Where did someone look?Objective morality has yet to be discovered.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Where did someone look?Objective morality has yet to be discovered.
@Revoltingest alert me when you get brave enough to address this question.. . . why are you on this website proclaiming most every day, or even multiple times per day, that people should or should not do x or y or that there should be a law against z?
Millions of philosophers (both amateur & profession) have looked all over the place.Where did someone look?
Bravery isn't an issue when you ask such easy questions.@Revoltingest alert me when you get brave enough to address this question.
Really???? Prove it.Millions of philosophers (both amateur & profession) have looked all over the place.
Philosophers very often make boneheaded claims.How come there are so many professional philosophers who express forms of moral realism?
Bravery isn't an issue when you ask such easy questions.
The answer is based upon a consensus of feelings.
We believe these values / judgements.
Caution:
It's not "believe" in the sense of thinking them to be factual,
but "believe" in the sense that this is what we value.
But don't think that The Truth exists simply because a majority
of people share these feelings. And note also that there are
always people with different feelings...ones which cannot be
proven wrong using logic & "true" premises.
Feelings are not "The Truth" simply because they're both
strongly & widely held.
My own argument (not sure from whom I stole it) is that the existence of objective moral facts is no more "problematic" than the existence of objective mathematical facts and objective logical facts.Philosophers very often make boneheaded claims.
They too confuse certainty of feelings with inerrant objective truth.
I invite you to present one of their arguments for our analysis & criticism.
"Babbling"?O go back to my original question, then: Why allow your feelings or values to dictate to you a proposition about the rightness or wrongness of something that you have already concluded is contrary to what is true? E.g., when you rail against people needlessly dragging others into court and the defendants have to pay for their defense, why don't you just say that your feelings and values have no relationship to reality, that all your claims of shoulds and should -nots are just babbling nonsense?
IMO, all that matters is whether or not we are helping right now. That is our fight.
I am a moral nihilist, which in my view doesn't mean I am amoral but that all morals untimately are a matter of personal feelings. IOW there's really no rational, logical, scientific justification for an absolute moral position.
While we may attempt to find an rational excuse to justify a moral position it really comes down to a feeling about what is right and what is wrong.
So my morals - sense of what is right and wrong behavior in the moment, as I see it, is based on my feelings at that moment. My feelings can change. My morals can change.
IMO, we can't always 100% know the source of our feelings, therefore we can't always know 100% why we feel some things are right and some things are wrong.
IMO, all that matters is whether or not we are helping right now. That is our fight.
For whatever reason you didn't answer my question -- at least directly. But it sounds to me that in all this you are trying to say that you don't know whether or not there are objective moral facts (such as "Rape is immoral"). Is that about right as to what ou were trying to express?
I am a moral nihilist, which in my view doesn't mean I am amoral but that all morals untimately are a matter of personal feelings. IOW there's really no rational, logical, scientific justification for an absolute moral position.
While we may attempt to find an rational excuse to justify a moral position it really comes down to a feeling about what is right and what is wrong.
So my morals - sense of what is right and wrong behavior in the moment, as I see it, is based on my feelings at that moment. My feelings can change. My morals can change.
IMO, we can't always 100% know the source of our feelings, therefore we can't always know 100% why we feel some things are right and some things are wrong.
IMO, you get to choose that, for yourself. Your are free to choose what is important and decide the right course of action to support it.
Objective morality has yet to be discovered.
Prove otherwise, bruderherz.
More questions....
Whence cometh objective morality.....gods, physics?
How is it proven to be inerrant truth?
It's more complicated for me.My take on this is that doing whatever you happen
to FEEL like doing is precisely the definition of
self indulgence.
Which, I hear, is Satan's fav. vice.
Just sayin'.
There are many ways.Dont you think there is a middle way?
I do not need objective proof of an absolute,
and dont think there is any such, anyway.
Nor do I think one should properly do just
whatev suits them at the moment.
I suppose absolutes or "nihilism" have great
appeal to those who find thinking to be hard work.
My take on this is that doing whatever you happen
to FEEL like doing is precisely the definition of
self indulgence.
Which, I hear, is Satan's fav. vice.
Just sayin'.
There are many ways.
Not being wise....just unable to count.Obi?