Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

Moral values are a part of people, and people are a part of nature.

Yes, but what is nature.

 

[stevevw]

Oops, you can't just arbitrarily claim that the position they take is objective because you want to show that it is objective.

All you've said here is that most people think it's wrong. That doesn't mean it's not subjective.

I think that if people react a certain way then it is something they cannot help but do. That means despite what they say their actions tell the truth about what they believe. You can have 5 people with 5 different views of morality but all act/react the same way when wronged. This points to their morality by intuitive something not learnt but a part of them. That means that they won't change their beliefs due to social/cultural conditioning.

 

[Kylie]

I think that if people react a certain way then it is something they cannot help but do. That means despite what they say their actions tell the truth about what they believe. You can have 5 people with 5 different views of morality but all act/react the same way when wronged. This points to their morality by intuitive something not learnt but a part of them. That means that they won't change their beliefs due to social/cultural conditioning.

I think there's quite a bit of evidence to support the idea that morality is at least partially learned. Experiences as a child and how individuals are raised plays a big part.

 

[stevevw]

And who decides which non-human we anchor objective morality on? Your God? Somebody else's God? No; because then it is subjective to whatever God says. In order for something to be objective, it must be anchored on something incapable of thought. Once something capable of thought gets involved it becomes subjective.

I am not sure about the entity or god being incapable of thought at least in the way we humans understand that. You would have to acknowledge that something is going on with a god that is beyond our reality but can also understand out reality at the same time. The Christian God, for example, is said to be beyond time and space so we cannot measure things in the way we see them in our reality.

The Bible talks about God's nature being all good and that there is no evil in him. God is the
source of moral values such as kindness, love, honesty, justice, etc. He is also the arbitrator and lawgiver of good. So He is not subject to good but is good. This also means God gives us moral laws that come from his moral nature which make our moral duties or obligations. So his moral laws are the way we measure morals objectively.

How about if your God says the Earth is flat? Does the Earth become flat? No; if your God said the Earth were flat your God would be as wrong as I or any other thinking person would be if we said it; because the shape is objective and if you, I, or anybody else; even God says otherwise, they would be wrong. Do you agree?

Yes and that would be the same for all other physics. But the Christian God would not do that as it is said that He is also the creator of those physical laws.

 

[stevevw]

I think there's quite a bit of evidence to support the idea that morality is at least partially learned. Experiences as a child and how individuals are raised plays a big part.

I am not saying that there are no cultural and social aspects of morals. But I think we can get confused about this and think that it changes the moral itself when it may be just different interpretations of applying the same thing. And that is not to say that there are examples of cultures that do have contradictory laws that may breach morals compared to other cultures and societies. But that doesn't mean that there are no objective morals.

We often think that another nation's laws are wrong compared to ours which sort of supports objective morality in that our judgement implies we hold the objective truth about that moral. Whereas true subjective morality would mean not condemning that nation but accepting their view as just different to ours.

 

[Kylie]

I am not saying that there are no cultural and social aspects of morals. But I think we can get confused about this and think that it changes the moral itself when it may be just different interpretations of applying the same thing. And that is not to say that there are examples of cultures that do have contradictory laws that may breach morals compared to other cultures and societies. But that doesn't mean that there are no objective morals.

We often think that another nation's laws are wrong compared to ours which sort of supports objective morality in that our judgement implies we hold the objective truth about that moral. Whereas true subjective morality would mean not condemning that nation but accepting their view as just different to ours.

I don't agree.

Just because the morals we have are subjective, doesn't mean we are automatically going to be accepting of different moral viewpoints.

 

[stevevw]

I don't agree.

Just because the morals we have are subjective, doesn't mean we are automatically going to be accepting of different moral viewpoints.

The question is whether all the morals we believe are subjective. When we look at the differences we often find that these are differences in the application of morals and not the moral itself. But people mistake the differences in the application as being differences in morals when they are not. The belief in the sacred Cow between India and the west I posted earlier is a good example.

 

[Kylie]

The question is whether all the morals we believe are subjective. When we look at the differences we often find that these are differences in the application of morals and not the moral itself. But people mistake the differences in the application as being differences in morals when they are not. The belief in the sacred Cow between India and the west I posted earlier is a good example.

And what test do you propose we use to determine if a particular moral view is objective or not?

 

[stevevw]

That reasoning is kind of invalid, wouldn't you agree?
You say that under "subjective morality" no one can determine what is "good and evil"... by which you mean, of course, "objectively good and evil"... but you have still not established that an "objective good and evil" even exists.
You simply assert that, because it objective morality cannot be established under subjective morality, it must be objective.

So, objective morality must exist for objective morality to exist.
Yes, I would agree. But if objective morality does not exist... it doesn't need to be determined what is objectively "good and evil"... because it simply does not exist.

