Where does morality come from?

[Strathos]

Why do you think there needs to be something eternal in order for anything to mean anything?

I've answered this before.

 

[Ken-1122]

My point is people always act/react as though there are objective morals.
IE there were plenty of people on the marriage equality "yes" side who condemned the other side saying they were wrong and even calling them all sorts of names and threatened them physically for taking that position. If they truly believed in subjective morality they would have accepted their position as just a different position of many positions at the subjective moral table.


What I cannot understand is why would they even bother to try and justify their position as there would be nothing to justify under subjective morality. It would be like having to justify why a person likes chocolate ice-cream. They should just say OK you think stealing is OK that is different from me, good luck to you.

You obviously have no clue what it means when people say morality is subjective.

 

[Kylie]

I've answered this before.

Could you provide a link?

 

[stevevw]

Once again, acknowledging that it is subjective does NOT mean that they have to allow other people to cause harm based on differing views.

I agree. Unfortunately, just like politics especially communism, religion can be used to force people to conform to human-made ideas and then call it the rule for all. In saying that even modern western society can be like that with the way they dictate certain laws and regulations on everyone.

I believe murder is wrong. I know that is a subjective viewpoint. But I am not going to sit by and let someone else commit murder if I can stop it.

Is murder really a subjective moral. The fact that people want to step in and dictate what is moral or not seems to point to it being objective. Remember just because someone has a different subjective view on murder doesn't mean they are right objectively. People may be justified in stopping the unjustified killing. Also, someone who kills in self-defense to save their family's lives is not changing the fact that killing is wrong objectively.

So you could say that killing is always wrong apart from a very rare situation that doesn't alter the objective status and all other positions are objectively morally wrong. Just because people take morally wrong subjective positions doesn't mean subjective morality is justified.

This is what I was saying is the inherent problem with subjective morality in that it gives some status to immoral views because no one can really say they are objectively wrong. This cultivates crazy ideas where people feel justified for doing things that most people see as wrong as the person believes they have the right to think that way.

As a social species, it benefits us to have agreement on things like this. Particularly where disagreement can cause harm.

Why does it benefit humans to have agreement on these things?

 

[stevevw]

You obviously have no clue what it means when people say morality is subjective.

I think I do. They are saying that they have the view that certain things are morally right or wrong. The moral act is right or wrong according to the subject (the person) and not the object (the act itself).

 

[Kylie]

Is murder really a subjective moral.

Yes. All morality is subjective, even the disapproval of murder.

The fact that people want to step in and dictate what is moral or not seems to point to it being objective. Remember just because someone has a different subjective view on murder doesn't mean they are right objectively. People may be justified in stopping the unjustified killing. Also, someone who kills in self-defense to save their family's lives is not changing the fact that killing is wrong objectively.

Once again, something does not become objective just because most people agree with it.

Something is objective if it can be independently tested and measured and verified by others.

Why does it benefit humans to have agreement on these things?

Because it causes demonstrable harm to our society to have a few people going around killing others.

 

[stevevw]

Nobody believes all explanations are equal, everybody believes their explanation is the best and they have to be convinced otherwise. Subjective morality requires you make your case and prove them wrong; and that’s whats so great about it; it’s all about changing hearts that’s the only way you can get people to change for the better. Objective morality does nothing of the sort, it only makes empty claims

So how do they prove that the moral position they have is right to the other person.

Nobody cares about sports preferences, everybody cares about moral preferences; you can’t compare the two; that’s why your comparison fails.

By why are subjective morals more important than sports if they just come down to people having different views about morals that have no real truth about what is right or wrong. They would be meaningless and therefore just like a person's preference for something. They would just be the result of a biological process for survival that says nothing about what something is good or bad.

Only closed minded people think that way (like those who say God said it, I believe it, and that settles it) fortunately most people are better than that.

yet most people and society have laws based on moral values that dictate to us what is good and what is bad. When a person is wronged they react in a way that dictates what is wrong by the way they tell the person they should not have done that and it was wrong even when they claim that there are no ultimate right or wrong.

