Don't you see? Objective truth is whatever moral absolutsts believe. And no, they don't see the contradiction there.

And if political power can be bought through lobbying or corruption, there does not exist a democracy.

I have to disagree there, in that I think it's a bit more subtle.

There will always be people who seek power for self-enrichment and at the same time those people who see having power over others as a great responsability (who would probably be the best in terms of fair and honest yielding of that power), often avoid it exactly because they feel the "weight on their shoulders" would the too much to bare.

So you'll always have at least some people holding power who use it for personal upside maximization, including via corruption.

Your really can't have a perfect Democracy totally free of crooks in power, as even if you magically made it so, lots of people seek power for personal upside maximization and sooner of later some would get through.

Instead, what Democracy has is whole concept of the 3 independent Pillars Of Democracy, the Political, the Judicial and the Press, which watch each other and have some for of power over each other (the Press indirectly via influencing voters), and that's what's meant to create a sort of "dynamic" balance as crooks seek power but at the same time crooks in power are getting caught and thrown out (even punished).

Now, if you look at some of the most flawed of Democracies (personally I don't think they're trully democratic because their voting systems are mathematically heavilly rigged to create a power duopoly) - the US and the UK - you will notice that the Press was subverted first (and this has been going on long enough and deep enough that some people genuinelly believe partisanship - i.e. taking sides in Politics, so submission to a Political Party - in the Press is a good thing) and then the Political system became more and more corrupt, with in the US the additional problem that even the Judiciary pillar has been subverted at several levels by the Political pillar (not that in the US there was ever much independence of between them to begin with as lots of top positions in the Judiciary are of political nomination).

Anyways, all this to say that we'll always have pressures making political power "buyable", hence why its so important to understand the function of and protect the other Pillars of Democracy and their independence as they're part of the mechanics which pushes the other way, and whilst the system cannot achieve and remain perfect in a static way, it can achieve a dynamic balance that as the crooks get found out, kicked out and their deeds undone.

This seems to assume reality is only that what can be measured by humans currently. But decisions have consequences even if we can not foresee them. To assume that there is no objective morality assumes that consequences were random or exist independent from causes.

Capitalism has the consequence that the rich get richer, and so to not devalue the currency, the poorer have to get poorer

I don't think that's true in an economy where the population is constantly growing. It's like saying in a utopia where everyone has the same wealth, having kids would make everyone poorer.

I'm seeing this point about moral epistemology a lot in this thread. Of course, philosophers have constructed convincing arguments in favor of different theories (classic ones being virtue ethics, deontology, consequentialism). If you were to take a look at those arguments you might be persuaded to one camp or another.

Also, I find this objection makes more sense for the moral skeptic than the moral relativist. If we really can't know the moral value of an action, then why settle for saying its based on what humans think? Why not just go all out and say either 1) there is no such thing as moral value or 2) there is moral value but we have no way of knowing what it is.

NYEH HEH HEH!

isn't moral truth determined by people making moral judgements?

I guess I don't really understand. Does moral objectivism argue that there is "one true" framework for assessing the rightness of decision/action, or merely that there are objectively right/wrong answers within any given framework?

People who down vote genuinely believe objective morality is possible, but it's literally impossible and it's incredibly obvious and self evident this is true.

We get it, you want slavery back, therefore viciously beating you to death is morally acceptable because the consensus admits your life has no value.

Honestly I think I agree with the modlog.

It got removed because it was posted in 196 lol

This argument makes a fundamental mistake. Objective does not mean everyone agrees. Objective just means it's true.

The earth goes around the sun is objectively true, but give me 5 minutes and I can find you someone to disagree with that statement.

Disagreeing with an objective truth just means you're wrong.

The "truths" picked here are just pretty terrible to make that point. There's for example one kind of slavery that people are usually fine with: children are to some extent the slaves of their parents. They have to do what they say, have no freedom of where they want to live and should they run away, the police will return them to their owners. Oh and kids can't vote either and roughly half of them are female.

That's exactly the point. For example, people used to think chattel slavery in the US was morally acceptable because they viewed black people as inferior. But today we would say that black people are not inferior and that they were mistaken. The moral relativist would say that slavery was okay to do back then because that's what the people agreed on. Do you still agree with the moral relativist?

aren't images on there supposed to be funny?

the rule is you have to post when you visit, it doesn't say anything on what you have to post.

