Yes. They are held in 100% of all cases (societies).
Ah - yes - 100% (of a qualified set). So you're saying (unsupported as it is) that because 100% of a subset of things with a morality have a consistent morality, that everything outside that set also do?
I'm sure you think you have, but you really haven't, as, pointed out above, you continue to confuse the two.
No, it doesn't. It speaks to at least a shared subjectivity, but not evidence of objectivity. You still need to show that.
Objectively, when you ask somebody who understands the English language to "pick a number", they will give you a number rather than an elephant - unless they aren't using the accepted "system" (numbers, picking, English, sane human interaction, good faith, etc.) It could be they're from a desert island, I guess.
Again, there you go again with the shared subjectivity, the "accepted system", and assuming that makes it objective. While most people will certainly give you a number, not everyone will, because not everyone works to the same rulebook. Subjectivity. However, it is objectively true that if you only consider those who would answer a number, then they would all answer a number.
A moral framework applies to a particular world.
So it's subjective. Thanks. Glad we finally agree.
Yes, you can imagine hypothetical worlds in which humans do not value what humans in our world value, due to any number of imaginary changes you want to introduce in your fantasyland.
We're getting somewhere.
But that does not affect the objectivity of the moral framework in our actual, real world, at all.
We're not talking about the objectivity in our actual, real world, but in whether morals are objective or subjective. We could all use the same framework but the morals themselves be subjective. You agreed that, due to any number of changes, morals can change, even those you previously stated "are held in 100% of all cases (societies)". While you may think those "imaginary changes" are never going to happen, if they are possible then your argument is defeated, and you have to agree that morals are subjective, society based only on a shared subjectivity, even if at a given moment, for the given environment, there may be objectively a "best" system of laws or moral code for that society.
All human beings have emotions. Objectively, we exhibit a certain range of emotions. What we value as a species has to do, in part, with that range of emotions, along with other aspects of our biology.
Sure. But I'm waiting to see how you fit emotions that influence our value judgements, and our morality, leads to that morality being objective. Or do you think using the word "objectively" in the sentence does that for you?
And yes, you might imagine hypothetical worlds of alien lifeforms who lack emotions or who value very different things. But we're not (yet) talking about what their moral frameworks might look like. If you do want to open that can of worms, by the way, you're going to have essentially the same set of problems in arguing that morality isn't objective.
We're not talking about moral framework, either. You have slipped that in, yet that is tied very much to a society, not the individual. We are talking about morality. Let's please stick to that, shall we?
Firstly, others don't have the option of excluding emotions. They are human beings. They have emotions, like it or not.
I am a human being, thanks, JamesR, but thanks for the insult. I guess I'll wait for you to actually answer the question.
Secondly, you (i.e. people in a society, in case you're confused) can't start constructing a moral framework until you have established what you value. What you value will inevitably be tied to your emotions, along with other things about being the human being you are.
Not "inevitably". Usually, perhaps. But you still haven't answered my question. Perhaps you thought it rhetorical? I'll wait.
Then I suggest it might have been better for you to ask me, rather than making assumptions. That was your advice to me on several occasions, as I recall. Practice what you preach, and all that.
I'm not making assumptions, JamesR. I'm responding to your points. I'm questioning them. Criticising them where appropriate. But because I don't know your position what I'm not doing is going "Well, I assume you must think X and Y, and that is bad!". If you state X and Y, sure, I'll say what I think about them.
So I practice what I preach, thanks. Not always perfect, though.
You'll notice that opinions are divided on the question, and not everybody agrees with you.
Of course opinions are divided. This is a matter of philosophy, after all. I expect people to disagree with me. Would be boring if they didn't. Do you
honestly expect to enter a philosophical discussion and have everyone actually agree with you?
But probably they all don't know what "objective" actually means, either.
Heck, if people use different meanings of otherwise standard terms, they can come to any conclusion they want, I guess.
"X is 1!!"
"No! Y is 2!!!"
Ah, well, c'est la vie.
