Any two contradictory moral statements cannot both be true. Implying that morality is subjective would imply that they can.
For example: “being gay is wrong” and “being gay is not wrong”
Both cannot be true. One is right, one is wrong. This is objective. You can extrapolate this to every other moral stance. No two opposing ideas can both be true.
Therefore, if you were to extrapolate this to every moral stance, there would have to be a right and wrong statement for every one.
Morality is objective. Judgement is subjective, but judgement can be wrong.
For example: “being gay is wrong” and “being gay is not wrong”
Both cannot be true. One is right, one is wrong. This is objective
Ok, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what “objective” means. Neither of these statements is true.
Objective means, something can be confirmed by observation. For example if we were in a room and there would be a rock on the table and you say “there is a rock on the table” that would be true. And everyone else in the world could look into the room and observe for them themselves that the rock in infact sitting on the table. That’s objective.
However if you said “this rock is ugly”, that is not objective. Differnet people will have different opinion on the prettiness of the rock, because it’s an inherently subjective quality. There is not “true” value for the rocks prettiness.
The same goes for all moral judgements. You can not observe or meassure a moral quality objetivily because it’s a value that is assigned by the judgment of a human brain. It’s not an intrinsic quality of nature.
The problem I see with that definition is that we are asking to judge an opinion without opinions without opinions the opinion doesn’t exist so still no objective morality is still hogwash as it’s still a oxymoron if you see morals with zero judgements then everything is newtral right and wrong doesn’t mean anything how do you measure the morals of slavery without personal feelings you can’t say religion is bad that’s a opinion you can’t say human suffering is bad that’s a opinion you can’t say human prosperity is good that’s a opinion nothing is inherently good or bad as those are opinions without opinions you can only say you are blind as even saying it’s newtral is a opinion granted newtral is a debatable point so even if objective morality exist I’d be the most useless consept ever
So there exists an asbolute moral truth, but we have no way to determine what it is? I’m sure we can agree that morals don’t have a physical form, so in what way does it “exist”?
BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 years ago
Any two contradictory moral statements cannot both be true. Implying that morality is subjective would imply that they can.
For example: “being gay is wrong” and “being gay is not wrong”
Both cannot be true. One is right, one is wrong. This is objective. You can extrapolate this to every other moral stance. No two opposing ideas can both be true.
Therefore, if you were to extrapolate this to every moral stance, there would have to be a right and wrong statement for every one.
Morality is objective. Judgement is subjective, but judgement can be wrong.
theKalash@feddit.ch 2 years ago
Ok, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what “objective” means. Neither of these statements is true.
Objective means, something can be confirmed by observation. For example if we were in a room and there would be a rock on the table and you say “there is a rock on the table” that would be true. And everyone else in the world could look into the room and observe for them themselves that the rock in infact sitting on the table. That’s objective.
However if you said “this rock is ugly”, that is not objective. Differnet people will have different opinion on the prettiness of the rock, because it’s an inherently subjective quality. There is not “true” value for the rocks prettiness.
The same goes for all moral judgements. You can not observe or meassure a moral quality objetivily because it’s a value that is assigned by the judgment of a human brain. It’s not an intrinsic quality of nature.
BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 years ago
You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding what “objective” means.
Objective (adj.)
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
In other words: real, true, or factual
There is such a thing as objective morality, or moral truth.
Inability to determine what that is does not make it any less real.
creditCrazy@lemmy.world 2 years ago
The problem I see with that definition is that we are asking to judge an opinion without opinions without opinions the opinion doesn’t exist so still no objective morality is still hogwash as it’s still a oxymoron if you see morals with zero judgements then everything is newtral right and wrong doesn’t mean anything how do you measure the morals of slavery without personal feelings you can’t say religion is bad that’s a opinion you can’t say human suffering is bad that’s a opinion you can’t say human prosperity is good that’s a opinion nothing is inherently good or bad as those are opinions without opinions you can only say you are blind as even saying it’s newtral is a opinion granted newtral is a debatable point so even if objective morality exist I’d be the most useless consept ever
BluesF@feddit.uk 2 years ago
So there exists an asbolute moral truth, but we have no way to determine what it is? I’m sure we can agree that morals don’t have a physical form, so in what way does it “exist”?
BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 years ago
theKalash@feddit.ch 2 years ago
That definition perfectly aligns with what I just told you and directly contradicts your point.
Then please tell me how I it can be factually messured or observed. I’m waiting.