Under subjective morality you have obligations and consequences to people who actually exist.

Why do people have obligations to people who exist.

I can make moral arguments for my views as well

But they say nothing about objective morality. Only what you think.

Accountability under God? When’s the last time your God actually held somebody accountable? Wait! let me guess…… the ole “you’ll find out when you die” argument; right? (LOL)

No Christians are motivated to do the right thing now because they believe there are consequences. They want to be with God rather than be without him. So there is a strong reason and motivation as opposed to a world atheistic view based on evolution where ultimately it is about survival which can mean many things including survival of the fittest, best, most powerful, capable or cunning. Why should a person sacrifice their life for another when they know that there is nothing after death.

If you are unable to recognize good from bad, how do you know your God is good? How do you know you aren’t being tricked?

Everyone is able to recognize objective morals. They are the ones we all know are right or wrong no matter what. That is why we insist on everyone following them.

Christians don’t do it because they know Objective morality doesn’t work unless they are preaching to the choir

What don't like by objective morals. I would beg to differ. Most Christians try to live by God's objective morals. The fact is that living by these objective morals does work. They just don't force them onto others but that doesn't mean they don't work. In fact, I would say that even non-Christians live by objective morals but they don't realize it. Whenever we insist on others living by certain morals we are living by objective morals.

 

[stevevw]

Once again, something does not become objective just because most people agree with it.
Something is objective if it can be independently tested and measured and verified by others.

They can be verified by lived experience. The link I posted earlier explains this. People live like there are objective morals. They cannot hide this. Their reactions, as opposed to their rhetoric, speaks the truth about what they really believe. This consistently shows that people intuitively know that some things are always wrong regardless of subjective views.

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.
Are We Justified in Believing in Objective Moral Values and Duties? | Reasonable Faith

Because it causes demonstrable harm to our society to have a few people going around killing others.

The problem for subjective morality is to explain why causing harm is good or bad if there is no objective measure. If we are just biological outputs and the result of electrical brain activity then why is something bad if it harms. It is like saying it is morally wrong to break a rock.

 

[stevevw]

Assuming moral truth is the same as morally right, I believe moral truth is subjective. If moral truth is different than moral right, please explain the difference.

I regard moral truths are being objective. I should have said the ultimate truth. So subjective morality allows personal truths according to the person saying it but says nothing about whether that personal truth is ultimately truthful.

My point is, nobody debates the moral objective/subjective argument before deciding to do or not do something wrong.

I agree but people still choose their position by the beliefs they have. If they an atheist they will believe there are no objective morals because this demands a moral lawgiver God. So they have pre-determined their responses otherwise they are living a lie. But what has been found is that even atheist live like there is objective morals.

No. To believe morality is subjective does not equal believing no moral truths or ultimate obligations.

They can have personal moral truths but no ultimate moral truths which would be contradictory because an ultimate moral truth means there is one truth and subjective truths mean many truths. Likewise, there can be an ultimate obligation that is only applied to the person for that particular moral view.

But how could there be ultimate obligations outside this when there is no objective morality. People would not feel obligated because they did not believe the moral applied to them or the moral didn't apply to their situation. Also because morals are not objectively wrong there would be no ultimate consequence. You may face a bit of embarrassment or cop some flack in the short term for being selfish but apart from that there would be no comeback and you could benefit from the pleasures of being selfish and only thinking of number 1.

When it comes to the survival of the fittest this is a powerful influence. People will think of themselves first so they can have a better life even if they profess to believe in being fair and sharing things. For an atheistic view that is a powerful thing as all there is is this life and people only have a short time to enjoy themselves. This is happening now in the class society.

 

[Ken-1122]

I think I do. They are saying that they have the view that certain things are morally right or wrong. The moral act is right or wrong according to the subject (the person) and not the object (the act itself).

