because some of us believe or have agreed to say that it is prime; 23 (the figure that represents 23 objects) was prime even prior to any hominid being able to count to 23 or understand that 23 has no other positive divisors than 1 and itself. Similarly, it is an objective moral fact that raping a child is immoral. Raping a child is immoral not just because some of us believe it is or have agreed to say that it is.

There is nothing, that I observe that makes "raping a child" an 'objective, moral fact.' Could as easily say, "similarly it is an objective moral fact that not voting for Trump is immoral." And it would apply equally to "objective" and "fact." I'll be glad to show how right after you show how "raping a child" is objective moral fact.

Do you believe that there is something wrong with raping a child? If so, why do you believe that? To say, on one hand, that you personally believe that it is wrong for an adult to rape a child, but, on the other hand, that it is not objectively wrong for an adult to rape a child, is logically inconsistent unless you do not wish your beliefs to conform that what you claim is true.

This doesn't make sense.

I personally believe it is wrong for an adult voter to vote Democrat, but it is not objectively wrong for an adult voter to vote Democrat. Though it could be!

There's nothing in your links that I find supporting existence of moral facts, other than moral realists are sure they exist. Lots of pretty jargon though to ponder the origins of moral realism and anti-realism.

 

[Acim]

Obviously you haven't presented any evidence by which to conclude that the Golden Rule is a causal law.

That's fine. I don't feel like I need to. It literally doesn't affect me, or my position, if you believe otherwise.

But I also observe you haven't presented any evidence for moral objective facts. Thus, haven't shown any inherently wrong actions, which is the request of OP.

Is a "true proposition" what you meant by the phrase "an absolute force/entity that permeates the whole of existence"? Why didn't you just use the term "true proposition"? It would have been much less confusing to me.

I'm saying use of "true proposition" provides for absolute force. Essentially, it is axiomatic. Yet, really doesn't explain anything, just something to be taken on faith.

 

[Erebus]

I don't understand why a moral nihilist (regardless of the version, even those who propose "moral relativism") objects to a rapist getting to enjoy himself by doing something that you claim isn't objectively or inherently wrong, bad or immoral.

I have no problem with someone teaching a 4-year-old to tie her shoes, because I do not believe such an act is immoral. (Indeed, I think it is a good thing to teach a child to tie her shoes.) Why doesn't the moral nihilist say the same about the rapist? What is the reason for the nihilist's disapproval of someone raping a 4-year-old child?

Absolutely not. That's why I am asking you to explain the reason for your disapproval of a rapist having a moment of pleasure with your 4-year-old daughter.

I'm just asking the hard questions about moral nihilism.

You aren't asking hard questions about moral nihilism or moral relativism. You're saying that somebody who holds that morality is subjective can't have an opinion on an act. That's a stance that is, frankly, quite unbelievable. If I hold that morality is subjective, then it makes more sense for me to put across my opinion than if I held that morality is objective.

You also seem to be bundling the entire spectrum of moral non-objectivism under one specific variant of moral nihilism.

So, why would I be against somebody raping a four year old? Because that kind of thing disgusts and outrages me to my very core. Those are perfectly valid reasons to consider an act evil and still be a moral non-objectivist. You know what position would make no sense for me to take on that basis? Moral objectivism.

Now, was it you who proposed the golden rule as objectively correct? Or did you say something more to the effect of causing harm is objectively wrong?

Whichever it was, please demonstrate why those things are objectively true. Remember, you can't include any of your values, opinions or emotions if you're to present something objectively.

Edit:

I've just had a quick look through your posts on some other threads, Nous. It seems quite a few people have had trouble communicating with you. I should have probably done that sooner, but there you go.

I'm out.

 

[Acim]

That's why I am asking you to explain the reason for your disapproval of a rapist having a moment of pleasure with your 4-year-old daughter.

I see the disapproval because of relative moral values. Arguably such values are "stronger" because of appeals to emotion that objective values might not / probably wouldn't possess. Therefore, when confronting someone about what they personally believe to be wrong, but aren't able to conclude it is inherently wrong, it might actually be stronger refutation on it ever being right (for them) than it would be if having intellectual discourse on inherently wrong actions, that could be challenged via intellectual debate.

