Instigator / Con
3
1500
rating
3
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#4466
Morality is Objective
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
3
0
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Critical-Tim
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1472
rating
33
debates
46.97%
won
Description
As we begin this debate on the objectivity of morality, I want to express my appreciation for my opponent's willingness to engage in a productive discussion and share their understanding of the world. While we may hold different views, my intention is not to win or lose, but rather to gain a better understanding of this complex topic.
I also want to express my respect to my opponent, and their perspectives. Just as a three-dimensional shape is formed by many two-dimensional images, our individual subjective perspectives are fragments of a larger and more intricate reality. It is only by fitting them together that we can hope to comprehend the full complexity of the world we inhabit.
In this debate, I will argue that morality is not objective, while my opponent will argue the opposite. However, regardless of the outcome, my hope is that we will both leave with a deeper understanding of this topic.
I believe that it is important to approach this debate with an open mind, to filter out biases and focus on the facts, and to engage in calm and rational thinking. It is also important to resist the temptation to only believe what we want, and to be willing to consider and explore ideas that may challenge our existing beliefs.
Ultimately, my goal is to engage in a respectful and productive debate that contributes to our collective understanding of the world.
Round 1
Con
#1
Before diving in I would like to clarify some of the terminology in which we will be using in this debate such as three distinct types of morality, and the difference between morals and ethics.
The belief in objective morality is the idea that there are universal moral principles that are true regardless of individual beliefs, opinions, or cultural norms. According to this view, certain actions are inherently right or wrong, and moral judgments can be objectively justified by appeal to these principles. The logical conclusion of objective morality is that there are objectively right and wrong actions, and that individuals and societies have a moral obligation to act in accordance with these principles. This view often relies on the idea that there are objective values, such as the value of human life, which provide a basis for moral principles.
The belief of moral relativism is that morality is not objective and universal but is relative to cultural or individual perspectives. Moral values and principles are shaped by numerous factors such as cultural upbringing, historical context, and subjective experiences. Therefore, what may be considered morally right or wrong in one culture may not be the same in another culture or society. The logical conclusion of moral relativism is that there are no universal moral principles, and there is no objective way to judge or evaluate the moral practices or beliefs of others.
The belief that morality is subjective holds that there are no objective or universal moral principles that apply to everyone, and that moral judgments are based on individual or cultural beliefs and values. The logical conclusion of this belief is that moral judgments cannot be objectively proven or disproven, and that there is no ultimate moral truth or standard. Instead, moral judgments are based on subjective opinions and subjective experiences, and different individuals or cultures may have different moral codes. This view allows for a diversity of moral values and beliefs, but also raises questions about the possibility of moral progress or moral disagreement.
Finally, we must also recognize the difference between morals and ethics. Morality and ethics are often used interchangeably, but they are distinct concepts that refer to distinct aspects of human behavior and decision-making. Morality is the set of principles or values that an individual or a society considers to be right or wrong. Morality is typically based on deeply held beliefs and cultural norms and is often tied to religious or philosophical worldviews. Morality is concerned with questions of virtue, character, and conscience. For example, an individual may believe that lying is always wrong because it violates their personal moral code. Ethics, on the other hand, is a set of principles or values that guide decision-making in professional or institutional settings. Ethics is often based on established codes of conduct or professional standards and is concerned with questions of right and wrong in specific contexts. For example, a medical professional may be bound by ethical guidelines that prohibit them from divulging confidential patient information. In summary, morality is more personal and subjective, while ethics are more objective and concerned with professional or institutional contexts. While there can be an overlap between the two, it is important to understand the distinct differences between morality and ethics.
It's worth noting that objective morality refers to morals that are based on inherent objective values. However, if morals are based on objectivity or relative to objectivity, it could be seen as a form of moral relativism as it is relative to objective reality. I do recognize this is not disprove objective morality, but felt it was important to acknowledge. Additionally, the standards of which morals we consider objective are relative to modern-day moral standards. We argue about current morals and not morals from the past or future, making them relative to modern-day morals. One may argue that in the past, we were ignorant of the morality of slavery, but this leads to a ton of new questions.
Does that mean we were unaware of morals inherent in certain actions?
Are there more morals that we are currently unaware of that will be discovered in the future?
Is there a limit to how many will be discovered, or will the list grow infinitely as we discover them?
There must be reconciliation for actions that were apparently immoral but done out of ignorance?
Is ignorance a form of justification for moral wrongdoing?
We must also recognize the opposite. Currently we are acknowledging that there are still more morals to be discovered if they are objectively founded and that we are still ignorant to them. Hey enthesis is that there are morals that we hold today that are not morals that should be kept or will in the future be dropped off as no longer valuable or important, such as homosexuality. In many cultures throughout history, homosexuality was considered taboo and immoral. In some cases, it was even punishable by death. However, in modern times, many societies have shifted towards accepting and embracing homosexuality, with some even legalizing same-sex marriage. If morals are objective, how can we consider which morals are to be discovered versus which morals were falsely discovered and are just being held is valuable or being told or indoctrinated as important morals but, in the future, we will recognize them as not correct moral standards.
In one culture, justice may be a form of moral rectification, whereas in another culture, forgiveness or submission may be a form of morality. Is one culture's morals better than another, or is morality inherent to humanity's underlying structure? How can any individual identify this without looking at the culture at large? If one were to examine their own beliefs without considering societal norms, they would have a subjective morality. However, this subjective morality could be problematic if evaluated by someone suffering from insanity. The alternative to looking towards oneself or using subjective morality would be a form of culture or societies standards for morality. It would just be a form of collective subjectivity to form an overall morally relative standard or ethical system. Furthermore, if we're not going to judge our morals based on our subjective interpretations because of wildly varying interpretations of right and wrong and we can agree subjective morality is not a favorable solution. However collective subjectivity is just a form of moral relativism as its relative to the time and culture, which arguably seems to be what many people use today and have done in the past for centuries. In modern culture, slavery is considered an ethical concern and most people are incapable of owning slaves due to their indoctrinated impotence to conform them to society morals and ethics. However, in the past, people had no problem with engaging in cruel and appalling acts of punishment without feeling guilty. This raises the question of how people from the past could do things that people in the present find repugnant. The answer lies in the indoctrination of moral standards that are ingrained into people through the society and culture they were raised in.
An example would be during the era of baby boomers, cultural and societal values played a significant role in shaping the upbringing and lifestyles of individuals. For instance, baby boomers were raised in a society that emphasized hard work and traditional family values. This generation witnessed significant societal changes such as the civil rights movement, women's liberation, and the Vietnam War, which influenced their beliefs and values. As a result, baby boomers tended to have a strong work ethic, valued stability, and security, and were more likely to conform to traditional gender roles. They also preferred conservative styles in fashion, music, and entertainment. On the other hand, younger generations, such as Generation X and Millennials, grew up in a society that encouraged individuality, creativity, and diversity. These generations were exposed to different forms of media, such as the internet and social media, which allowed them to explore a wider range of interests and ideas. As a result, younger generations tend to value self-expression, diversity, and authenticity. They also tend to have more liberal attitudes towards issues such as gender, sexuality, and race. Thus, the differing values and lifestyles of different generations can be attributed to the impact of culture and society on one's development. The societal norms and values that individuals are exposed to during their formative years can shape their beliefs and attitudes towards various aspects of life.
