RickD wrote: Kenny wrote: RickD wrote: Kenny wrote:
Would you then agree that a man raping an eight year old girl, is objectively wrong? Meaning, regardless of anyone's opinion, it is wrong to rape an eight year old girl?
Of course I would agree with you on this. But according to my understanding, it isn't enough to agree, it must also be demonstrable. Suppose some sicko claimed that raping an 8 yr old isn't wrong; how do we demonstrate that our claim trumps his?
And we've made a full circle, back to you confusing ontology and epistemology.
Kenny, do you agree that it's objectively wrong to rape an 8 year old? Yes or no. It's a simple question. It's either yes or no.
When I ask you if it's objectively wrong to rape an 8 year old, I'm asking you to deal with the ontology
Ontology in this case, deals with "if" something is objectively wrong. You're still conflating ontology with epistemology. Epistemology in this case, deals with the "why" something is objectively morally wrong.
While ontology and epistemology can overlap, there is a distinction.
Let's stick with the "if" for now.
I made a mistake on my previous reply. You asked if I agree raping an 8 yr old is objectively wrong; then you defined “objectively wrong” as “regardless of anyone’s opinion, it is wrong”. If that were all “objectively wrong” meant, I would agree with you; but I don’t agree objectively wrong is limited to “regardless of opinion” I think it also includes an ability to demonstrate as wrong; and this is where I disagree.
As far as ontological, I don’t believe it can be applied to morality because its about things with an actual existence; not thoughts and ideas. I believe morality is based on thoughts and ideas. Things with an actual existence can be demonstrated.
Objective morality deals with if something is right or wrong, independent of the person making the claim. In other words, if something is right or wrong regardless of one's opinion, then it's objectively right or wrong. As contrasted with subjective right and wrong, which depends on opinions. Just google, "objective morality definition", and you'll see that I'm taking a dictionary definition. Once you've seen that the definition I've used is correct, then please respond to my question.
By definition, do you believe it is objectively wrong to rape an 8 year old girl?
I looked up objective morality in several dictionary sites and none of them have it. They have objective, and morality, but not both words together. I went to a search engine to look up Objective Morality and a variety of sites came up about objective morality, objective truths, moral objectivism, etc. and they discussed the issue, but none of them providing a concrete definition of the term when both words are used together.
The closest thing I can get would be to get the dictionary definition of objective and morality. Objective is defined as not influenced by personal opinions, or pre justices; unbiased and based upon facts. If we apply objective to morality it would be morality that is unbiased and based upon facts. This is how I got the idea that if morality were objective, it could be demonstrated as true; because facts can be demonstrated as true.
But I’m curious; Assuming morality IS objective, how would things be different if morality were not? How would this change things if this sicko you spoke about were to claim that it is okay to rape this 8 yr old girl? You and I would agree it is wrong and this sick guy would say it is right.
Is it just a matter of being unable to point to a moral base that we believe all of morality is based upon and using it to prove the guy wrong? Obviously to label morality objective will not force him to agree with our moral base, or stop him from providing his moral base that justifies his actions; so how would things be different?