Something (an action) could be viewed as immoral and yet the person holding that view could still 'approve' of the person that performed that action. Like I could say voting for Democrats is immoral, but if my wife votes for Democrats, I may approve of her as a person and acknowledge that she engages in actions which I believe are relatively immoral. When 'rape' is brought into the discussion, any sort of language that could conceivably approve of that person is, I observe, grounds for getting out proverbial pitchforks and treating such persons as worthy of equal scorn to that of the person who decided it okay to rape a child.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Yes, I do. When I speak of "objective moral facts," I am using the term "objective" as defined in number 7 and 8 (i.e., "opposed to subjective"): http://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective?s=t

The thesis of moral realism proposes that there exist objective moral facts: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/ The concept of objective moral facts is analogous to the concepts of objective mathematical facts or the objective facts of logic. E.g., it is an objective mathematical fact that 23 is a prime number. 23 is prime not just because some of us believe or have agreed to say that it is prime; 23 (the figure that represents 23 objects) was prime even prior to any hominid being able to count to 23 or understand that 23 has no other positive divisors than 1 and itself. Similarly, it is an objective moral fact that raping a child is immoral. Raping a child is immoral not just because some of us believe it is or have agreed to say that it is.

The proposal or assumption that there exist objective moral facts does not entail the assertion that everyone behaves in any particular way. Nor does the Golden Rule imply that everyone abides by it.

In your initial post that I responded to, you asked for "an absolute standard" for moral behavior. In response, I asked whether the Golden Rule would not suffice as "a good objective moral standard". I still ask why it wouldn't.

Do you believe that there is something wrong with raping a child? If so, why do you believe that? To say, on one hand, that you personally believe that it is wrong for an adult to rape a child, but, on the other hand, that it is not objectively wrong for an adult to rape a child, is logically inconsistent unless you do not wish your beliefs to conform that what you claim is true.

Couple things.

You say there are objective moral facts, akin to mathematics. OK, let's have one, and not just another circular X is wrong because it's immoral. I want the calculations.

Second, beliefs do not equate to facts. I can believe something is 'wrong'(understood as something I wouldn't do) without pretending there are some universal laws I am obeying regarding any justification I might offer regarding that position.

Raping a child is, objectively, penetrating a child against their wishes. Anything past that is probably only justified by emotion, as seems to be the case with you. I get it, that's one of your buttons, but that's all it is.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

This is neither the time nor the place for me to educate you about Satanism. There is a dir for that, maybe start there.

Maybe if you had read past my username you might realize I have done exactly that.

So Satanists are monolithic. I must confess, I didn't know that.

I'm not hung up on that like you think I am. Truth is my God, and I've said often, here and elsewhere, that out of the mouths of babes or the Devil himself, the Truth is the Truth. So far you haven't said much of anything, and your biggest statement is your screen name. And I've also often quoted "The Devil's Advocate" which shows that the Devil only tells one lie, that "your vanity is justified". Of course his followers have no idea what he's talking about, and so put out a constant stream of subjectivist pap, aka lies--not that some Truth isn't subjective, there is, they (you?) just don't know what that means either.

 

[Nous]

There is nothing, that I observe that makes "raping a child" an 'objective, moral fact.'

The phrase "raping a child" merely indicates an act. The moral fact with respect to raping a child is that it is immoral (or wrong) to rape a child.

You would protest, "No, no, no, there is nothing wrong with raping a child." Correct?

I personally believe it is wrong for an adult voter to vote Democrat, but it is not objectively wrong for an adult voter to vote Democrat. Though it could be!

Huh? How could voting Democrat be objectively wrong if it isn't?

Why do you believe that "it is wrong for an adult voter to vote Democrat"?

There's nothing in your links that I find supporting existence of moral facts

The IEP article stated a deduction that concluded there are moral facts. But perhaps you disagree with the premises?

 

[Nous]

That's fine. I don't feel like I need to. It literally doesn't affect me, or my position, if you believe otherwise.

But I also observe you haven't presented any evidence for moral objective facts. Thus, haven't shown any inherently wrong actions, which is the request of OP.

My response here will depend on how you answer my above question about why you believe it is wrong for an adult to vote Democrat.

I'm saying use of "true proposition" provides for absolute force. Essentially, it is axiomatic. Yet, really doesn't explain anything, just something to be taken on faith.

Are you saying that there can be no true propositions without an "absolute force"?