This highlights the fact that the morals and ethics of Gen X may not be upheld by Gen Z. It raises questions such as: which set of morals is more important, and who is qualified to make that judgement? Will Gen Z's values and morals become the ethical standard of society in the future, and will the same thing happen with the generations that follow? It is evident that morality varies depending on the culture, society, and timeline in which people are raised. How can we determine which moral standards are objectively valid across all times and cultures? Who can be the judge of this throughout history and across all cultures?
In conclusion, I have pointed out that moral subjectivity can lead to severe problems as individuals may deviate far from the average and not be viewed as a standard of any sort. On the other hand, objective morality is set in stone and cannot be traced throughout time to any standard, nor can it be judged by any individual. Society as a whole judge what is objectively moral, but even then, society changes over time and has no inherent or fixed moral implication of an action. Ultimately, it comes down to a form of moral relativism where culture collectively decides morals subjectively, so that no one is too different than the rest to make an insane choice of what is moral. Instead, the culture as a whole decides it like a unanimous vote or just a social norm, which is ingrained past conscious choice and into our physiology. Not only do we consciously accept these morals, but we also don't have any remorse for what other cultures would consider atrocious because it has been indoctrinated by our culture and society. Therefore, morality is individually subjective, ethics are collectively subjective, and neither are objectively defined.
Pro
#2
Beginning argument:
Is morality objective? This is a question that has been debated for centuries by philosophers, theologians, and scientists. However, there is a compelling argument to be made for the objective nature of morality.
Morality is grounded in the concept of human flourishing. Human flourishing refers to the idea that there are objective goods that contribute to the well-being and flourishing of human beings. These goods, such as health, knowledge, friendship, and love, are universally agreed upon as objectively desirable and contribute to human flourishing. Therefore, it can be argued that there are objective moral standards that promote human flourishing.
Moreover, moral principles are not just invented but rather discovered through reason and experience. For instance, the principle of non-maleficence, which states that we should not harm others, is a moral principle that has been discovered through reason and experience. This principle is universally accepted as a moral truth, and it is not subject to personal opinion or cultural differences. Additionally, moral judgments are universal, and they apply to everyone, regardless of their culture or religion. The principle of justice, which states that individuals should be treated fairly and equitably, is an example of a moral principle that applies to all human beings. This universality of moral judgments further supports the objective nature of morality.
Furthermore, moral judgments are not just descriptive but also prescriptive. They prescribe the way things ought to be, not just describe the way things are. The principle of beneficence, which states that we should do good to others, prescribes a certain behavior that we ought to follow. This prescriptive nature of moral judgments further supports the objectivity of morality.
Lastly, the existence of moral progress supports the objective nature of morality. Moral progress refers to the idea that over time, societies and individuals have moved towards a more moral way of living. This progress has been achieved by discovering and following objective moral principles that promote human flourishing. If morality were purely subjective, there would be no basis for moral progress.
Morality is grounded in the concept of human flourishing, moral principles are discovered not invented, moral judgments are universal and prescriptive, and the existence of moral progress supports the objectivity of morality.
Rebuttals:
The belief in objective morality is the idea that there are universal moral principles that are true regardless of individual beliefs, opinions, or cultural norms. According to this view, certain actions are inherently right or wrong, and moral judgments can be objectively justified by appeal to these principles. The logical conclusion of objective morality is that there are objectively right and wrong actions, and that individuals and societies have a moral obligation to act in accordance with these principles. This view often relies on the idea that there are objective values, such as the value of human life, which provide a basis for moral principles.The belief of moral relativism is that morality is not objective and universal but is relative to cultural or individual perspectives. Moral values and principles are shaped by numerous factors such as cultural upbringing, historical context, and subjective experiences. Therefore, what may be considered morally right or wrong in one culture may not be the same in another culture or society. The logical conclusion of moral relativism is that there are no universal moral principles, and there is no objective way to judge or evaluate the moral practices or beliefs of others.The belief that morality is subjective holds that there are no objective or universal moral principles that apply to everyone, and that moral judgments are based on individual or cultural beliefs and values. The logical conclusion of this belief is that moral judgments cannot be objectively proven or disproven, and that there is no ultimate moral truth or standard. Instead, moral judgments are based on subjective opinions and subjective experiences, and different individuals or cultures may have different moral codes. This view allows for a diversity of moral values and beliefs, but also raises questions about the possibility of moral progress or moral disagreement.
Just because there are subjective and cultural factors that influence moral beliefs and values does not mean that there are no universal moral principles that can be objectively justified.
The idea of objective morality is not necessarily based on the belief that all moral principles are inherently objective and unchanging. Instead, it acknowledges that there are certain moral principles that are universal and apply to all individuals and societies, such as the principle that it is wrong to harm innocent people. These universal principles are based on objective values, such as the value of human life and dignity, which provide a foundation for moral reasoning.
The discovery of new moral principles and the evolution of moral values do not necessarily disprove the existence of objective morality. In fact, the recognition of new moral principles and the evolution of moral values can be seen as evidence of the universality of moral principles, as they reflect a deeper understanding of the objective values that underpin these principles.
In one culture, justice may be a form of moral rectification, whereas in another culture, forgiveness or submission may be a form of morality. Is one culture's morals better than another, or is morality inherent to humanity's underlying structure? How can any individual identify this without looking at the culture at large? If one were to examine their own beliefs without considering societal norms, they would have a subjective morality. However, this subjective morality could be problematic if evaluated by someone suffering from insanity. The alternative to looking towards oneself or using subjective morality would be a form of culture or societies standards for morality. It would just be a form of collective subjectivity to form an overall morally relative standard or ethical system. Furthermore, if we're not going to judge our morals based on our subjective interpretations because of wildly varying interpretations of right and wrong and we can agree subjective morality is not a favorable solution. However collective subjectivity is just a form of moral relativism as its relative to the time and culture, which arguably seems to be what many people use today and have done in the past for centuries. In modern culture, slavery is considered an ethical concern and most people are incapable of owning slaves due to their indoctrinated impotence to conform them to society morals and ethics. However, in the past, people had no problem with engaging in cruel and appalling acts of punishment without feeling guilty. This raises the question of how people from the past could do things that people in the present find repugnant. The answer lies in the indoctrination of moral standards that are ingrained into people through the society and culture they were raised in.An example would be during the era of baby boomers, cultural and societal values played a significant role in shaping the upbringing and lifestyles of individuals. For instance, baby boomers were raised in a society that emphasized hard work and traditional family values. This generation witnessed significant societal changes such as the civil rights movement, women's liberation, and the Vietnam War, which influenced their beliefs and values. As a result, baby boomers tended to have a strong work ethic, valued stability, and security, and were more likely to conform to traditional gender roles. They also preferred conservative styles in fashion, music, and entertainment. On the other hand, younger generations, such as Generation X and Millennials, grew up in a society that encouraged individuality, creativity, and diversity. These generations were exposed to different forms of media, such as the internet and social media, which allowed them to explore a wider range of interests and ideas. As a result, younger generations tend to value self-expression, diversity, and authenticity. They also tend to have more liberal attitudes towards issues such as gender, sexuality, and race. Thus, the differing values and lifestyles of different generations can be attributed to the impact of culture and society on one's development. The societal norms and values that individuals are exposed to during their formative years can shape their beliefs and attitudes towards various aspects of life.
