Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
So first, appealing to a majority doesn't make your case. A preponderance of ethicists are objectivists as well; it doesn't make them right. A preponderance of the planet believe in a geocentric universe. It didn't make them right either. "Truth" is not determine by vote.
Of course there is a "public truth" associated with Stalin: it is the collective view of the public. If an individual finds Stalin's actions immoral, they are (subjectively) immoral to that person. If the members of a society collectively find Stalin's actions immoral, then they are (subjectively) immoral to that society. What there is not is some abstract, objectively true for ALL people, evaluation of Stalin's actions. There is no "objectively true" moral norm against which to assess individual moral norms. There are simply a wide variety of individual voices, and a significant number of documented moral norms from a variety of cultures, societies, religions, etc., each of them subjective to the group that created it.
There is a real pizza that really interacted with taste buds. There was a real Stalin that really interacted with people and really committed particular acts with particular consequences. And there is no "guaranteed" way to adjudicate their disagreement for either situation. There are ways to influence someone to like pizza - but they are not guaranteed to be successful. There are ways to influence someone to evaluate Stalin differently than they currently do - but they are not guaranteed to be successful.
Why? Because there is no objective frame of reference to which all moral codes "ought" to align. None has ever been shown to exist. No one can make the case that one even MUST exist. You have not done so once since we started. Every challenge I have put forward to you - any one of which would defeat my position with ONE example, you have failed to provide even that one example.
Why? Because there is no objective frame of reference to which all moral codes "ought" to align. None has ever been shown to exist. No one can make the case that one even MUST exist. You have not done so once since we started. Every challenge I have put forward to you - any one of which would defeat my position with ONE example, you have failed to provide even that one example.
Is there any world in which torturing children for amusement would be morally acceptable?
When stripped right down to it, you are arguing that morality cannot be subjective because then it would lack a characteristic that can only be provided by being objective. First, you have not shown that subjective morality cannot have that characteristic. You have merely shown that subjective morality may not have that characteristic. Indeed, moral disagreement is still possible, but resolution of that disagreement is not guaranteed. Second, that argument reduces to what I have been saying all along: it cannot be subjective because then it's not objective - which is not an argument.
Comment