 

[Nous]

You aren't asking hard questions about moral nihilism or moral relativism. You're saying that somebody who holds that morality is subjective can't have an opinion on an act.

What a ridiculous thing to say! I didn't say or even vaguely suggest that "somebody who holds that morality is subjective can't have an opinion on an act." I asked you several questions that assume moral nihilism. And your not answering the questions makes me think the questions are just too probing, too difficult.

You also seem to be bundling the entire spectrum of moral non-objectivism under one specific variant of moral nihilism.

As I said earlier, moral relativism is just a version of nihilism. Certainly moral "subjectivism" can only be nihilism. If you wish to distinguish what you advocate as "subjectivism" from nihilism, please do.

So, why would I be against somebody raping a four year old? Because that kind of thing disgusts and outrages me to my very core.

But why? For the person who claims that no act is objectively or inherently immoral, raping a child is morally equivalent to teaching her to tie her shoes. Why are you disgusted and outraged by the former but not the latter?

It's opinions such as yours that lead to these all these fine young rapists having to spend years in prison--merely for doing something that you claim isn't (inherently or objectively) wrong. It's arbitrary for the moral nihilist (or "subjectivist") to disapprove of and want to imprison the rapist, is it not?

I've just had a quick look through your posts on some other threads, Nous. It seems quite a few people have had trouble communicating with you.

No one told me about it.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

So Satanists are monolithic. I must confess, I didn't know that.

I'm not hung up on that like you think I am. Truth is my God, and I've said often, here and elsewhere, that out of the mouths of babes or the Devil himself, the Truth is the Truth. So far you haven't said much of anything, and your biggest statement is your screen name. And I've also often quoted "The Devil's Advocate" which shows that the Devil only tells one lie, that "your vanity is justified". Of course his followers have no idea what he's talking about, and so put out a constant stream of subjectivist pap, aka lies--not that some Truth isn't subjective, there is, they (you?) just don't know what that means either.

I really could not care less about your religious beliefs, nor do I care about your muddled opinions on what I might believe based on same.

Focus man.

You can cast whatever actions you wish as 'good' or 'bad' based on whatever arbitrary hubris or religious nonsense you choose, but to repeat myself once again, these exist only in your head. There are no wrong or right actions, only actions, and rationalizations. What is 'wrong' for you isn't necessarily wrong for me. There are no moral absolutes, just personal judgements (often infused with megalomania and self importance of course)

 

[Nous]

I see the disapproval because of relative moral values.

What is disapproval of the act of raping a child relative to? There is no nation or society that approves of raping 4-year-olds.

People's beliefs about same-sex marriage was and is somewhat relative. I'm certain even the Christian fundamentalists who saw Obergefell as the downfall of the nation recognized that there are lots of people (e.g., non-religious ones) who support equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.

 

[Acim]

The phrase "raping a child" merely indicates an act. The moral fact with respect to raping a child is that it is immoral (or wrong) to rape a child.

You would protest, "No, no, no, there is nothing wrong with raping a child." Correct?

Incorrect. I would protest that there has been zero (absolute) moral facts presented in your case. I have heard your subjective opinion on this numerous times and one that is shared by everyone else in this thread, bolstering the case for strong agreement among relative moralists.

Huh? How could voting Democrat be objectively wrong if it isn't?

Why do you believe that "it is wrong for an adult voter to vote Democrat"?

Because it is objective fact....in the same way you are using those terms.

The IEP article stated a deduction that concluded there are moral facts. But perhaps you disagree with the premises?

Why don't you quote that whole section for all to see. Be sure to search for other rebuttals in that article, or I'll do it for you.

 

[Nous]

Couple things.

You say there are objective moral facts, akin to mathematics. OK, let's have one, and not just another circular X is wrong because it's immoral. I want the calculations.

Obviously one cannot calculate a moral precept. Neither can one calculate the objective mathematical fact that some infinite sets are of greater cardinality than other infinite sets. One can only deduce such facts from certain premises. I suppose the person who denies that infinite sets exist would be unconvinced by any such deduction or theorem.

Second, beliefs do not equate to facts. I can believe something is 'wrong'(understood as something I wouldn't do) without pretending there are some universal laws I am obeying regarding any justification I might offer regarding that position.

Raping a child is, objectively, penetrating a child against their wishes.

The question I asked you is: Do you believe it is in some way wrong to rape a 4-year-old child?