I thought I had already given the support for why there are objective morals. That is lived experience of what people do and how they act/react. The interactions we have with others tells us that people intuitively know that certain things are always wrong. Perhaps this article I came across can explain it better.

We are justified in believing that objective morals exist on the ground of our moral experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience, just as we are justified in believing that there is a world of physical objects around us on the ground of our sense experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience. Such a defeater would have to show not merely that our moral experience is fallible or defeasible but that it is utterly unreliable, that we may apprehend no objective moral values or duties whatsoever. Our moral experience is so powerful, however, that such a defeater would have to be incredibly powerful in order to overcome our experience, just as our sense experience is so powerful that a defeater of my belief in the world of physical objects I perceive would have to be incredibly powerful in order for me to believe that I have no good reason to think that I am not a brain in a vat of chemicals or a body lying in the Matrix.
Are We Justified in Believing in Objective Moral Values and Duties? | Reasonable Faith

Still that doesn't mean that subjective (or intersubjective] morality isn't a thing.

And I am not saying that subjective morality is not a thing. We all have it as we don’t always know the objective truth and sometimes we have to learn from experience.

Yes, I understand that. The question is: how would you even start to determine that... without anyone "believing" it... that is: making a subjective moral judgement.
There are people who would disagree... who would say that kindness is not always a virtue, or even that kindness isn't a virtue at all.
They could even say that this is objectively true.

And the million-dollar-question still is: how would you determine that this is objectively true or false?

Just because kindness may be claimed to be an objective moral, doesn’t mean people don’t have their own views or believe the opposite. Objective morals don’t force people to follow those morals. They are just out there. So, I guess the only way these morals can be supported is through experience in the way people behave intuitively.

Just because a person has an opposing view of a moral doesn’t mean that view is truly moral. The moral argument for God says that if there are objective morals then there must be a moral lawgiver outside humans. For many people that moral lawgiver is God. God has a set of laws and these become the measure of right and wrong.

The point is morals need to have a set of rules to go otherwise they have no reference to determine if they are right or wrong. Some may say this reference is nature or a natural intuitive position human take. Therefore, going by experience on how people act/react in life is a good measure as natural law/Gods law says that we all have moral right and wrong within us.

That does nothing to show the existence of objective morality.
First: People act like there are different objective moralities. They (often) act like their moral system is objectively right, and those that disagree are objectively wrong. People with different moral systems do that... and that means they cannot be all objectively right. But, as that line continues: they can all be objectively wrong. Or, in that case, be wrong about the "objective" part.

I think the above link attached works here. We are justified in believing that objective morals exist on the ground of our moral experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience.

To say that people have different objective morals, and each insists they are right is self-defeating as there cannot all be right. This would rather be subjective morality and people are claiming it to be objective.

Exactly. That is what I am saying. These morals do not say anything about moral objective truths.
Do you have anything different to offer?

They do to a point. As mentioned, lived moral experience. Often, we find there are certain moral positions by different groups which are the same. This is more than a coincidence. When one group may have an opposing view, we can often see that it is a self-contradicting position despite them insisting they are right.

We often impose our position on others such as the UN which implies that we know certain morals are right regardless of what others say. This is lived experience in applying the morals in action or as a reaction to situations where opposing morals have been shown to be contradictory to what they claimed. IMO the measure of knowing a moral is self-contradicting comes from within that stems from God or as some say natural laws.

That might even be correct... but that still doesn't mean that my (hypothetical) claim to objectivism is right.
In fact, I recognize this problem and thus do not make such a claim. I do not assert that my morals are objective, nor do I use this argument to "force" them on anyone.
I already mentioned that in my last post: "subjective morals" are faced with the question of how to implement them. "Force" is of course one option. "Conviction" would be another, and there are several approaches in between.
You might notice that these are the same methods that your "objective" morals are enforced.

But despite this people still act like certain morals are objectively right and should apply to all. We do it all the time with certain laws that are often based on morals like murder and rape. The UN does it for human rights.

The problem with stepping back and saying because morals are subjective that we can never step in and say that this or that person is wrong is that we allow people to do horrible things or entertain the ideas which often lead to bad outcomes on things we know are not right. In some ways that is evidence that there must be objective morals because we know intuitively it is not right to allow horrible things to happen. But because of equal rights and PC, we have to be inclusive.

Again, partially correct. The question is valid: what about disagreements? I'll get back to that.
The "right to hold their moral views"... well... I don't believe in "rights". Not as "natural" attributes. "Rights" are also "subjective"... subject to human rule.
I cannot keep you from having your moral views... insofar you have the "right". But in the same way, I have the right to disagree... and somehow we have to work that out.
Why should they trust "my" moral judgements? Again, good question. Let's try to work it out.