So when a wrong action is done against the subject, the subject will complain and protest because it’s done against him and he judges that act as wrong! Nobody will care if the wrong act is done against the Object (the act itself), the object is incapable of judging thus nobody will protest. So the fact that people judge and protest when they have been wronged should indicate to you that morality is subjective not objective because if morality were objective, nobody would care.
Does this make sense to you?

 

[Ken-1122]

So how do they prove that the moral position they have is right to the other person.

By making a case for your moral position

By why are subjective morals more important than sports if they just come down to people having different views about morals that have no real truth about what is right or wrong.

Morality can effect your life in ways sports will not. And you’re right, people often believe they’ve been wronged when they actually have not! Of course if morality were objective (wrong according to the object not the person/subject) nobody would care

yet most people and society have laws based on moral values that dictate to us what is good and what is bad. When a person is wronged they react in a way that dictates what is wrong by the way they tell the person they should not have done that and it was wrong even when they claim that there are no ultimate right or wrong.

Under subjective morality, everybody believes their subjective views are the ultimate right or wrong; even when it is not......often even after it's been proven it is not.

Why do people have obligations to people who exist.

Because we have to live with, and deal with these people on a daily basis

But they say nothing about objective morality. Only what you think.

As we discussed earlier, if morality were objective, nobody would care about it. The fact that people care proves subjective morality.

No Christians are motivated to do the right thing now because they believe there are consequences. They want to be with God rather than be without him. So there is a strong reason and motivation as opposed to a world atheistic view based on evolution where ultimately it is about survival which can mean many things including survival of the fittest, best, most powerful, capable or cunning. Why should a person sacrifice their life for another when they know that there is nothing after death.

So Christians only do right because they think God is looking, but Atheists do right, because they believe it is the right thing to do. (studies show atheists are just as likely to do right as Christians)
If Christians only do right to please God, Christians aren’t moral; their God is! This would mean Christians are just a bunch of immoral people who are good at following instructions! I would like to think Christians are better than the way you are describing them.

Everyone is able to recognize objective morals. They are the ones we all know are right or wrong no matter what. That is why we insist on everyone following them.

So if you know right from wrong, why listen to God? He’s only gonna tell you what you already know! Why not just follow your own morality? You know; the way we do it.

 

[Strathos]

Could you provide a link?

If I feel like digging through my old posts.

 

[Ken-1122]

I regard moral truths are being objective. I should have said the ultimate truth. So subjective morality allows personal truths according to the person saying it but says nothing about whether that personal truth is ultimately truthful.

But isn’t a person’s personal truth what they believe to be the ultimate truth? People believe something to be the truth (personal truth, ultimate truth, objective truth, or whatever adjective you wanna put in front of truth) all the time yet are occasionally wrong!

I agree but people still choose their position by the beliefs they have. If they an atheist they will believe there are no objective morals because this demands a moral lawgiver God.

No. Atheists believe morals are based on judgments, all judgments are based on thoughts which makes them subjective; not objective. If it were simply a case of not believing in God the law giver, I could make anything a law giver, even myself, and that claim would carry just as much clout as you believing your God of choice to be the moral law giver.

So they have pre-determined their responses otherwise they are living a lie. But what has been found is that even atheist live like there is objective morals.

I don't believe there is a difference between living under objective morals vs subjective morals (if we assumed objective morals actually existed)

They can have personal moral truths but no ultimate moral truths which would be contradictory because an ultimate moral truth means there is one truth and subjective truths mean many truths.

Not quite; Subjective means I believe my personal truth IS the ultimate moral truth, and everyone else's truth is just wrong! But I also recognize everyone else has their personal truth which they believe is the ultimate truth; and all other truths (mine included) are wrong.

Likewise, there can be an ultimate obligation that is only applied to the person for that particular moral view.

But how could there be ultimate obligations outside this when there is no objective morality.

To me, subjective morality feels the exact same as objective morality; ultimate obligations that result and all. The only difference is if I am proven wrong and what I thought was the ultimate truth was actually in error, I change my mind by updating my moral perceptions in light of this new found information

 

[Ken-1122]

But how could there be ultimate obligations outside this when there is no objective morality. People would not feel obligated because they did not believe the moral applied to them or the moral didn't apply to their situation.