 

[Acim]

What is disapproval of the act of raping a child relative to? There is no nation or society that approves of raping 4-year-olds.

Legal, man made laws. Current laws. As noted earlier in the thread, it used to be legal to marry/have sexual relations with what we call minors. Encouraged even. Now it is seen as morally reprehensible by overwhelming majority, thus relative to our era.

There are certain sub-sections of various human societies that think it is permissible to marry/have sexual relations still with minors. These persons would likely be at odds with their local/national laws. 2 relative moralities would collide if the two sides met. My bet is on the government imposing authority of law.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Can you explain why it would be wrong (first) or inherently wrong?

I believe many on the thread believe many things are inherently wrong. I'm yet to observe one that when presented hasn't been met with a rebuttal of where or how it could be right / not wrong.

I did specifically bring up actions in OP. So, some say killing with malice is inherently wrong. Take out the "with malice part" (malice being challenging to observe, objectively) and suddenly the action isn't inherently wrong.

So, it'll be curious what actions you associate with "serving Satan" and how you go about arguing that those actions are inherently wrong.

I believe that serving Satan is (inherently) wrong because Satan is God's Eternal Enemy (and we should serve God).

Any action done in service of Satan is inherently wrong. Whether that is killing someone or giving in charity (in service of Satan).

By contrast, I don't believe any action is inherently wrong (unless it is done in service of Satan). That includes raping a child.

 

[Nous]

Incorrect. I would protest that there has been zero (absolute) moral facts presented in your case.

What qualifies as an "absolute moral fact"?

Because it is objective fact.

What is an objective fact? That it is immoral to vote for a Democrat? What's immoral about it?

Why don't you quote that whole section for all to see.

Here's the argument:

The moral realist may argue for the view that there are moral facts as follows:

(1) Moral sentences are sometimes true.

(2) A sentence is true only if the truth-making relation holds between it and the thing that makes it true.

(3) Thus, true moral sentences are true only because there holds the truth-making relation between them and the things that make them true.

Therefore,

(4) The things that make some moral sentences true must exist.

It is a short inference from the existence of the things that make some moral sentences true to the existence of moral facts.​

http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/

I was waiting on you to say why you believe it is wrong for someone to vote for a Democrat before trying to defend the premises.

 

[Nous]

Legal, man made laws. Current laws. As noted earlier in the thread, it used to be legal to marry/have sexual relations with what we call minors. Encouraged even.

I am not aware of any nation or society where it was either legal or encouraged for adults to rape 4-year-olds. You are welcomed to present the evidence that I'm wrong.

There is obviously nothing illegal about someone voting for a Democrat, so the question remains why you disapprove of it.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Obviously one cannot calculate a moral precept. Neither can one calculate the objective mathematical fact that some infinite sets are of greater cardinality than other infinite sets. One can only deduce such facts from certain premises. I suppose the person who denies that infinite sets exist would be unconvinced by any such deduction or theorem.

Ok so you can't then. So why not admit your personal judgements of things are just that? Why do you need to try to project your views onto the universe? A strange eisegesis indeed.

The question I asked you is: Do you believe it is in some way wrong to rape a 4-year-old child?

I am not attracted to four year old children, so I don't rape them. I recognize that the insertion of a penis into such small orifices is likely to do damage, and I am generally quite empathetic to people's pain, but I wouldn't say it is wrong, nor does the thought of it happening, along with all the rest normals might describe as 'horrors', bother me in the least.

Nature is savage and vicious, Man most of all, and I for one don't see the problem. Life itself is a predatory thing, jaws and stomaches with the rest built around. Life consumes life, or life doesn't exist. Is it immoral for the lion to eat the gazelle? Yet we are supposed to be horrified at an act that is survived by the victim?

Perspective.

 

[Acim]

I believe that serving Satan is (inherently) wrong because Satan is God's Eternal Enemy (and we should serve God).

Any action done in service of Satan is inherently wrong. Whether that is killing someone or giving in charity (in service of Satan).

By contrast, I don't believe any action is inherently wrong (unless it is done in service of Satan). That includes raping a child.

And how we know if an action is serving Satan (peace be upon his made up existence) or not serving?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

And how we know if an action is serving Satan (peace be upon his made up existence) or not serving?

It's people and other beings who serve Satan, rather than actions per se.