[karajorma]

If Roe v. Wade was supposed to reduce the number of abortions in the US, it's failed catastrophically.

On what basis are you saying this? Do you actually have statistics for the number of abortions before abortion was re-legalised?

Pretty much every single set of statistics I've seen put the number at being roughly the same before and after.

[Aesaar]

EDIT: you still haven't answered the question. What makes our consensus better than theirs?

That we believe it's better.  That's it.  That's the only thing required.  And in 300 years they'll think theirs is better and that we were wrong about some things.  Morality is always subjective.

So in other words, we're not actually any better than the Nazis, or Aztecs, or ISIS, we just think we are? No. Just no. Please, just think about this for a bit.

Again, there's no objective standard for morality.  Hitler believed what he was doing was moral.  Daesh believe they're moral.  Why are they wrong? 

Easy answer: because we believe they're wrong.  That's it.  Their beliefs are abhorrent to us, and ours are abhorrent to them.  If Hitler had won, there might have been generations of children born and raised to believe that the Holocaust was right.  And if that's a scary thought, it should be.  This is why what we believe are destructive, immoral ideologies must be fought.  Because if we don't fight them, we might find ourselves in a world where they're accepted.  Retreating behind some idea of an objective moral standard is arrogant and complacent.

And in a few hundred years, there will be people who think that some of the things we do today are completely immoral.  I'm not talking about things that are debatable now, I'm talking about things we can't understand could be immoral.  I know this because it happened so much in the past and it would be the height of arrogance to think that we've finally now unlocked the one true objectively correct moral code.

[The E]

So in other words, we're not actually any better than the Nazis, or Aztecs, or ISIS, we just think we are? No. Just no. Please, just think about this for a bit.

To choose a less horrific example, look at the universal declaration of human rights as endorsed by the UN. There's a bunch of good, humanist, secular rules that we can all agree on, yes?
Except, we kinda can't. Because that declaration is rooted in humanist tradition, which is basically christian ideals with all references to God or the Bible removed. It should be no surprise then that countries with non-christian backgrounds reject them. Does that make muslim countries objectively less moral? No. It makes them different. Maybe, over time, they will come to agree with us. Maybe, over time, we will agree with them. Point is, you cannot assume that your particular moral standards are universally true.

If you posit objective morality, you have to explain why there have been so many variations on what is considered moral over the course of human history. You have to explain why your set of morals are closer to this universal morality than that of your parents or grandparents.

[666maslo666]

Morality is mostly subjective, IMHO. But you dont need objective morality to justify imposing your morality on others. After all, if morality is subjective, nobody can prove that doing so is wrong. And everyone wants to impose some kind of morality on others, no exceptions.

So if you believe abortion is as bad as murder, then yes, you are correct in trying to ban it by law. No matter what the consensus is.

I dont think abortion is comparable to murder but I do understand why those who believe this push for it to be banned. From their point of view, it makes sense.

If anything, I would be more suspicious of someone who thinks abortion is as bad as murder but at the same time is still pro-choice. Now that would be an absurd stance, tolerating murder is creepy..

[InsaneBaron]

So in other words, we're not actually any better than the Nazis, or Aztecs, or ISIS, we just think we are? No. Just no. Please, just think about this for a bit.

To choose a less horrific example, look at the universal declaration of human rights as endorsed by the UN. There's a bunch of good, humanist, secular rules that we can all agree on, yes?

Unless I'm mistaken, you're saying, yes, we're not actually better than said horrific examples, we just think we are, and what we think isn't true, it's subjective.

Look, am I the only one who realizes where this leads? I could give myself face paint and a Glasgow Grin and start shoving pencils up people's eyes and stuffing crowded ferries with gas drums; or stuff two-year-olds into wood chippers and mix the results into a fast food fry bin; or set off a dirty bomb at the super bowl and blame it on the Russians, and according to this logic, I would be no worse of a person for doing so, you guys would just be subjectively unhappy about what I was doing. Some heroic police officer or soldier could find out what I was doing and stop me, and give his or her life to do so, and they wouldn't actually be any better than me, you guys would just find them more palatable than me. It doesn't work that way!

