Objective Moralism

It is absolute in the sense there is no 'more absolute' morality. The preferred human behaviours, which are determined mostly by instinct and empathy,and partially by common human understanding, are the only actions which can be said to be universally preferred. There is no higher set of preferred actions and therefore there are no higher morals.

You are one person. You advocate that your definition of morality is more correct than my definition. Your definition is based on what you personally believe. My definition, 'the' definition, is based on a syllogistic argument that humans are animals and animals exhibit preferred behaviours.

You must concede that your argument is merely opinion, whereas my argument is scientific in nature. And therefore you must also concede that either I am right, or that you are irrational in your beliefs. That is of course, unless you can find a fault in my argument (which is legitimate and not just based on your opinion).

 

It doesn't rely on what the majority believe. It relies on how the majority behave. Two completely different things. Objective morality looks at humans as animals and examines preferred behaviours.

Well your argument is void. Morality is a set of rules to determine the most preferred behavious one can make.

This is a self contradicting argument. If it is ultimately meaningless what humans want, then it is ultimately meaningless what YOU want, as you are human. You are arguing voluntarily, because that is what you want to do. So, through the act of doing what you want to do, you argue that any arguments based on what humans want are meaningless, thus making your argument meaningless.

A self contradiction, as I am sure you can appreciate.

 

So can the laws of physics and the nature of reality. It does not mean we should discard our understanding of the universe because the universe may change its nature at some point in the future.

How humans behave and why they behave that way are both valid areas of analysis in this debate. But ultimately, to examine morals objectively, you must look purely at how they act and the tendencies they tend to exhibit.

Another self contradictory statement. If the activity of debating were 'ultimately meaningless' then there would be no reason to debate. Obviously we are trying to determine what is meaningful, and what is true, from a confused collection of your opinions and real world fact. If there were no meaning involved then there would be no point in debating at all. There would be no point in you even making the statement that it is meaningless, because your statement would have no meaning. Obviously it is meaningful and I prove that by deriving meaning from your statement and replying in a meaningful way. The second you even made that argument you conveyed meaning, thus defeating your own argument.

 

Fundamental human nature has not changed in a very long time. Regardless of how rapid something changes in nature this remains a null argument. The argument that you 'reject' a syllogistic argument on the basis it may no longer be the same, or may no longer be true, in 1000 years, based solely on your perception of what may or may not be in 1000 years, is a false argument. It is your opinion, not a logical contradiction to the arguments put forward.

Well then you have no place arguing here. Just as if 'your definition' of physics were 'harry potter magic' you'd have no place arguing on a physics forum.

Your statement was disproved. All self contradictory statements are syllogistical fallacies. And the fact you refuse to accept that;
a) these two statements made by you about the 'meaning of the debate' are indeed self contradictory and therefore false; and
b) your opinion about what the definition of 'morality' should be has no relation to the debate;
places you in a defeated position. I have proven you are incorrect in your argument and irrational in your beliefs; therefore you lose the debate.

The oxford definition of morality:

 

You should stop posting in this thread as you have rejected the oxford definition of morality and therefore are not talking about the same thing I am debating. Any further debate with you is pointless.

 

The keyword is behaviour.

 

Well why can't I form my own definition of matter then walk into a physics debate and tell them they are all wrong?

Just leave. You don't want to debate the logic, all you want to do is mince words and try to wiggle as much subjectivity into the language as possible. I gave you a definition early on, and you waste my time by continuing to argue only to revert to 'oh I never accepted the definition'. Well then why did you continue to argue?

To answer your question (although I don't know why I should bother) the reason you cannot 'make up your own definitions' is because good is a word in the english language with a formal definition, as given above.

As I have already alluded to, if you are going to throw out every word in the language to avoid admitting you are wrong then I don't want to debate you on any topic at any time in the future.

 

Based on the actions and reactions of humans, as studied objectively, it is possible to determine behaviours which are universally preferrable and behaviours which are universally unpreferrable. Taking it one step further, we discover that all humans have terms that are consistently used to describe the difference between these behaviours, just as birds have calls to describe different states in their mating habits. Thus we may fairly equate the human english term 'good' with universally preferred behaviour, and the human english term 'bad' with universally unpreferred behaviour.

Remember that we did conclusively prove that preferred behaviour does exist. And here we have shown that preferred behaviour is recognized and understood by all humans. Thus for you to say that the distinction is made subjectively is false. All humans make the distinction in the same manner, with the exception of psychopaths.

No, the logic in the statement I put forward was perfectly valid. It is your logic that is self contradictory and therefore false:

'The preference of truth over falsehood expressed in making the proposition does not imply that there's a fundamental difference.' In making this statement you assert that I am incorrect, that my statement is untrue. If there were no fundamental difference between truth and falsehood there would be no reason to ever make such a statement, because you would already agree with me. If there is no difference between something that is true and something that is false then there is no reason to debate, or indeed communicate, because everything anyone ever said about anything would have no value. We would be unable to say 'yes that sounds correct' because correct and incorrect would have no definition.

To assert, as you are asserting, that there is no difference between true and false is to assert that your statement is in-fact true and therefore not false, and in the action of doing this you destroy your own proposition!

You reject the definition of morality, of the debate, in making this statement. Morality only exists between humans. Therefore all counter-arguments as to how it might be applied to animals or ... matter are void. If it is between animals (and not humans) then it is not morality and hence you are no longer debating within the scope of the subject of the debate.

But, granting a concession for the freedom to explore your proposition further, let us examine what you have asked:
"For, you say aggressive force is immoral: if so, how is the lion excused from killing a gazelle? Why should it apply only to humans, if you do not believe we are governed by higher laws?"

Why should the laws of physics only apply to physical reality? Why should biology only apply to animals? Why should mathematics only apply to symbols on paper?

Why would physics apply to someone's dreams? Why would biology apply to inorganic matter? Why would psychology apply to the nuclear processes of atomic fission?

To answer your question: Morality only applies to humans because that is the scope of its study and application.

 

What a load of irrational tripe. There is no such thing as a meaningless argument. An argument must have meaning or putting it forth would be irrational. A statement which is self contradictory is simply false.

If I study all matter and derive principles which govern the way matter interacts, is that not a set of rules that apply to all matter.

If I study humans and derive principles which govern the way humans interact naturally, is that not a set of rules that apply to all humans?

Any use of violence, at any time, to 'correct' an 'evil' (this includes CPS) is a fallacy. To state that 'initiation of force is moral' is in itself is a fallacy, and two immoral actions can never combine to create a moral action.

Lets break this down for you.

What is CPS?

CPS is a group of people who will make a decision about whether or not to take your kids, and if they decide that they deserve your kids more than you do then they will point a gun at you and say "give me your kids".

Now I don't care how you put it. This can never be a moral action. Both the act of aggression and the act of kidnap are unpreferred behaviour and therefore immoral.

To state that the CPS people have this moral authority is to state that person A may have a higher claim to person B than the person A has themselves. Your proposition rejects self ownership and supports slavery and violence. It is not moral.