See, the problem is that you are faced with exactly the same questions... you just stop for a simplistic answer.
You said earlier: "people act like there is objective morality"... and still they differ and get things "wrong". It seems that this "objective morality" doesn't prevent all the problems you state.
We still have to find a way to "discover" this morality... and to determine that it is correct. But you don't have a method to do that.

You have to revert to authority. The moral system becomes "because I say so". Subjective. People will disagree with that, and doubt your moral judgement. So you go one step further... "because I say that someone else said so". Still subjective. So it goes up to "because I say that someone else said that the ultimate all-powerful and good creator said so".
And still, people can and will disagree... because they say that someone else said this ultimate all-powerful creator said something different. Or is different. Or doesn't exist at all.

You still have no way to determine your objective morals. You still have to resort to "force". Or conviction.

Once again I think the link above answers the question about how we can measure objective morality. The only conflict I see is between what people say in their reasoning and how they act in real life moral experience. Often these are in conflict. That’s because people’s views can be biased and tainted with their personal experiences.

Correct for the most part I would say... humans can be very weird. But not everyone will object with someone elses child is abused.

This highlight why people may have different views and how what they say is different to lived experience. They may say it is OK for someone else’s child to be abused though I doubt this would really be the case unless they were so detached from empathy. As you said people can be weird but is being weird and devoid of humanity and sanity a good basis for determining what is good and evil. But nevertheless, anyone in their right mind would object and react like it was wrong if their child was abused.

Example: all those good Christians who assert their belief in objective morality and who have no problems with torturing a potential terrorist's family.

Their morality is, if not necessarily subjective, situational. It is ok to do this thing that your objective moral says is "objectively wrong"... in certain circumstances. It is not simple: "do not abuse children." or "do not kill". It is always "yes, under these circumstances, it is allowed to do that... or even good to do that."

Communist troops come to your country to free you from the evils of the capitalist yoke. They don't want to kill you or your family. They want to help you.
Now, to defend your lifestyle, your 'freedom', your wealth, your power over your employees... would you kill an invading soldier? Someone's son, someone's father, someone's brother?
Do not kill?

Someone breaks into your home and is about to run of with your stereo. Would you kill someone who enters your home illegally or forcefully?
Do not kill?

Someone is attacking you, beating you up. You have your gun at your belt. Do you draw and shoot them, in "self defense"?
Do not kill?

Morality is never black and white.

First off circumstantial context does not mean objective morals change. This is more about relativity. There can be situations where it is justified to kill for example but that does not mean the objective moral not to kill has changed. A rare situation allows the moral to be compromised but not taken away. This article may help explain.

“Absolute” means “regardless of the circumstances.” “Relative” means “varying with the circumstances.” We can agree, for example, that it is not absolutely wrong to kill another person. In some circumstances killing another person may be morally justified and even obligatory. To affirm that one’s moral duty varies with the circumstances is not to say that we have no objective moral duties to fulfill.
“Objective” or “Absolute” Moral Values? | Reasonable Faith

But nevertheless, I doubt that a Christian would advocate for torturing a terrorist and even if they did this can be shown to be wrong. As with the military torturing, terrorists was found to be morally wrong by the US government and certainly Christians doing it with less justification would be shown to be wrong more so.

I will leave it here as the post is quite long and finish the rest in another post.
Kind regards
Steve.

 

[stevevw]

And what test do you propose we use to determine if a particular moral view is objective or not?

As morality is more about metaphysics the only way is through lived experience of what people do and how they act/react. The interactions we have with others tells us that people intuitively know that certain things are always wrong. Perhaps this article I came across can explain it better.

We are justified in believing that objective morals exist on the ground of our moral experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience, just as we are justified in believing that there is a world of physical objects around us on the ground of our sense experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience. Such a defeater would have to show not merely that our moral experience is fallible or defeasible but that it is utterly unreliable, that we may apprehend no objective moral values or duties whatsoever. Our moral experience is so powerful, however, that such a defeater would have to be incredibly powerful in order to overcome our experience, just as our sense experience is so powerful that a defeater of my belief in the world of physical objects I perceive would have to be incredibly powerful in order for me to believe that I have no good reason to think that I am not a brain in a vat of chemicals or a body lying in the Matrix.
Are We Justified in Believing in Objective Moral Values and Duties? | Reasonable Faith

 

[stevevw]

I don't agree.

Just because the morals we have are subjective, doesn't mean we are automatically going to be accepting of different moral viewpoints.

You may not personally be accepting but the overall idea of subjective morality means that all moral views should be included and no one can really say that another person's moral view regardless of how morally depraved it may seem is objectively wrong. Because after all subjective moral views are like likes and dislike just different colours of the same rainbow.

