Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

A "moral truth" is a judgement upon certain actions and interactions of conscious entities or upon how conscious entities could be affected by those actions.

Unsupported assertion.

A no brainer. A fact. A certainty.

No, it's not a certainty or a fact, it's a self-evident falsehood. You have conflated "truth" with "judgment." A truth is not a judgment and a judgment is not a truth.

Er.... Hello. That is exactly what I am saying, "A "moral truth" is a judgement upon certain actions and interactions of conscious entities or upon how conscious entities could be affected by those actions."
This is not "unfounded" but as plain as the nose on your face.

Not only is the conflation an unsupported assertion, it also begs the question at hand. Redefining truth as judgment is not only an irrational assertion, it is also an attempt to prop up moral skepticism apart from arguments or reason.

Okay - right back at you. You are making a totally unfounded assertion.

By and large, this isn't a philosophical forum at all. It's mostly just people spouting strange hairbrained ideas with comical self-confidence.

What are you trying to say?
Please state an "eternal moral truth"! Or do you included yourself as yet another person spouting strange hairbrained ideas with comical self-confidence.?

[Sculptor1]

Your implied argument is this:
1. People do not live up to their moral principles.
2. Therefore moral principles are subjective.
This argument is invalid.

No you have it wrong.
2 does not rely on 1.

If there were eternal moral truths we would have no need for oaths such as the Hypocratic oath since "doing no harm" would be understood and there would be no need to assert the point.
All morals are of this nature. Rules and things asserted as "truth" because they are all coded in breeches of such ideas.
All social laws are of this kind too. Laws are made to assert rules, not state eternal truths.

People do have principles, but they are no eternal moral truths, because no such thing as ever been found to exist.

[Leontiskos]

Unsupported assertion.

A no brainer. A fact. A certainty.

No, it's not a certainty or a fact, it's a self-evident falsehood. You have conflated "truth" with "judgment." A truth is not a judgment and a judgment is not a truth.

Er.... Hello. That is exactly what I am saying, "A "moral truth" is a judgement upon certain actions and interactions of conscious entities or upon how conscious entities could be affected by those actions."
This is not "unfounded" but as plain as the nose on your face.

An "argument from Sculptor" is a collection of opinions with no basis in reality and no appeal to rational principles.
This is not "unfounded" but as plain as the nose on your face.
(QED)

[Good_Egg]

"A "moral truth" is a judgement upon certain actions and interactions of conscious entities or upon how conscious entities could be affected by those actions."

Moral judgments exist, yes.

If someone punches you in the face (or drags you off to a concentration camp and threatens to put you to death in a gas chamber) would you judge yourself to have been wronged ?

If the perpetrator of these acts denies that he has wronged you thereby - perhaps says you had it coming to you - then are you saying that we're supposed to shrug our shoulders and proclaim ourselves unable to judge between his claim and yours ?

Or would you ask us to believe that his judgment is mistaken and yours is correct ?

[LuckyR]

"A "moral truth" is a judgement upon certain actions and interactions of conscious entities or upon how conscious entities could be affected by those actions."

Moral judgments exist, yes.

If someone punches you in the face (or drags you off to a concentration camp and threatens to put you to death in a gas chamber) would you judge yourself to have been wronged ?

If the perpetrator of these acts denies that he has wronged you thereby - perhaps says you had it coming to you - then are you saying that we're supposed to shrug our shoulders and proclaim ourselves unable to judge between his claim and yours ?

Or would you ask us to believe that his judgment is mistaken and yours is correct ?

While I certainly would judge that I have been wronged, that's just one person's (subjective) opinion, as you correctly pointed out by describing a differing opinion.

As to the shrugging of shoulders, you need to take a step back and realize that there is no inherent difference between those performing the acts that are judged and those doing the judging. Everyone gets an opinion and guess what? While there may be broad consensus (upon which ethical standards are based), there is not universal agreement. This lack of universality, this spectrum of moral opinion, is the basis for the subjectivity of morality (as defined by moral codes).