You seem to have gotten that backwards. Remember back on post #1185 when you said subjective morality is when the act is right/wrong according to the subject (person) rather than the object (act itself)? The reason they feel this way is because the moral act does apply to them or their situation.

Also because morals are not objectively wrong there would be no ultimate consequence. You may face a bit of embarrassment or cop some flack in the short term for being selfish but apart from that there would be no comeback and you could benefit from the pleasures of being selfish and only thinking of number 1.

No, the consequences would be the backlash you receive from your neighbor who subjectively feels your act is against them or their situation

When it comes to the survival of the fittest this is a powerful influence.

Survival of the fittest is about bacteria, insects, and other lower life forms; nothing to do with human morality. And don’t assume that because I am skeptical against your Christian beliefs that I’m not just as skeptical towards anything else; including science. A lot of Christians seem to make that mistake.

 

[stevevw]

So when a wrong action is done against the subject, the subject will complain and protest because it’s done against him and he judges that act as wrong!

They judge the act as not just wrong but objectively wrong because they are saying that the other person should not commit that moral wrong, that they cannot hold that moral position. By doing that they dictate objectively that their position is the only one correct.

Nobody will care if the wrong act is done against the Object (the act itself), the object is incapable of judging thus nobody will protest.

You can't do a wrong act against the object as the object is the act. So rather than the subject determining what is right or wrong, it is the act itself that tells us whether it is right or wrong.

You can compare this to a person (the subject) having the subjective view that the earth is flat. But the object itself being the earth determines the fact of the matter which is the earth is round. The object being the earth cannot have views just like the objective moral cannot have views. So for objective moral itself determines what is morally right or wrong and not the person (subject view). So the objective moral itself determines right and wrong and not the subject. It will always remain the same despite the person, race, culture or time.

So the fact that people judge and protest when they have been wronged should indicate to you that morality is subjective, not objective because if morality were objective, nobody would care.
Does this make sense to you?

Its the other way around. The person (the subject) has claimed moral acts are subjective (moral acts are right and wrong according to the person) and there is no objective (ultimate) right and wrong. But when they are wronged by the very morals they previously claimed were subjective and condemn the other persons act as wrong and their position right they are taking an objective position because they are determining the act is what determines right and wrong and not their subjective view.

 

[Kylie]

They can be verified by lived experience. The link I posted earlier explains this. People live like there are objective morals. They cannot hide this. Their reactions, as opposed to their rhetoric, speaks the truth about what they really believe. This consistently shows that people intuitively know that some things are always wrong regardless of subjective views.

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.
Are We Justified in Believing in Objective Moral Values and Duties? | Reasonable Faith

A person's lived experiences is SUBJECTIVE. How do you suggest subjective evidence is used to prove that something is objective?

The problem for subjective morality is to explain why causing harm is good or bad if there is no objective measure. If we are just biological outputs and the result of electrical brain activity then why is something bad if it harms. It is like saying it is morally wrong to break a rock.

We subjectively believe something is bad if it causes us harm because we know we don't like harm being caused to us.

I know I don't like it if someone hits me, so I believe it is wrong for me to hit someone else, since that inflicts upon them something which I know I don't like when it is inflicted upon me.

It's called empathy.

 

[Kylie]

If I feel like digging through my old posts.

Quite a few times lately when I've asked Christians for evidence I've been given the response that it's just too much work for them...

 

[Strathos]

Quite a few times lately when I've asked Christians for evidence I've been given the response that it's just too much work for them...

I never said I wouldn't. Just that it might be a few days.

 

[stevevw]

By making a case for your moral position

But that case only determines your personal beliefs, view about whether the moral is right or wrong. Why should someone trust that you are ultimately right when its only your personal view.

Morality can affect your life in ways sports will not. And you’re right, people often believe they’ve been wronged when they actually have not! Of course, if morality were objective (wrong according to the object, not the person/subject) nobody would care.