Maybe you can tell me what the numbers 196 are supposed to reference/mean. I've seen memes from there but there's no theme that I can detect.

196 community can have some very strict moderation at times. Mods were/are on the lookout for sus political takes. 🤷‍♀️

no ur a meme

What?!

No.

Think this through; what’s acceptable behaviour to you may be completely abhorrent to another person.

Patrick here is meant to represent most people who lean towards moral relativism but haven't thought it through. In their daily lives they think that certain things are obviously bad (e.g., chattel slavery) and they also think that we should work to better our society. But then they also think that there is no such thing as objective good and bad; morality is just relative to some group consensus.

But if moral relativism is true, then you can't say that slavery is universally bad; slavery was a morally acceptable action for the slave owners because they agreed that black people are inferior. Similarly, there is no motivation to work towards a "better" society, because what we have now is exactly as morally good as anything else we could agree on in the future. The objection is that moral relativism is incompatible with our conception of moral progress as an objective good.

I don't like the way moderation is handled in general. I keep posting things I think will be allowed that get removed and there is little explanation and no notification. You have to dig up your post in the modlog of that instance and the rules are pretty much up to the interpretation of the mods.

For example, if you make a meme about "Eating the rich", that's fine. If you make a meme about abortion, ban hammer incoming.

Don't write off our whole instance, damn. Yeah, its a transgender instance and our community has put up with a lot of bullshit arguments both outside (gender critical) and inside (transmedicalism). We generally nip it in the bud.

I think 196 community mods are very strict, though. The rules there are basically skeptical of all political posts, and I would understand if more meme and political meme communities arose with less strict rules.

If the standard you use is wrong, no matter how well you use it in figuring out what to do, all the moral judgements that follow from it will be wrong.

I mean that what Matt said has "objective" in there but not in the way that matters. It doesnt address the issues with not having a good way of getting at whats right.

(Obv. this isnt to say that I think e.g some utilitarian approach focusing on wellbeing is wrong, its only the other bit I dont agree with)

Next step is acknowledging that data is also very infallible and not objective.

Objectively it's morally wrong to gain from someone's loss. So... winning anything? Schadenfreude? A profitable short position? Picking a penny up from the ground?

Anyway, the specifics aside... how do you arrive at the conclusion that it is objectively wrong to gain from someone else's loss?

You're correct on your judgment but your opinion stems from a different social stance on the underlying issue.

(that sounded really pedantic and it was not my intention)

Morality is a human creation. By default, nothing is wrong or right, until a human mind, be it an individual or colective one, analyse it and evaluate it.

This does not mean you can not view something as being immoral while others do or understand it as not a moral concern. This difference of understandingb is what moves any subject into the moral/immoral spectrum.

I think your confusing objective with universal. They aren't the same thing. You can have an objective truth that isn't universal. Let's use Euclidean and non-Euclidian geometry as an example, both have very objective truths, but they aren't the same or interchangeable.

The problem with saying slavery is universally immoral is that you label most everyone that existed prior to the modern era as immoral, because slavery was foundational across the globe in multiple cultures. Morality isn't useful if you can actually compare or contrast because even involved was immoral.

Here is an adjacent argument to the one you gave:

1. Some people think the election was fixed
2. Some people think the election was fair

Therefore, there is no "objective truth" to whether the election was fair or fixed.

Moral of the story, disagreement alone does not entail a lack of objective truth. But the post was not about moral disagreement, it was about moral progress.

Moral relativists have a hard time explaining why we should have moral progress. The moral relativist will argue that any action whatsoever will be a good action if there is a certain group consensus. So why should we fight for a more fair and equitable society if the society we have now is *exactly * as morally good as any other system we could enact? Even worse, if the majority of people in your situation believe that something unjust is the right thing to do, then protesting against them is morally wrong.

Professional philosophers don't take Sam Harris seriously. He's a smart guy, but his take on free will is dismissive of established philosophical literature. That is, he could do more to read and then engage with published philosophy; but maybe he doesn't think he has to since his work isn't intended for academics.

An overwhelming majority of people agree with that, but it doesn't mean it's not subjective

Objective != Better/stronger/more true

Just because something is clearly (to any sane human) true doesn't mean it's objective. It's can still be subjective.