 

[Speedwell]

Okay you were suggesting sexual loyalty was an objective moral issue because sex is biology, and biology is objective. I say sexual loyality a subjective moral issue because it is based on human thought, (thoughts about biology) and all human thoughts are subjective.

Leaving aside your distinctions of "objective" and "subjective" for a moment, I would say no: sexual loyalty is not based on human thoughts about biology. Morals are not like making up by-laws for some club we're starting, which could be one way or some other way at a whim. Moral precepts must derive from some imperative of human nature, or they are not really moral precepts at all.
Forming more or less permanent bonded pairs for the purpose of reproduction and parenting is (or was, in the state of nature, anyway) critical to the survival of the species and may be guided by moral precepts. Deciding whether homosexuals may celebrate their relationships in rituals which humans have erected to proclaim that pair bonding is not a moral question at all.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, I am not saying that people cannot know objective morality without knowing God. The bible says we all know God's laws as they are written on our hearts. I think most people know these objective morals but secular society has their own way of understanding morals which is subjective for obvious reasons as they cannot allow one set of morals because not everyone believes in God.

So let me see if I've got this straight; Christians believe their morals come from God, who never changes? But Christians are constantly changing! If you look at the moral beliefs of Christians today and compare them to what Christians believed 100 years ago, you will see a big difference in beliefs. How can constantly changing beliefs come from a non changing God?

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, but what is nature.

Nature is anything natural to planet Earth, but I was clarifying it only comes from Humans, not everything else under the umbrella of nature.

 

[Ken-1122]

I am not sure about the entity or god being incapable of thought at least in the way we humans understand that.

I'm not talking about a God incapable of thought, I'm talking about things like math, measurement, volume, material, etc. these things are objective.

Yes and that would be the same for all other physics. But the Christian God would not do that.

I wouldn't do that either! But if I did I would be wrong just as your God would be wrong; IOW your God has to obey the laws of nature, physics and everything everyone else is required to obey otherwise he would be as wrong as anyone else.

 

[Ken-1122]

Leaving aside your distinctions of "objective" and "subjective" for a moment, I would say no: sexual loyalty is not based on human thoughts about biology. Morals are not like making up by-laws for some club we're starting, which could be one way or some other way at a whim. Moral precepts must derive from some imperative of human nature, or they are not really moral precepts at all.

If morality does not come from human thought, but some imperative of human nature, which imperative of human nature does it come from? Please be specific.

 

[Strathos]

So let me see if I've got this straight; Christians believe their morals come from God, who never changes? But Christians are constantly changing! If you look at the moral beliefs of Christians today and compare them to what Christians believed 100 years ago, you will see a big difference in beliefs. How can constantly changing beliefs come from a non changing God?

Progressive revelation.

You might tell a 5 year old never to touch the oven because it's dangerous. But you might start teaching a 12 year old the basics of using it to cook. Does that mean you're being inconsistent, or just waiting until they're ready for it?

 

[HitchSlap]

You may not personally be accepting but the overall idea of subjective morality means that all moral views should be included and no one can really say that another person's moral view regardless of how morally depraved it may seem is objectively wrong. Because after all subjective moral views are like likes and dislike just different colours of the same rainbow.

Would you accept the proposition that requiring anyone to do anything against their will is immoral?

 

[Speedwell]

If morality does not come from human thought, but some imperative of human nature, which imperative of human nature does it come from? Please be specific.

That's a good question which has provoked much speculation. Does a social species made up of individuals with enough intelligence to contemplate the consequences of their actions need rules of behavior to prosper? One would think so. Are they decreed a priori by a divine being? Or are they intentionally composed through conscious rational discourse? I don't believe either one, and am looking for a third option.

 

[Kylie]

As morality is more about metaphysics the only way is through lived experience of what people do and how they act/react. The interactions we have with others tells us that people intuitively know that certain things are always wrong. Perhaps this article I came across can explain it better.

We are justified in believing that objective morals exist on the ground of our moral experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience, just as we are justified in believing that there is a world of physical objects around us on the ground of our sense experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience. Such a defeater would have to show not merely that our moral experience is fallible or defeasible but that it is utterly unreliable, that we may apprehend no objective moral values or duties whatsoever. Our moral experience is so powerful, however, that such a defeater would have to be incredibly powerful in order to overcome our experience, just as our sense experience is so powerful that a defeater of my belief in the world of physical objects I perceive would have to be incredibly powerful in order for me to believe that I have no good reason to think that I am not a brain in a vat of chemicals or a body lying in the Matrix.
Are We Justified in Believing in Objective Moral Values and Duties? | Reasonable Faith

Wait, what?

"We are justified in believing that objective morals exist on the ground of our moral experience ..."​

So they're saying that morality is objective, and they know this because of our subjective view of morality?