It is the fact they react and sometimes strongly condemn the person shows what they really believe. According to psychology, our reactions speak the truth about us, our beliefs.

Under subjective morality, everybody believes their subjective views are the ultimate right or wrong; even when it is not......often even after it's been proven it is not.

The only way a person can be proven wrong with their subjective moral position is by an objective moral position. Just like the round earth proves the flat Earther's view is wrong. Yes, they can continue to hold onto their position but that's in the face of facts. But another person's moral subjective view is not an objective fact so it cannot really prove a person's morals are objectively wrong.

Because we have to live with and deal with these people on a daily basis

No really. The west uses 4 to 5 Earth worth of resources which denies 3rd world countries and our children in the future resources. We kill millions of species to ensure our comfortable life and western nations enjoy glutenous lifestyles while poor nations starve yet we could save them by giving up our lifestyles. There are plenty of ways people don't feel obligated to do the right thing. Why should they when there is no God and this life is all they have. They want to enjoy it and live comfortably while they can.

As we discussed earlier, if morality were objective, nobody would care about it. The fact that people care proves subjective morality.

I don't think you understand what objective morality is. If morality was objective and everyone truly believes that they would most definitely care because it meant that any wrong they did was really wrong regardless of their personal view. They could no longer rationalize that certain acts were not really wrong.

So Christians only do right because they think God is looking, but Atheists do right because they believe it is the right thing to do.

Christians doing right because they know God will judge them is only part of it. They also trust and see that God is wise and all good and that his laws are best for how they should live. But if there is no God then there is no such thing as good and evil because we are only biological processes that cannot determine anything to be ultimately right or wrong. I have already given examples of how people can act selfishly to survive and how evolution cannot explain objective morality.

(studies show atheists are just as likely to do right as Christians)

No one is saying atheist cannot do good. The question for atheists is why something is ultimately good. Without God, they have no grounds for why something is good or evil.

If Christians only do right to please God, Christians aren’t moral; their God is! This would mean Christians are just a bunch of immoral people who are good at following instructions! I would like to think Christians are better than the way you are describing them.

That logic doesn't follow. If Christians follow God's laws then they are being good. The point is if morals are objective then they have to have a lawgiver as they have to come from outside humans and still have a personal grounding. That lawgiver has to be all good.

So whether it is God or some other entity there has to be a transcendent all good lawgiver that people have to follow and abide by. If a person only does right because of the law does that make them a bad person or a law-abiding citizen?

So if you know right from wrong, why listen to God? He’s only gonna tell you what you already know! Why not just follow your own morality? You know; the way we do it.

But we would not know objective morals in the first place if there was no God. No God no good and evil. Following your own morality doesn't tell us that those morals are ultimately right or wrong. People have different subjective morals so everyone cannot be right. Someone is going to do wrong and think it is right. So you cannot trust your own subjective view to determine what is objectively right or wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

They judge the act as not just wrong but objectively wrong because they are saying that the other person should not commit that moral wrong, that they cannot hold that moral position. By doing that they dictate objectively that their position is the only one correct.

Just because a person dictates objectivity to their moral position, that alone does not make it the only correct moral position. People make claims all the time and are yet proven wrong

You can't do a wrong act against the object as the object is the act. So rather than the subject determining what is right or wrong, it is the act itself that tells us whether it is right or wrong.

Whaaatt??? How does an act determine right vs wrong? In order to determine right vs wrong you must be capable of thought. Acts do not think, humans who are capable of acts are the ones who think.
Thinking people give acts a label. Labels are given definitions and it is these definitions that determine whether something is objective vs subjective.
Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between
As you can see from the above definition, an objective statement is based on facts that can be verified by a 3rd party.
Fact - Wikipedia
As you can see from the above definition, facts are things that can be demonstrated as true.
Now in order to make your case that morality is objective, please provide an example of a moral act that can be proven wrong based on facts (demonstrable) that can be verified by a 3rd party. I eagerly wait for your reply.