An objective moral truth is basically an oxymoron

You can objectively say that humans think certain things are morally bankrupt but you cannot say that certain things are objectively morally bankrupt without specifying according to whom. Morals don't just float around space. Humans have them because of evolution and society.

I think much confusion here is around the word objective. We seem to be defining it differently. The way I define it, and I think the most idiomatic way to define it, there cannot, by definition, be such a thing as an objective moral truth

Edit: clarification

This is an honest question; what would you say to someone who says: "Unfaithful women are to be stoned to death. God told me so, everyone I know agrees with me, so it is a moral absolute."

On what basis are you (we) right and they wrong?

There is absolutely an objective right and wrong.

Could you point me to how I can meassure or otherwise empirically confirm these objective rights and wrongs?

you've lost the earth under the terminology. you're upset with some truly awful shit in existence, and seem uncomfortable with calling it anything that might minimize the horror of it. "objectively bad".

what if I told you that it can still be awful without being absolute? judgment requires a subject. passing judgment, that is seeing beauty. being subjective is one of the delights of human experience.

the only thing objective is that harming the subject is the ultimate violence. silencing the subject so that nothing can be called good or bad.

the rest is all up for debate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity_and_objectivity_(philosophy)

Well, let's look at geopolitics. The War in Ukraine. Putin says that the War is important to get rid of Nazis in Ukraine. A lot of ppl in Russia believe him.

I know for myself I don't believe it.

Let's walk through your definition: it's a big thing I think. So either me or they are objectively right. Well depending on if you define this as "actual morality". That concludes in your definition this can be objectively determined.

Well let's walk through Wikipedia's philosophical definition.

Can my opinion be formed independent of mind? That is, without bias, perception, emotions, opinion, imagination or conscious experience? Well I have biases against against Putin because I try to be neutral, but there's a lot of news articles highlighting bad politics from him. I have a certain perception about starting wars on an argumentation without good evidence. My emotions tell me that ppl dying is bad. My opinions tell me that there is no justification for a war if it clearly isn't a very limited defense against an attack. I do have an imagination of what the war looks like and what the consequences will be. And last but not least, ppl talking about how their relatives died or my father talking about his time in the army has left a conscious experience on me in that regard.

As you can see there's a lot going on that wants me to make this "objectively true" for me, but I really can't split all of these influences from my opinion, therefore this is not objectively determined via Wikipedia's definition.

Now I submit to you that you can't find anyone who doesn't have these biases to make the statement that the war is either right or wrong under that definition while being objective, per definition.

Which brings me to the conclusion that on this topic, your definition of it and Wikipedia's definition on it fundamentally differ and bring me to opposite conclusions. This means either your definition is the one we should follow, or Wikipedia's, and I have to say I'm gonna make my choice.

Btw this is in no way a dig at the idea that I wish there was some things that everyone knows are wrong, but I just think ppl are ppl and it doesn't work for most things.

But were they morally correct when they were accepted?

Slavery wasn't accepted. It was widely practiced but it was abolished (mostly) because people agreed it was wrong. Slaves didnt want to be slaves or see their status as slaves as morally good.

Think about that for a moment.

Not allowing women to participate in democracy is another example. Women fought against that and won.

Extreme inequality is still all around us and we almost all agree that its wrong.

And "proper cause" is objective?

Okay, but can you prove objectively that doing so is a "bad" thing? What even is the definition of "bad" in this context?

People in this thread are so downvote heavy lmao.

I know this is one of those Watch this 35 minute long video, but it realy is a good video 😅 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxalrwPNkNI&pp=ygUPY3VjayBwaGlsb3NvcGh5

Moral "progress" only happens because of our collective judgement of what is right changing over time.

Objective morality implies that morals are not invented or created but discovered. Whence do these discovered morals come? How can one test a moral theory and arrive at an answer as to its objective veracity? What is the scientific unit of goodness?

Saying that something isn't objectively quantifiable (like morality)

isn't a value judgement on it

Subjectively the morality of your example is abhorrent, but objectively you cannot, cannot , cannot! quantity it! Morality only exists in our minds! That doesn't make it any less meaningful, but it makes it

not

objective