While it is true that there can be disagreements and debates about the specific content of moral principles, this does not necessarily mean that there is no objective basis for morality. It simply means that there are different interpretations and understandings of what constitutes right and wrong. These debates and disagreements can be healthy and productive, as they help us to refine our understanding of moral principles and develop more nuanced and sophisticated moral frameworks.
This is a shorter argument to start off with, but I feel as if this is all that needs to be said when it comes to my first-round argument. I will be going more in depth, the further into the debate we go.
Round 2
Con
#3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions:
To clarify the necessary terms for me to make my case, I will clearly define both objective and subjective.
Objective refers to something that is independent of personal opinions, feelings, or beliefs. It is a fact or a reality that is true regardless of anyone's perspective. For example, the mass of an object or the boiling point of water are objective facts that can be measured and agreed upon by different individuals.
Subjective, on the other hand, refers to something that is influenced by personal opinions, feelings, or beliefs. It is something that varies based on an individual's perspective or experience. For example, taste in music or art is subjective because it depends on personal preference and cannot be measured objectively.
In short, objective refers to facts or realities that exist independently of personal opinions, while subjective refers to experiences or perspectives that are influenced by personal opinions, feelings, or beliefs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response:
Is morality objective? This is a question that has been debated for centuries by philosophers, theologians, and scientists. However, there is a compelling argument to be made for the objective nature of morality. Morality is grounded in the concept of human flourishing. Human flourishing refers to the idea that there are objective goods that contribute to the well-being and flourishing of human beings. These goods, such as health, knowledge, friendship, and love, are universally agreed upon as objectively desirable and contribute to human flourishing. Therefore, it can be argued that there are objective moral standards that promote human flourishing.
In your argument you claim that human flourishing is the concept of objective morality, I don't see what makes it objective. Isn't the morality of human flourishing not grounded in personal opinion, feelings, or beliefs? Morality is a result of personal feelings, and without emotions or sympathy a person would not have a sense of morality, this in itself proves morals only exist subjectively.
Additionally, claiming that morality is based on human flourishing is not only subjective but also highly ambiguous and dangerous. For example, the term "flourishing" could be interpreted in various ways and used to justify actions that are morally reprehensible. As an example, Hitler could have argued that eliminating certain genes or individuals with disabilities would result in a future where humanity thrives with fewer deaths due to the decrease in less probable thriving genes. He could have further justified that the deaths in the war to achieve this goal would be significantly less than the lives spared from their suffering of living a relatively seeming miserable existence. Therefore, it is important to recognize that using human flourishing as a basis for morality is not objective and could lead to immoral actions.
Moreover, moral principles are not just invented but rather discovered through reason and experience. For instance, the principle of non-maleficence, which states that we should not harm others, is a moral principle that has been discovered through reason and experience. This principle is universally accepted as a moral truth, and it is not subject to personal opinion or cultural differences. Additionally, moral judgments are universal, and they apply to everyone, regardless of their culture or religion.
In your example, you used the universal acceptance of moral judgements claiming it further supports the objective nature as the guide for a moral truth. That is not objectivity as it was not inherent, but collectively subjective, as it was not inherent but rather an agreed upon rule. This agreed upon rule or societal norm was described in my first round as not moral, but ethical.
The principle of justice, which states that individuals should be treated fairly and equitably, is an example of a moral principle that applies to all human beings.
Says who? The people. The people collectively speak up with their subjective feelings forming a collectively subjective ethical standard. Additionally, treated unfairly and equitably, are those not emotional traits. This is furthermore referring to the subjective aspect and nature of morality as morality was stated to be influenced by personal opinions, feelings, or beliefs. There is no objective law or natural rule that is consistent or inherent within all things.
The idea of objective morality is not necessarily based on the belief that all moral principles are inherently objective and unchanging. Instead, it acknowledges that there are certain moral principles that are universal and apply to all individuals and societies, such as the principle that it is wrong to harm innocent people. These universal principles are based on objective values, such as the value of human life and dignity, which provide a foundation for moral reasoning.
An objective standard is expected to be consistent over time and across individuals since it is based on empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and universally applicable ethical principles that are detached from personal biases, beliefs, and emotions. This detachment from subjective elements, such as personal opinion or feelings, allows for an objective standard to be recognized independently of emotions or beliefs. In contrast, a standard that is influenced by personal opinions or feelings would be subjective, even if unanimously accepted by a group. For instance, a standard that is based on the collective feeling that something is morally wrong would still be subjective since it is based on personal opinions or beliefs. When we speak of the value of human life and dignity, it is important to note that this value is based on societal norms rather than a natural objective law or standard. Society, as a whole, feels that it is right to value human life and dignity, and this collective feeling drives our behavior. These personal feelings are not the implication of an objective principle but, subjective biases and feelings.
While it is true that there can be disagreements and debates about the specific content of moral principles, this does not necessarily mean that there is no objective basis for morality. It simply means that there are different interpretations and understandings of what constitutes right and wrong. These debates and disagreements can be healthy and productive, as they help us to refine our understanding of moral principles and develop more nuanced and sophisticated moral frameworks.
I acknowledge your statement that disagreements and debates about the context of moral principles do not disprove the existence of objective morality. However, my point is that morality, being an emotion, is inherently subjective, and this subjectivity is necessary for any living being to have personal bias. Bias is a natural evolutionary consequence that helps living beings preserve and value their own lives. The only thing that can be unbiased is something that does not physically exist, such as consciousness. Although humans possess consciousness, it is tied to and ingrained within our physical selves, leading to bias based on our form of being. Ultimately, all living beings have feelings and bias. Those feelings construct morality, and therefore morality is subjective.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highlights:
It is important to understand the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Objectivity is consistent and inherent for all individuals, regardless of time or place. Subjectivity, on the other hand, is based on emotional feelings and can vary between individuals. For example, one person may enjoy something while another does not, based on their individual feelings.
While there are certain feelings that appear to be consistent, it is important to recognize that not all people share these feelings, and even if so, it wouldn't be objective since it consists of feelings. These beliefs should be recognized as common subjective feelings or beliefs that may be viewed as a collectively subjective ethical standard. Therefore, the existence of widely accepted feelings or beliefs does not necessarily prove the existence of objective morality.