YES, I can see that different nations through history have had different ideas about what was right or wrong. In some periods of history, people thought the world was flat, or the stars were fixed, or the Philosopher's Stone was possible. The world was round then, and it's round now. There's people out there with a better understanding of morality than me, just like there's people with a better understanding of mathematics than me, and later civilizations will have a better understanding of mathematics, and hopefully but not certainly of morality, than we do. But I'm not so ignorant that I can't understand the basics; I'm not such a monster that I can look at 9/11 and approve of it; and I highly doubt anyone here actually applies this sort of relativism so consistently that they can actually look at some atrocity and say "It would be wrong now, but it was okay back then for them."

[InsaneBaron]

This is why what we believe are destructive, immoral ideologies must be fought.  Because if we don't fight them, we might find ourselves in a world where they're accepted.  Retreating behind some idea of an objective moral standard is arrogant and complacent.

1. So you actually do acknowledge that some moralities are bad enough that they need to be fought? You actually do acknowledge that it would be a bad thing if they were accepted? Are they truly bad, or do you just feel that they're bad?

2. How is asserting that there's a moral standard that doesn't change based on how we feel about it "retreating"? This assertion is literally the basis of any attempt to destroy an evil ideology: the fact that some things are evil, no matter how people feel about them.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Are they truly bad, or do you just feel that they're bad?

What's the difference?

[zookeeper]

Again, there's no objective standard for morality.  Hitler believed what he was doing was moral.  Daesh believe they're moral.  Why are they wrong?

They are wrong because the internal logic of their morality collapses under scrutiny.

In a way, that happens for all forms of morality at some point because sooner or later you have to rely on an axiom, but how deep you have to dig first varies. In other words, some are more or less wrong than others even if no one is entirely right.

Not that I could say who in this discussion might be least wrong, because everyone is clearly so hilariously wrong.

[Aesaar]

So in other words, we're not actually any better than the Nazis, or Aztecs, or ISIS, we just think we are? No. Just no. Please, just think about this for a bit.

To choose a less horrific example, look at the universal declaration of human rights as endorsed by the UN. There's a bunch of good, humanist, secular rules that we can all agree on, yes?

Unless I'm mistaken, you're saying, yes, we're not actually better than said horrific examples, we just think we are, and what we think isn't true, it's subjective.

Look, am I the only one who realizes where this leads? I could give myself face paint and a Glasgow Grin and start shoving pencils up people's eyes and stuffing crowded ferries with gas drums; or stuff two-year-olds into wood chippers and mix the results into a fast food fry bin; or set off a dirty bomb at the super bowl and blame it on the Russians, and according to this logic, I would be no worse of a person for doing so, you guys would just be subjectively unhappy about what I was doing. Some heroic police officer or soldier could find out what I was doing and stop me, and give his or her life to do so, and they wouldn't actually be any better than me, you guys would just find them more palatable than me. It doesn't work that way!

Yes it does. It isn't a comfortable idea to live with, but it's fact.  There is no objective moral standard by which we can measure good or bad.  It does not exist.  Things are good or bad because we believe they are.  End of line.  That's it.  Period.  There is no empirically correct mathematical formula for morality.  The universe does not give a flying **** what people do to each other.

And if you do believe such a standard exists, point it out.  You already claimed that every human life objectively has intrinsic value, which is something I completely disagree with, so even that's evidently not true.

YES, I can see that different nations through history have had different ideas about what was right or wrong. In some periods of history, people thought the world was flat, or the stars were fixed, or the Philosopher's Stone was possible. The world was round then, and it's round now. There's people out there with a better understanding of morality than me, just like there's people with a better understanding of mathematics than me, and later civilizations will have a better understanding of mathematics, and hopefully but not certainly of morality, than we do. But I'm not so ignorant that I can't understand the basics; I'm not such a monster that I can look at 9/11 and approve of it; and I highly doubt anyone here actually applies this sort of relativism so consistently that they can actually look at some atrocity and say "It would be wrong now, but it was okay back then for them."

