The above should be more accurately phrased as:
"But if you are right and there are objective moral values and duties..."
Using the term "morality" without a specifier or qualifier is very broad and vague and can have a number of different connotations.
Wordplay. Don't hide behind it.
This idea is based on a vague and ambiguous usage of the term "morality". As I have stated earlier, the term "morality" can have several different meanings depending on the context.
What you mean to imply is that if objective values and duties do exist, then these specific values and duties must apply to all people.
In this context you are speaking of NORMATIVE or PRESCRIPTIVE morality.
See? You knew what I meant.
Objective morality = some source outside a person causing that person to have a sense of what is right and wrong.
Subjective morality = The person making the decision internally about what is right and what is wrong.
And stealing a loaf of bread to feed one's starving family is not an extreme example? LOL ok...
Wait, you think stealing a loaf of bread IS extreme? How so?
Extreme example or not, people are obligated to protect, preserve, and respect the lives of others that are under their care. This is true for all people, at all places, at all times, regardless of their opinion on whether or not its obligatory. I am sure you will agree with what I just said.
I will agree that most people would consider protecting the people under their care as being the right thing to do, but I don't like the way you phrased it. You make it sound like some outside entity sets that obligation.
Considering that people have a moral duty or obligation to protect, preserve, and respect the lives of others that are under their care, a man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family in this exceptional scenario, would not be viewed in the same way as a man who steals another man's car so he can take a joyride. In the former case, the man is doing something which would be considered justifiable. In the latter, the man is doing something clearly wrong.
I agree with your conclusion, but not the way you got there.
As I'm sure I've said previously in this thread, I think that the reason that everyone's morality is pretty much the same is because we evolved to have it as a social species.
Put more simply, since we are a social species, we must be able to function in that society. Any genes which cause a behaviour (yes, genes can result in a particular behaviour as well as physical characteristics) that is harmful to society or makes it harder for that society to continue will be eliminated.
An example...
An individual in a society of apes continually disrupts hunting by making loud noises, thus scaring away any prey. As a result, the group will be unsuccessful in their hunts and rarely if ever make kills. As a result, they are more likely to die out during times of hardship, such as droughts. The genes in the individual that caused the disruption are eliminated from existence when that individual dies, and hence they are never again passed on.
This logic applies to other behaviours. Murder, for example. It weakens the group by removing individuals who might have otherwise made valuable contributions. Killing a female means there is one less female with whom to breed, so fewer offspring are produced. Killing a strong male weakens the group by removing an individual who can defend the group against an attack by a rival group.
And other behaviours are rewarded. Outcasting or killing disruptive individuals removes the disruptive influences, thus keeping the group strong. The genes that manifest this behaviour are likely to be passed on.
Over time, these behaviours become so strongly engrained in the individuals of the group that it feels wrong to go against them.
In order to prove this point, lets say the two men are apprehended by the police after doing what they did.
The first man's case is brought before a judge and the circumstances are considered. The judge would more than likely be lenient on the man who stole the bread and may even dismiss the charge of stealing altogether because of the extinuating circumstances i.e starving children and wife.
However, the man who stole the other man's car to go joyriding in is obviously going to receive some type of penalization for his crime. He can stand up there and say:
"Your honor, since right and wrong are determined only by individual opinion, then you can say I was wrong all you want, that's your opinion and you are more than entitled to it. However, I say I was right. And since there is no such thing as an objective moral duty, then I must be allowed to go free because I cannot be guilty of breaking an objective moral law if the law does not even exist. Yes your honor I am perfectly aware that you may have a different view than I do, and I am tolerant of your view. I respect it. However, you must respect my view and be tolerant of me just as I am of you. In light of this your honor, I would appreciate it if you would let me walk out of here today, without any penalization, for afterall, your honor, why should I be penalized for doing what was right?"
And the judge replied, "Even though there may be no objective right and wrong, it can be shown that your actions caused a disruption to society. The laws we have are in place so as to ensure that as little disruption to society occurs. Since you have demonstrated that you do not wish to abide by these laws, you are not fit to live in society and are therefore to be separated from that society until you demonstrate that you can function as a productive member of it."
Tiberius, clearly the judge would not be convinced by this plea from a relativistic view of morality. The man would probably be reprimanded for that ridiculous speech and then penalized for his crimes.
true, but that doesn't mean that the judge thinks morality comes from some intelligent entity.
To say that objective moral values and duties exist, is to say that some acts are obligatory independent of individual opinion or preference.
Here i disagree with you.
it is generally considered immoral to have an affair, yes? But suppose a society existed in which sex was as common as a handshake? Such a society exists in groups of bonobos.
My point is this - if you visited such a society, in which people considered it perfectly normal and acceptable to have multiple sexual partners, even if they were in long term relationships, would you think it was wrong of them?
I have informed you earlier, that a distinction must be made between moral absolutism and moral universalism/objectivism. Both are subsets of moral realism, but they are not the same.
To say that stealing is always wrong regardless of context is to adhere to moral absolutism. I am NOT A MORAL ABSOLUTIST. I am a moral objectivist.
Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to moral relativism), but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism).
This technobabble makes my head hurt. Could you explain this again in everyday English? Sorry, but I'm not used to these terms and I'm still trying to wrap my head around them. it's not easy when I have to keep flipping back and forth to figure out what you mean.
Subjectivists can still make moral claims. You have admitted this yourself, and yet you still remain incredulous? Or is it obstinant?