Pro
#4
Rebuttals:
In your argument you claim that human flourishing is the concept of objective morality, I don't see what makes it objective. Isn't the morality of human flourishing not grounded in personal opinion, feelings, or beliefs? Morality is a result of personal feelings, and without emotions or sympathy a person would not have a sense of morality, this in itself proves morals only exist subjectively.
The claim that morality is grounded solely in personal opinion, feelings, or beliefs does not necessarily demonstrate its subjective nature. While personal feelings and emotions may influence our moral judgments, it does not mean that morality itself is subjective. Objective morality can be understood as a set of principles and values that are based on rationality, well-being, and the intrinsic worth of individuals. These principles can be derived through reasoned analysis and examination of the consequences of our actions, rather than being purely subjective.
Additionally, claiming that morality is based on human flourishing is not only subjective but also highly ambiguous and dangerous. For example, the term "flourishing" could be interpreted in various ways and used to justify actions that are morally reprehensible. As an example, Hitler could have argued that eliminating certain genes or individuals with disabilities would result in a future where humanity thrives with fewer deaths due to the decrease in less probable thriving genes. He could have further justified that the deaths in the war to achieve this goal would be significantly less than the lives spared from their suffering of living a relatively seeming miserable existence. Therefore, it is important to recognize that using human flourishing as a basis for morality is not objective and could lead to immoral actions.
The argument that using human flourishing as a basis for morality is subjective and potentially dangerous overlooks the inherent objectivity within the concept. Human flourishing can be understood as the overall well-being and fulfillment of human beings, encompassing physical, mental, and social aspects of life. While interpretations of flourishing may vary, there are objective factors that contribute to human well-being, such as health, freedom, education, and social cooperation. Actions that promote these objective aspects of human flourishing can be seen as morally good, while actions that undermine them can be seen as morally wrong.
The example of Hitler and the justification of eliminating certain genes or individuals with disabilities does not disprove the objective basis of morality. This argument relies on a distorted interpretation of human flourishing and ignores the principles of human dignity and equal worth that are central to objective morality. Objective moral principles can provide clear boundaries and guidelines to prevent the misuse and manipulation of moral claims, as they are based on fundamental values that prioritize the well-being and rights of all individuals.
In your example, you used the universal acceptance of moral judgements claiming it further supports the objective nature as the guide for a moral truth. That is not objectivity as it was not inherent, but collectively subjective, as it was not inherent but rather an agreed upon rule. This agreed upon rule or societal norm was described in my first round as not moral, but ethical.Says who? The people. The people collectively speak up with their subjective feelings forming a collectively subjective ethical standard. Additionally, treated unfairly and equitably, are those not emotional traits. This is furthermore referring to the subjective aspect and nature of morality as morality was stated to be influenced by personal opinions, feelings, or beliefs. There is no objective law or natural rule that is consistent or inherent within all things.
The assertion that moral judgments are collectively subjective, based on societal norms and personal feelings, overlooks the possibility of moral objectivity. While societal norms may play a role in shaping moral frameworks, the existence of widespread agreement or consensus on certain moral principles does not necessarily make them subjective. Objective moral principles can be based on universal ethical principles and rationality, transcending personal opinions or feelings. It is possible to recognize and uphold objective moral values independently of subjective biases or cultural variations.
An objective standard is expected to be consistent over time and across individuals since it is based on empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and universally applicable ethical principles that are detached from personal biases, beliefs, and emotions. This detachment from subjective elements, such as personal opinion or feelings, allows for an objective standard to be recognized independently of emotions or beliefs. In contrast, a standard that is influenced by personal opinions or feelings would be subjective, even if unanimously accepted by a group. For instance, a standard that is based on the collective feeling that something is morally wrong would still be subjective since it is based on personal opinions or beliefs. When we speak of the value of human life and dignity, it is important to note that this value is based on societal norms rather than a natural objective law or standard. Society, as a whole, feels that it is right to value human life and dignity, and this collective feeling drives our behavior. These personal feelings are not the implication of an objective principle but, subjective biases and feelings.
An objective standard is expected to be consistent over time and across individuals since it is based on empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and universally applicable ethical principles that are detached from personal biases, beliefs, and emotions. This detachment from subjective elements, such as personal opinion or feelings, allows for an objective standard to be recognized independently of emotions or beliefs. In contrast, a standard that is influenced by personal opinions or feelings would be subjective, even if unanimously accepted by a group. For instance, a standard that is based on the collective feeling that something is morally wrong would still be subjective since it is based on personal opinions or beliefs. When we speak of the value of human life and dignity, it is important to note that this value is based on societal norms rather than a natural objective law or standard. Society, as a whole, feels that it is right to value human life and dignity, and this collective feeling drives our behavior. These personal feelings are not the implication of an objective principle but, subjective biases and feelings.
I acknowledge your statement that disagreements and debates about the context of moral principles do not disprove the existence of objective morality. However, my point is that morality, being an emotion, is inherently subjective, and this subjectivity is necessary for any living being to have personal bias. Bias is a natural evolutionary consequence that helps living beings preserve and value their own lives. The only thing that can be unbiased is something that does not physically exist, such as consciousness. Although humans possess consciousness, it is tied to and ingrained within our physical selves, leading to bias based on our form of being. Ultimately, all living beings have feelings and bias. Those feelings construct morality, and therefore morality is subjective.
While personal opinions and emotions may play a role in moral judgments, they do not necessarily invalidate the possibility of objective morality. Objective moral principles can be derived through rational analysis, consideration of the well-being of individuals, and the recognition of universal ethical principles.
I tried to do more this time, but it took me a while, so I will stop here for now.
Round 3
Con
#5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response:
The claim that morality is grounded solely in personal opinion, feelings, or beliefs does not necessarily demonstrate its subjective nature. While personal feelings and emotions may influence our moral judgments, it does not mean that morality itself is subjective.
As I properly defined before, "Subjective, refers to something that is influenced by personal opinions, feelings, or beliefs. It is something that varies based on an individual's perspective or experience. For example, taste in music or art is subjective because it depends on personal preference and cannot be measured objectively." So, to say "personal opinion, feelings, or beliefs do not necessarily demonstrate their subjective nature" presents quite a logical clash between the definition and your statement.
Objective morality can be understood as a set of principles and values that are based on rationality, well-being, and the intrinsic worth of individuals. These principles can be derived through reasoned analysis and examination of the consequences of our actions, rather than being purely subjective.
In order to objectively measure intrinsic worth, it should not be influenced by personal opinions, feelings, or beliefs. It should be based on objective principles that do not allow for any interpretation, such as the boiling point of water. However, in many cases, people find it challenging to determine the morality of something since it is not defined by a clear line but is instead determined by subjective feelings.
The argument that using human flourishing as a basis for morality is subjective and potentially dangerous overlooks the inherent objectivity within the concept. Human flourishing can be understood as the overall well-being and fulfillment of human beings, encompassing physical, mental, and social aspects of life. While interpretations of flourishing may vary, there are objective factors that contribute to human well-being, such as health, freedom, education, and social cooperation. Actions that promote these objective aspects of human flourishing can be seen as morally good, while actions that undermine them can be seen as morally wrong.