  It was okay for them.  That's why they did it.  9/11 didn't happen because the people carrying it out were monsters or insane.  The Holocaust didn't happen because the Nazis were some different species from the rest of us.  They did what they did because they genuinely believed it was the right thing to do.  And the only condemnation we can make is that we believe it was wrong.  And when enough of us speak out against something, it doesn't matter that our belief is subjective.  So many essential components of society work only because we collectively believe they work.

1. So you actually do acknowledge that some moralities are bad enough that they need to be fought? You actually do acknowledge that it would be a bad thing if they were accepted? Are they truly bad, or do you just feel that they're bad?

There's no difference.  My convictions don't require me to hide behind imagined objectivity.

2. How is asserting that there's a moral standard that doesn't change based on how we feel about it "retreating"? This assertion is literally the basis of any attempt to destroy an evil ideology: the fact that some things are evil, no matter how people feel about them.

And who or what is deciding which things are "evil" and which are not?

[GhylTarvoke]

Prefacing "this is wrong" with "I believe that" seems like a solipsistic caveat. Yeah, nothing is provable beyond cogito ergo sum. Who cares? To have an ethical discussion, we must relax our definitions of "provable" and "objective".

[The E]

Why should we? The statement that there is such a thing as objective morality, with a definable source and definable characteristics, seems eminently provable to me.

[GhylTarvoke]

Did you mean disprovable? I thought you were in the "there is no objective morality" camp.

[The E]

Proofs can have negative results. Either way, such a proof should be possible, and I eagerly await your attempts to do so.

[GhylTarvoke]

Why should we? The statement that there is such a thing as objective morality, with a definable source and definable characteristics, seems eminently provable to me.

So you agree that there is such a thing as objective morality? In that case, I misunderstood your position completely.

I won't attempt to prove its existence, because I don't think such a proof is possible.

[Scotty]

You misunderstood his position completely.  Saying something is provable doesn't mean it's true, because you can prove it isn't.

[InsaneBaron]

They are wrong because the internal logic of their morality collapses under scrutiny.

PRECISELY!!!

It was okay for them.  That's why they did it.  9/11 didn't happen because the people carrying it out were monsters or insane.

That's it. I'm done. If you insist on claiming it was okay for bin Laden to kill thousands of Americans, or the Nazis to kill millions of Jews, just because they thought it was, then you've abandoned any ability to distinguish right from wrong, and there's nothing I can do for you. God help you.

[GhylTarvoke]

You misunderstood his position completely.  Saying something is provable doesn't mean it's true, because you can prove it isn't.

Now I'm really confused. If something is provable, then it is true, unless your logical system is broken.

[Scotty]

It was okay for them.  That's why they did it.  9/11 didn't happen because the people carrying it out were monsters or insane.

That's it. I'm done. If you insist on claiming it was okay for bin Laden to kill thousands of Americans, or the Nazis to kill millions of Jews, just because they thought it was, then you've abandoned any ability to distinguish right from wrong, and there's nothing I can do for you. God help you.

You're having issues actually reading these points, aren't you?  It's like you come across something you can't agree with, and then the rest of the post becomes incomprehensible, because that's not what he said.  He said that bin Laden thought it was okay to kill thousands of Americans.  Demonstrably, he did, or he would not have!  That doesn't mean that Aesaar thinks it was okay (and pretty obviously doesn't).

No one we think is evil thinks that they're evil.  Everyone thinks that what they're doing is right.  This has been true for all of human history, and it will remain true for the rest of human existence.

Now, speaking not as a participant but as a moderator, you should be reading these posts a little bit more carefully if you want to discuss them.

[GhylTarvoke]

No one we think is evil thinks that they're evil.  Everyone thinks that what they're doing is right.

This is a very strong statement. It's also false. I've done things that I thought were wrong (e.g. teasing my brother), just because they were fun.

And I still don't understand how "some provable statements are not true" makes any kind of sense. You might as well argue that black is white.

[FrikgFeek]

Now I'm really confused. If something is provable, then it is true, unless your logical system is broken.

That only means that anything you prove in deductive system X is also true in deductive system Y. You would do well not to confuse mathematical logic systems with the languages we speak. They have things in common but language is not a very sound deductive system.

What The_E meant was obviously that a proof could be made with positive or negative results. Not to put words in his mouth, but by reading the follow up comment I'd say 'knowable' might be a better word.