[Sculptor1]

A no brainer. A fact. A certainty.

No, it's not a certainty or a fact, it's a self-evident falsehood. You have conflated "truth" with "judgment." A truth is not a judgment and a judgment is not a truth.

Er.... Hello. That is exactly what I am saying, "A "moral truth" is a judgement upon certain actions and interactions of conscious entities or upon how conscious entities could be affected by those actions."
This is not "unfounded" but as plain as the nose on your face.

An "argument from Sculptor" is a collection of opinions with no basis in reality and no appeal to rational principles.
This is not "unfounded" but as plain as the nose on your face.
(QED)

A "moral truth" is a judgement upon certain actions and interactions of conscious entities or upon how conscious entities could be affected by those actions."

[Sculptor1]

something confused...

A "moral truth" is a judgement upon certain actions and interactions of conscious entities or upon how conscious entities could be affected by those actions."

[Sculptor1]

"A "moral truth" is a judgement upon certain actions and interactions of conscious entities or upon how conscious entities could be affected by those actions."

Moral judgments exist, yes.

If someone punches you in the face (or drags you off to a concentration camp and threatens to put you to death in a gas chamber) would you judge yourself to have been wronged ?

That is not relevant since THEY would not think so.
Where is your "eternal truth" now?

If the perpetrator of these acts denies that he has wronged you thereby - perhaps says you had it coming to you - then are you saying that we're supposed to shrug our shoulders and proclaim ourselves unable to judge between his claim and yours ?

I am saying we have a disagreement, the very fact of which denies that there is any "eternal moral truths".
In such cases he will win because he has the power.
So maybe you think might is right is such a thing as an eternal moral truth?? Is that correct?
Is that what you are arguing?

Or would you ask us to believe that his judgment is mistaken and yours is correct ?

Well Duh?
Same back to you.
My argument holds water because judgement is required, and people do not agree. This example supports exactly what I have been saying all along..

[Good_Egg]

I am saying we have a disagreement, the very fact of which denies that there is any "eternal moral truths".

So consensus is necessary in order for truth to exist ?

The sky isn't truly blue if someone argues that it's green ?

The sun doesn't really rise in the east unless we all agree that it does ? One person who maintains that it rises in the north is enough to prove that this doesn't count as a truth ?

That seems a somewhat extreme position....

Personally, I don't believe that truth is a social construct.

But the language we use to express it is. "Blue" only means blue in the context of an English-speaking community. And we can only learn what it means by the fact that it is used consistently across some community.

Where consistency doesn't mean 100%. It means allowing for jokers and lunatics and colour-blind people...

Seems to me that there are deeper issues here than you're willing to admit. A little more reflection and a little less scorn (well, duh) would be in order.

[Sculptor1]

I am saying we have a disagreement, the very fact of which denies that there is any "eternal moral truths".

So consensus is necessary in order for truth to exist ?

you mean like milk has to exist for cheese to exist?

The sky isn't truly blue if someone argues that it's green ?

Even "blue" is subjective, but no one is arguing its green. You might want a different example.

The sun doesn't really rise in the east unless we all agree that it does ? One person who maintains that it rises in the north is enough to prove that this doesn't count as a truth ?

You are confusing observable phenomena with a bizarre claim of "eternal moral truth". Not even the sun as "risen in the East" eternally.

That seems a somewhat extreme position....

Not extreme at all. What is extreme is a claim that there can be a "eternal moral truth".

Personally, I don't believe that truth is a social construct.

What you believe is of no importance.

But the language we use to express it is. "Blue" only means blue in the context of an English-speaking community. And we can only learn what it means by the fact that it is used consistently across some community.

Where consistency doesn't mean 100%. It means allowing for jokers and lunatics and colour-blind people...

Seems to me that there are deeper issues here than you're willing to admit. A little more reflection and a little less scorn (well, duh) would be in order.

I'm still waiting for you to argue against what I said.

[Pattern-chaser]

So consensus is necessary in order for truth to exist ?

Consensus is necessary if truth is to be agreed upon, which is the practical state of things, if not exactly what you were getting at.