Mental and social aspects of life are often subjective and cannot be directly observed or quantified in the same way that physical objects or phenomena can. For example, emotions, thoughts, beliefs, and values are all mental aspects of life that cannot be directly observed or measured in an objective manner. These experiences are unique to each individual and can vary based on a wide range of factors, including personal history, culture, and social context. Similarly, social aspects of life, such as relationships, social structures, and cultural norms, are often difficult to quantify or measure in an objective way. While certain aspects of social life can be measured, such as population demographics or economic indicators, many social phenomena are more difficult to quantify. For example, measuring the quality of a social relationship is a subjective matter that varies based on individual perception and experience. Overall, while some aspects of mental and social life can be measured and studied through empirical methods, many important aspects of these domains are inherently subjective and difficult to quantify.
I agree that actions that undermine human flourishing can be viewed as morally wrong. However, the interpretable sense of morality as defined here implies subjectivity, since it is possible for someone to hold a different view of its underlying meaning.
Can we clarify what is meant by "human flourishing" - does it refer to present well-being, future well-being, overall well-being, or sacrificing present well-being for the potential of greater well-being in the future? Does it include taking risks that may not necessarily harm current well-being but may reduce the probability of future well-being? Furthermore, the concept of "flourishing" itself can be interpreted in various ways - is it financial, mental, social, or something else? It seems that we do not even have a clear definition of what "human flourishing" entails. Additionally, if you were to try to define it for me, it would still be your subjective opinion. And even if everyone were to agree on that definition, it would simply be a collective agreement of subjective opinions. It is important to note that even with shared perspectives, it would not make it an objective truth.
The example of Hitler and the justification of eliminating certain genes or individuals with disabilities does not disprove the objective basis of morality. This argument relies on a distorted interpretation of human flourishing and ignores the principles of human dignity and equal worth that are central to objective morality. Objective moral principles can provide clear boundaries and guidelines to prevent the misuse and manipulation of moral claims, as they are based on fundamental values that prioritize the well-being and rights of all individuals.
Firstly, the argument still rests on the foundation of fundamental values, and the term "value" itself suggests an emotional factor. As we know, emotions can vary greatly among individuals, and thus, relying on fundamental values to define morality is not a compelling argument. For instance, Hitler did not possess emotions that are generally considered morally good, yet he had a set of values that he believed in. Therefore, claiming that morality can be seen objectively through certain fundamental values lacks solid evidence.
Secondly, well-being refers to the state of being happy, healthy, and prosperous, but the definition of well-being can differ significantly among individuals, cultures, and time periods. For instance, one person may find their well-being in financial success and material possessions, while another person may find it in spiritual pursuits or personal relationships. Additionally, an individual's sense of well-being can be influenced by a variety of subjective factors, such as their emotions, thoughts, beliefs, and personal experiences. What brings happiness, health, and prosperity to one person may not have the same effect on another. Moreover, measuring well-being often depends on self-reporting and subjective assessments, which means that it cannot be measured in the same way as physical attributes like height or weight. Although objective measures can offer some insight into an individual's well-being, such as their physical health or financial status, the overall assessment of well-being remains subjective.
It is possible to recognize and uphold objective moral values independently of subjective biases or cultural variations.
The idea that it is possible to recognize and uphold objective moral values independent of subjective biases or cultural variations contradicts itself. The term "objective moral value" is contradictory because "objective" means free of personal opinions or feelings, yet it is claimed to hold value. If a person has no personal opinions or feelings, it is impossible to say they can hold value. Therefore, the term "value" is inherently related to personal opinions and feelings, and thus cannot be objective.
Just going on a tangent here - Perhaps there are principles (not morals or ethics) that can exist independently of personal feelings and opinions, but in the absence of subjective values, such principles would only be useful as a foundation for a robot.
While personal opinions and emotions may play a role in moral judgments, they do not necessarily invalidate the possibility of objective morality. Objective moral principles can be derived through rational analysis, consideration of the well-being of individuals, and the recognition of universal ethical principles.
While personal opinions and emotions may not necessarily invalidate the possibility of objective morals, their existence has not been proven either. Just like with invisible fairies, we cannot prove or disprove the existence of objective morals, so we have to rely on the assumption that they do not exist until proven otherwise. Furthermore, since well-being is subjectively determined, it cannot be a valid contributing factor to objective morals.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highlights:
I still don't believe that you understand the difference between subjective and objective, here is a list.
Objective factors include Temperature, Humidity, Time, Weight, Distance, Velocity, Density, Pressure, pH level, and Energy.
Subjective factors include Personal preferences, Emotions, Perceptions, Memories, Beliefs, Opinions, Intuition, and Attitudes.
If you want a more detailed understanding, check round 2 definitions.
Round 4
Con
#7
I was hoping to gain a deeper comprehension of your original message now that you have a clearer understanding of objectivity and subjectivity. I believe I have correctly grasped the essence of your explanation, but I acknowledge that my understanding may still carry the possibility of being flawed. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate any additional explanations or further clarifications you can provide to ensure a more accurate interpretation of your originally intended meaning.
I accept the disclaimed use of ChatGPT in Con's About Me.
There is an objective punishment for evil 😊
For example, if you steal, people beat you up irrelevant of your belief that theft is not wrong.
If society accepted theft, society would starve, irrelevant of their opinion.
Even if you were alone on the planet, jumping off a tall mountain would kill you even if you believe it wouldnt 😁
Cast your vote for the candidate whom you believe deserves triumph. When engaging in debates, I personally draft my arguments and then refine them with the assistance of ChatGPT, allowing for a more polished and impactful presentation of my theories and ideas. Were I in your position, I would prioritize my vote by the logic and conclusion of a person's arguments over their writing style, be it formal or otherwise.
Plagiarizing is copying someone else's work without properly referring the source.
Read my About Me for more information.
“I hope this helps.”
What does that have to do with my suicide bomber analogy?
If you did. Well done to you, Ixam.
I ran Tim’s arguments through a detector and confirmed my conclusion of it being ChatGPT-generated, but it seems he admits it himself.
If your arguments were authentically written, I’ll give you the win.
If both of you plagiarized, then I’ll just vote on whichever plagiarized side had the better arguments.
"Did both of you plagiarize in this debate?"
I wrote all of my arguments.
But honestly I wanted to point this out too.
My opponents arguments sound a lot like generated AI. Something I have played with recently.
When a person accepts subjective values, it means they recognize that value is not inherent or universally objective, but rather a product of personal perspectives, beliefs, and preferences. Instead of seeking inherent or universal value, they understand that value is created and assigned by individuals based on their unique experiences, cultural influences, and personal judgments.
Accepting subjective values does not necessarily require the need for inherent ones. It means acknowledging that different people may assign different values to the same thing, and that these values can vary based on individual perspectives. Rather than relying on some inherent or external standard, individuals find value in things based on their own subjective criteria, which can include personal satisfaction, emotional connection, cultural significance, or individual preferences.
By embracing subjective values, individuals are free to define their own meaning and pursue what they find valuable in life, without being constrained by external or predetermined notions of inherent value. This perspective allows for diversity and the appreciation of different perspectives, as well as the recognition that value is a subjective and personal experience.
I hope this helps.
"Suicide bombers".
Are not nihilists,
What can one say,
Other than.
Crazy human mind stuff.
Objective morality?
Blow a raspberry.
“But should you choose to walk alone, without my protection, you will face the perils of a world teeming with malevolence.”
Suicide bombers have no intention of facing anything, so I would say in a case like that no it’s not a good reason.
Tell me if this is not a good enough reason: If you stand by my side and safeguard my possessions, I shall do the same for you. But should you choose to walk alone, without my protection, you will face the perils of a world teeming with malevolence. Remember, strength lies in unity, for safety thrives in the embrace of numbers.
“Perhaps if the majority of people were to assign value to something, it would hold greater collective subjective value, but it still does not indicate inherent value.”
With this being said if one wanted to destroy something you valued there’s no convincing argument you can make to stop them because you’ve basically admitted yourself that nothing has inherent value.
In realms of wisdom, we have found our way,
On knowledge's shores, where treasures lay.
Our understanding, not born in isolation,
But nurtured by the world's grand narration.
For we stand on the shoulders of those gone by,
Their consciousness echoes, reaching the sky.
The wisdom they gathered, the stories they told,
Shape the foundation upon which we unfold.
No island of knowledge, we proudly proclaim,
But a tapestry woven, in wisdom's name.
Threads of the past, woven into our being,
A heritage cherished, in our souls, decreeing.
With humble hearts, we embrace the stream,
Of collective wisdom, a shared dream.
From movies to debates, from lessons to lore,
We gather the fragments, seeking to explore.
So let us not claim our understanding's birth,
From within ourselves, as if disconnected from Earth.
But acknowledge the lineage, the seeds sown,
That have shaped our minds, as they've steadily grown.
In this grand symphony, we play our part,
In the grandeur of knowledge, we find our art.
For our understanding, a harmonious blend,
Of wisdom's whispers, that eternally transcend.
Our understanding is built upon a collective foundation, shaped by the knowledge shared throughout the world. It is not solely derived from our own comprehension, but rather intertwined with the consciousness of those who preceded us. Like standing on the shoulders of giants, we acknowledge the vast reservoir of wisdom that guides our perceptions. We humbly recognize that our understanding is a collaborative tapestry, woven by the collective human experience, forever evolving and expanding through the ages.
I appreciate your acknowledgement of our profound understanding, suggesting that it may appear as if our ideas were copied. While neither of us has directly copied another person's debate or claims, it is worth noting that our understanding is often influenced by the knowledge and information we encounter in various sources. Whether through watching movies, engaging in debates, completing schoolwork, or attending college, we absorb and integrate information from our surroundings into our own comprehension. Therefore, while we can confidently claim that we have not plagiarized, it is important to recognize that our understanding is built upon the collective knowledge shared in the world, and not solely generated from our individual perspectives.
Did both of you plagiarize in this debate?
I believe that the most challenging aspect to understand, which is often overlooked, is the concept of inherent value. Many people assume that for something to be valuable, it must possess inherent value; otherwise, it would not hold any value at all. However, I find that things without inherent value are valued by individuals all the time.
For instance, consider a person's first painting during their early days in art school. While it may appear visually unappealing to others, the artist may cherish and protect it throughout their life. This act does not demonstrate inherent value but rather subjective value. The saying "one man's trash is another man's treasure" exemplifies how something can hold value for one person but not for another, and vice versa.
My point is that value is not inherent; rather, it is attributed by the person who values it. The object itself possesses no inherent value; its value is created by the individual who assigns meaning to it. This is why one piece of artwork may be considered beautiful by one person but not by another. It is why certain flavors of food, songs, or movies are appreciated differently by different individuals.
If I understand you correctly, you argue that I contradict myself by acknowledging the absence of inherent value but engage myself in this conversation, thereby demonstrating its value. However, this is not a contradiction. By participating in this discussion, I am not asserting its inherent value but rather recognizing its subjective value to myself. To illustrate, I have a friend who would show little interest in this conversation and might say, "If you're so eager for me to know, just tell me the answer later, but I don't really care." This demonstrates that one person may not find value in the same way as another, emphasizing that value is not inherent but user-dependent.
If no one assigns value to something, does it become valueless? Conversely, if someone finds value in something, does it become valuable? In reality, it only becomes valuable to that specific person. Perhaps if the majority of people were to assign value to something, it would hold greater collective subjective value, but it still does not indicate inherent value.
If one is sentient and still alive then nihilism is simply a hypothetical contradiction for the sake of it.
Philosospeak as it were.
I might.. Might vote on this when it ends if I can find the time.
I was expecting a bit of a different response as I feel some arguments made no contraction except helping me better understand the opposing side.
“My purpose is not to provide you with information that can be easily found on search engines like Google or Bing.”
Maybe you should utilize those search engines and look up appeal of emotion fallacy while you’re at it, because this isn’t something I just made up, you’re obliviousness is beyond me.
“My purpose is not to provide you with information that can be easily found on search engines like Google or Bing.”
“I entirely agree.”
Then what is nihilism?
I entirely agree.
“Morals can be subjective, representing personal beliefs or values, or they can be collectively subjective, known as ethics, which are moral standards accepted by society as a whole.”
Did it ever occur to you that maybe those standards are accepted by society as a whole because society happens to share the same “emotions”.
“My purpose is not to provide you with information that can be easily found on search engines like Google or Bing.”
Maybe you should utilize those search engines and look up appeal of emotion fallacy while you’re at it, because this isn’t something I just made up, you’re obliviousness is beyond me.
1. Repeating facts is the subjective repetition of facts.
2. Utilising facts in one's reasoning is the subjective inclusion of facts as subjective reasoning.
3. Morality is a variable concept relative to human behaviour and expectations.
All three are individual bits of subjective processing, relative to an individual processing unit's assessment of acquired data.
I would suggest that to hold that morality is objective is to assume that we are connected to and governed by a greater data source. I would further suggest that this is what underpins Tarik's reasoning and their somewhat obsessive adherence to a the idea of an objective morality.
Which is not to be able to hypothesise that we are all connected to a greater matrix of absolute data. Though from a general position of assumed disconnection, hypothesising is the epitome of subjectivity.
I appreciate the time and effort you have invested in engaging in this debate, and I have gained valuable insights into your perspective and understanding of morality. However, I have come to realize that our fundamental philosophical approaches differ to such an extent that finding a mutually satisfactory resolution in this discussion seems highly unlikely. I value the points you have presented and the explanations you have provided, and I would like to shift our focus to other topics where we may have a greater chance of reaching a more conclusive and fruitful outcome in our conversations.
"The flaw in the appeal of emotion fallacy is using emotional appeal to manipulate."