[Good_Egg]

I'm still waiting for you to argue against what I said.

My argument against what you have said is as follows:

1) you believe that there are true statements which would remain true even if somebody denied them

2) therefore you do not believe that universal consensus is necessary for truth

3) to say that universal consensus is necessary for the truth of moral propositions is equivalentl to saying that dissent about moral propositions proves that they are not truths, which is what you have claimed.

4) therefore what you have said is inconsistent with your other beliefs

5) which is sufficient reason to reject your argument.

However, your argument may be salvageable, if you can show that there are two distinct classes of proposition, one of which is consensus-dependent for its truth (we could perhaps call that "inter-subjective") and one which isn't (? "objective" ?) And that moral propositions necessarily fall into the non-objective category.

]

So consensus is necessary in order for truth to exist ?

Consensus is necessary if truth is to be agreed upon

Consensus is people agreeing. So your statement is an example of the form "X is necessary for X". Don't see how I can argue against that...

[Sculptor1]

I'm still waiting for you to argue against what I said.

My argument against what you have said is as follows:

1) you believe that there are true statements which would remain true even if somebody denied them

2) therefore you do not believe that universal consensus is necessary for truth

Non sequitur.

3) to say that universal consensus is necessary for the truth of moral propositions is equivalentl to saying that dissent about moral propositions proves that they are not truths, which is what you have claimed.

False

4) therefore what you have said is inconsistent with your other beliefs

No what you have said is incoherent since you do not understand "truth".

5) which is sufficient reason to reject your argument.

Your misunderstanding will always lead you to conclude your own false ideas, unless you are willing to self examine.

However, your argument may be salvageable, if you can show that there are two distinct classes of proposition, one of which is consensus-dependent for its truth (we could perhaps call that "inter-subjective") and one which isn't (? "objective" ?) And that moral propositions necessarily fall into the non-objective category.

All claims of objectivity are inter-subjective when it comes to values.
All moral claims are evaluations.
Moral claims are subjective.

]

So consensus is necessary in order for truth to exist ?

Consensus is necessary if truth is to be agreed upon

Consensus is people agreeing. So your statement is an example of the form "X is necessary for X". Don't see how I can argue against that...

[Sculptor1]

I think the thread has descended into the same realm that these discussions always lead to.

The absurd idea that moral claims are the same as empirical claims. They are not.
A moral claim asks us to judge a situation. An empirical claim is simply about observation.
You cannot look at a moral like you can a brick or a cheese burger.
Whilst empirically we can agree that a burger is on the table we cannot so easily agree to like burgers, or to decide whether or not a burger is good for you.
Then how much more difficult is it to decide on the truth of a moral question?

[Good_Egg]

The absurd idea that moral claims are the same as empirical claims. They are not.
A moral claim asks us to judge a situation. An empirical claim is simply about observation.
You cannot look at a moral like you can a brick or a cheese burger.
Whilst empirically we can agree that a burger is on the table we cannot so easily agree to like burgers, or to decide whether or not a burger is good for you.
Then how much more difficult is it to decide on the truth of a moral question?

You're right that moral rightness or wrongness is not directly informed by the physical senses. But what difference does that make ?

When you walk past someone's house and see through the window that there's a burger on the table, do you think that is an act of pure observation, untainted by judgment ? Or are you in fact using judgment to interpret your sense-perception and reach a conclusion as to whether there's a burger on the table ? Rather than just a picture of a burger, or a stage prop, or some other food which happens to be arranged into a vaguely-burger-like shape ?

If one of the windows is open and you can smell a meaty frying sort of smell to corroborate your visual sense, then it's more likely to be a burger.

But you're still comparing what you know about this thing with an idea or template of what a burger is, and using your judgment to reach a conclusion.

If you look through the window of the next house and see what looks like a man slapping a woman and hitting her with a stick, and judge that you're witnessing a crime in progress, is the process really that different ?

Where's the philosophically-significant difference that justifies your conclusion that a moral judgment lacks objective reality ?