There are several issues with the previous statement that need to be addressed. Firstly, it attempts to categorize morals solely as emotional judgments, which is not entirely accurate. Morals can be subjective, representing personal beliefs or values, or they can be collectively subjective, known as ethics, which are moral standards accepted by society as a whole.
Secondly, the statement implies that it is inherently wrong to use emotional appeals in moral arguments. However, I would disagree with this notion. Determining right or wrong is subjective, and individuals may have different interpretations. It is important to recognize that one's personal sense of right and wrong may differ from others'. Therefore, justifying one's feelings of morality over another's requires an understanding of the subjective nature of moral judgments and a respect for diverse perspectives.
Your example ultimately lacks validity because it assumes that your personal conviction of what is right overrides another person's belief, and it also oversimplifies the concept of morals by categorizing them solely as emotional appeals.
“Fallacious" refers to an argument or reasoning that is flawed, misleading, or deceptive.”
The flaw in the appeal of emotion fallacy is using emotional appeal to manipulate, for example if someone says to give a child ice cream soon before bedtime because the child will cry if they don’t. Same difference for those who argue in favor of “morality”.
"None of your examples fit the category of what I meant"
Nonetheless, they are all subjective and understood. My purpose is not to provide you with information that can be easily found on search engines like Google or Bing. Instead, I'm here to assist you in unraveling intricate philosophical inquiries that the internet may not have definitive answers to. To delve into these complex questions, it is crucial to grasp the foundational principles that surpass the surface-level understanding offered by a simple online search. Please research simple questions such as "is music a subjective experience," and "is music understood by science." I prefer to avoid revisiting basic knowledge when exploring philosophical concepts. It feels redundant, akin to reinventing the wheel while attempting to create a new car. This process can be time-consuming, and in my opinion, a quite distasteful waste of time.
As for your question, the deatils are very complex, but here is the summary of the concept:
Personal preferences in music are influenced by a combination of various factors, including individual experiences, cultural background, cognitive processes, and emotional responses. While it is challenging to pinpoint exactly why certain music resonates with one person but not with another, there are several key elements that contribute to this phenomenon.
Personal experiences: Our unique life experiences shape our preferences and perception of music. Positive associations with specific genres, songs, or artists can lead to a preference for similar styles in the future. For example, if a person associates a particular song with a happy memory, they are more likely to enjoy that song in the future.
Emotional resonance: Music has the power to evoke emotions and create a deep emotional connection. People often gravitate towards music that elicits emotions they can relate to or desire to experience. Different individuals have varying emotional needs and sensitivities, and music that aligns with their emotional state or aspirations will have a stronger appeal.
Cognitive processes: The brain processes music in intricate ways, and different individuals may have distinct cognitive patterns or preferences. This includes how the brain recognizes and interprets patterns, rhythms, melodies, and harmonies. Some people may prefer complex and intellectually stimulating compositions, while others may prefer simpler and more accessible musical structures.
Cultural background: Culture plays a significant role in shaping musical preferences. Musical genres and styles are deeply embedded in cultural traditions and norms. Individuals tend to develop a preference for the music that is prevalent within their cultural environment or that resonates with their cultural identity. Cultural exposure and familiarity with certain genres can significantly influence personal preferences.
Neurological and physiological responses: Research suggests that the brain's response to music is complex and varies among individuals. Neurologically, music stimulates various regions of the brain associated with reward, memory, and emotion. Physiological factors such as heart rate, breathing patterns, and hormone release can also be influenced by music, leading to unique individual reactions.
It is important to note that personal preferences in music are highly subjective and can evolve over time. Different people have diverse tastes and may find meaning and enjoyment in contrasting musical elements. Ultimately, the intricate interplay between personal experiences, emotional responses, cognitive processes, cultural background, and neurological factors contributes to the formation of personal preferences in music.
“Different individuals may derive different meanings and emotions from the same piece of art, but there can still be shared understanding and appreciation of the artistic expression.”
None of your examples fit the category of what I meant so let me help you by posing this question, explain to me why rhythm & blues music sounds better than country music.
Your response is perfect as it effectively challenges my logic, potentially highlighting any flaws, while refraining from deliberate disagreement. This approach ensures that even if I happen to be correct, it doesn't automatically render you incorrect.
Here are a few examples of things that are subjective but generally understood:
Taste in food: Different people have different preferences when it comes to taste. While specific foods may be enjoyed by some and disliked by others, there is a general understanding that taste can vary from person to person.
Beauty: The concept of beauty is subjective, and what one person finds attractive, another person may not. However, there are often commonalities and societal standards that shape our understanding of beauty.
Emotional experiences: Emotions are subjective experiences, and how individuals interpret and express them can differ. However, there is a general understanding of basic emotions like happiness, sadness, anger, and fear, which allows for communication and empathy.
Artistic interpretation: Art, including paintings, literature, and music, is often open to subjective interpretation. Different individuals may derive different meanings and emotions from the same piece of art, but there can still be shared understanding and appreciation of the artistic expression.
Personal preferences: Preferences for activities, hobbies, and entertainment can vary widely between individuals. While someone may enjoy sports, another person may prefer reading books. Though subjective, these preferences are generally understood and respected as personal choices.
These are just a few examples of concepts or ideas that are understood, and subjectively varying between individuals.
“It can be likened to someone using a similar logic to claim, "cows are white, and we consume cows, so we only consume white things."
So what subjective thing other than “morality” is understood?
I now comprehend your line of reasoning, and allow me to illustrate its fundamental flaws. From what I gather, your argument suggests that since we understand facts and facts are objective, all things we understand must be objective. Consequently, you attempt to establish the notion that if we understand morals, they must also be objective.
However, your assertion that "we understand facts, and facts are objective, so all things understood are objective" is fundamentally flawed. This line of reasoning lacks reasonable coherence. It can be likened to someone using a similar logic to claim, "cows are white, and we consume cows, so we only consume white things." This statement appears nonsensical on the surface. Regardless of whether this was your intention or not, the logic presented in this argument is implausible and difficult to accept.
“If you have any concerns or objections, please clearly state your case without implicit implications.”
Is objective synonymous with just?
I don't find any logical issues with my previous statements as they still make sense to me. I have explicitly stated the reasons behind my viewpoint. It appears to me that you are implying there is a problem, but you haven't explicitly stated what it is. If you have any concerns or objections, please clearly state your case without implicit implications.
“If you have a dispute, provide your case with referential proof and set aside your convictions.”
I’ll “refer” back to this quote “Claiming that understanding something demonstrates its objectivity is incorrect.” The mere fact that you replied yes to both my questions contradicts this quote from you, do you need to see the questions again or you’ve got them on lock and key?
I already replied yes, and in detail. If you have a dispute, provide your case with referential proof and set aside your convictions.
“You're correct, the simplified conclusion remains that facts are objective, while opinions are subjective.”
Do you understand facts?
I would suggest that all such debates arise from basic a lack of understanding; in so much as we do not know why we exist.
Therefore, we also do not know how we should conduct ourselves within the context of the greater unknown.
That is not to confuse the greater unknown with the World of people.
Not forgetting that there are others here who we tend to disregard or consider less worthy; who nonetheless as separate species have varied approaches to what we might consider to be basic moral principles, but who's actions remain inherently consistent.
One of the problems that I have with human intellect especially with regard to constructs such as morality, is ongoing conscious inconsistency and changeability.
As far as I am aware there is no evidence other than species bias, to suggest that hominid intellect is any more special than what it basically is....A species speciality.
So acquired functions and processes afford us a connection of sorts to other people, though our thoughts and responses still remain wholly self contained.
So for me, irrespective of the shared veracity of data (fact), all individual data analysis is still a self contained process. (Subjective)
Also, as far as I am aware, we are not subliminally programmed with universal knowledge from a greater and indisputable universal source; though some might argue this.
Though such hypotheses are wholly internal and subjective.....In my opinion.
Shared hypothetical subjectivity can create a standard, but does not validate the claim, especially in the absence of total agreement or physical evidence.
I apologize if I may have made it overly complex in an attempt to ensure your complete understanding of the reasoning.
You're correct, the simplified conclusion remains that facts are objective, while opinions are subjective.
“Facts provide objective information about the world and can be supported by evidence.”
So in other shorter and simpler words the answer is yes.
Facts are pieces of information or statements that are based on evidence, observation, or reality and are considered to be true. They are verifiable and independent of personal opinions or beliefs. Facts provide objective information about the world and can be supported by evidence.
Objective facts are those that are universally agreed upon and can be verified through empirical evidence. These facts are not influenced by personal feelings, biases, or perspectives. For example, stating that "water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level" is an objective fact because it can be tested and confirmed by anyone under the same conditions.
However, it's important to note that not all statements are factual or objective. Some statements may be subjective, meaning they are influenced by personal opinions, beliefs, or interpretations. Subjective statements are based on personal experiences, preferences, or feelings and may vary from person to person. For example, saying "chocolate ice cream is the best flavor" is a subjective statement because it reflects personal taste and preference.
While facts themselves are objective, the interpretation and presentation of facts can be influenced by subjective factors. People may have different perspectives or biases that affect how they perceive and communicate facts. It's essential to distinguish between facts and opinions, and to critically evaluate the sources and evidence supporting a claim to determine its factual basis.
Additionally, please respond to the previous comment.
“Claiming that understanding something demonstrates its objectivity is incorrect.”
Are facts objective? Do you understand facts?
I find your comment confusing. How does the concept of consistently being wrong relate to the subjectivity or objectivity of morality? Moreover, if individuals are consistently wrong, doesn't that suggest some level of objectivity since objectivity involves consistency among individuals? It seems that your thought was left unfinished, and I would appreciate further clarification.
To assert that something is incorrect, you must possess a system of reference. The term "wrong" itself does not inherently indicate error, but rather signifies a lack of alignment with a different structure or inconsistency. If you claim that individuals can be consistently wrong, you must have a framework or standard against which you deem their actions as incorrect. Without such a reference, your statement lacks substantiation.
What specific aspect are you asserting people consistently get wrong? Is it your belief that their actions consistently deviate from your subjective viewpoint, and if so, how can you justify the superiority of your opinion over theirs? It is prudent to exercise caution when asserting the correctness of one's claim in contrast to the collective opinions of others. Doing so is an audacious step, as there exists a clear distinction between being above average and below average.
In summary, claiming something to be wrong necessitates a system of reference, as the term itself does not inherently denote error. Careful consideration should be given before asserting one's claim as superior to the multitude of other perspectives, recognizing the fine line between subjective opinion and broader consensus.
“Objectivity refers to the consistency among all individuals, not simply whether something can be understood.”
Individuals can all be consistently wrong, there’s nothing objective about that.
Fallacious refers to something that is misleading or deceptive. When a person feels misled, it is often because they lacked understanding and therefore perceive it as misleading. Conversely, if a person is not misled, they won't consider it to be misleading since they were not deceived. Essentially, it is not the thing itself that is fallacious, but rather the person who fails to interpret it correctly and thus regards it as fallacious. Ultimately, my definition does not necessarily result in a fallacious nature for morality.
Claiming that understanding something demonstrates its objectivity is incorrect. Objectivity refers to the consistency among all individuals, not simply whether something can be understood.
“Rather, it is a person's ignorance or misunderstanding of them that can lead to misguided actions, which can make the morals appear fallacious to them.”
There is no understanding necessary in regards to emotions, you either have them or you don’t. The mere fact that you associate morals with a degree of understanding demonstrates the objective nature of it.
I apologize if my question was unclear earlier. I understand that you have previously stated that morals are not emotionally based because they would be fallacious if they were. However, I was hoping for a more logical and well-supported explanation for why you believe morals are not emotionally based. I am seeking an argument or evidence that supports this viewpoint, rather than a mere conviction or personal belief. Your current reasoning does not seem to address the question at hand and is not convincing to me. I want to understand the foundation of your belief that morals are inherent or not emotionally based, and I am open to hearing any other reasoning or arguments you may have to support this viewpoint.
I want to clarify that my argument is that morals themselves are not inherently fallacious. Rather, it is a person's ignorance or misunderstanding of them that can lead to misguided actions, which can make the morals appear fallacious to them. Therefore, the fallacy of morals is subjective and dependent on the individual's understanding of what constitutes a moral.
Moving on to the topic of values, they are emotionally based because they are created by humans through their emotional attachment to things. Things do not inherently have value, but rather people assign value based on their emotional attachment to them. This is illustrated by the saying "one man's trash is another man's treasure," which shows that value is subjective and varies from person to person.
Given this understanding, I am curious as to why you believe that values are not emotionally based but rather objective. Objectivity implies that something does not change between people, but value varies from person to person, making it a subjective concept. I would like to understand your perspective on this matter.
You are correct, I did ask a question you already answered. It has been a while since we started this debate, and I have other commitments like work and other discussions, so it would be helpful to have a recap of our discussions to avoid losing track of our conclusions. I want to ensure that we are on the same page and have a clear understanding of each other's viewpoints.
“Why do you not believe that values are emotionally based?”
Because arguing in favor of those values would be inherently fallacious, but I’ve told you this. So why ask if I said this already before?
I have been engaging in this debate with you because I want to understand the foundation and basis for your beliefs. My own understanding is clear and evidenced by widely accepted principles that have been established in society for generations. However, I am seeking to gain a better understanding of your perspective.
What I'm really interested in knowing is:
What is the foundation in which you hold morals to be inherent?
Why do you not believe that values are emotionally based?
Why don't you believe that morals are chosen for us by our consciences' but rather that we choose them, what leads you to believe so?
I don't understand what I missed, and if you insist on skipping over points, then how can one come to a solid conclusion? I readdressed the same points since they were applicable to the question. What points are you referring to? If I readdressed them then I probably did not recognize your answer as the solution.
“Back to my point, morals are judged by society's overall emotional values.”
Well I don’t know why you insist on using the same tired talking points over and over again, but I addressed all of this already so I assume you have nothing more to add.