Where does morality come from?

[Ken-1122]

It makes about as much sense as a bunch of people judging which flavor of cake has the morally right flavor.

No; nobody makes the flavor of cake a moral issue

 

[Ken-1122]

Hey hey ken
Why are my actions wrong? What standard will you hold me to?

I say the actions are wrong due to the fact that they go against my moral standards

Ok. As far as one knows or can tell, you assume that I judge my actions as justified.

Let's set some conditions to the scenario.

1. I beat you up for no reason, I could and at that moment I felt like it.

2. I stole your shoes because I wanted to emasculate you.

3. I had no use for your shoes and gave them to the first person I saw without.

Am I immoral? How would you apply subjective morality here?

I would judge your actions wrong due to the fact that they go against my moral standards

A. I assume you say I'm wrong for beating you up and taking your property.

True

B. I say good and evil I just social constructs. My might was more right than your might. I have not done any evil or thought evil, I just felt like beating you up.

I would disagree due to your actions goes against my moral standards

Would you require justice?

Of course! That’s why we have objective laws! I would use the law to provide justice

What standard would you hold me to - now we know my motivation?

I would have no choice but to hold you to the legal standards of society (objective laws); just as you would.

Who is the authority for such a standard?

The legal system

Who judges who?

Officers of the law and the legal system will judge you

 

[VirOptimus]

Humm I don't think saying that just because peoples or cultures morals change that this does not mean there is no objective morality is an empty assertion. It is a logical statement and therefore self supporting.

As far as providing evidence for objective morality we only need to show that objectively morality is necessarily true. Being certain of something is only something humans can do, but showing something is necessarily true is based on propositions. IE we could have a complex mathematical formula which is necessarily true, if true but we may be uncertain about it. So the necessity and truth that there are objective morals don't have to be certain but rather be based on a proposition.

So we can make a logical proposition for the existence of objective morality. I have given the proposition earlier in this thread and here it is again.

Just like we can believe in the physical reality of the world around us based on our lived experience of it through our senses, we can use the same logic to believe in the reality of objective morality based on our lived moral experience. Any argument against our moral lived experience a similar argument can be made against our lived experience of our physical world. For example, maybe you are just a brain in a vat that is being fed a signal that has created a virtual world that looks like our physical reality and that you are sitting at your computer typing this post.

So without any reason to show that our lived experience of the physical world is unreal, you are justified to believe in what you experience as being real and true. It is the same for our lived moral experience that without any good reason or a defeater of our moral experience is totally unreal and we cannot realize objective morals at all we are justified to believe what our lived experience shows and tells us.

That moral lived experience tells us that people live like there are objective morals. I have given many examples of this but I shouldn't have to as if anyone just stops and thinks they will realize that we do believe that certain acts are always morally wrong regardless of subjective personal views or opinions. When we protest and condemn evil in the world we are not just expressing this as a personal view but like evil really does exist as a separate thing.

More empty assertions.

study the basics of moral philosophy, you are all over the place with no coherant argument.

Again, try to answer my questions;

1. Where is this ”objective morality”?
2. How can we measure it or even find out what it entails?
3. What does it mean? What happens when we go against ”objective morality”?

As an aside, ”evil” is a simplistic, childish and stupid concept.

 

[stevevw]

More empty assertions.
study the basics of moral philosophy, you are all over the place with no coherent argument.

I have presented a logical proposition. We can be justified to believe that objective morality exists based on our lived moral experience. That's not all over the place but rather a simple and straight forward logical proposition.

Again, try to answer my questions;

1. Where is this ”objective morality”?

Where objective morality exists is about epistemology (how we come to know something exists). The premise in the logical proposition presented is only saying that we know objective morality exists therefore it is about moral ontology (whether objective morality actually exists). So I don't need to show how we know objective morality exists or where it comes from.

2. How can we measure it or even find out what it entails?

The logical proposition claims that our lived moral experience shows us objective morality exists. So we can see it and measure it when people act/react morally objective. We know it exists by the way we believe and act like some moral acts are always wrong and can never be right despite subjective personal views and opinions.

3. What does it mean? What happens when we go against ”objective morality”?

I don't need to show this to show that objective morality exists, that is about epistemology. The logical proposition only uses a premise that claims objective morals exist. I only need to show objective morals exist once to do that.

As an aside, ”evil” is a simplistic, childish, and stupid concept.

Then why do most non- religious people believe there is such a thing as evil in the world. Why do they describe certain acts as evil? When people use the word evil to describe an act they are saying that the act is profoundly immoral, wrong to the extreme, and never right regardless of subjective moral views.

Like with war crimes (Hitler killing the Jews) or acts against children (pedophiles) or savage and grotesque murders that show little empathy and humanity. People cannot help but use the word as a good representation of how they see the act. There is no better word for them to describe what has happened.

 

[VirOptimus]

I have presented a logical proposition. We can be justified to believe that objective morality exists based on our lived moral experience. That's not all over the place but rather a simple and straight forward logical proposition.

Where objective morality exists is about epistemology (how we come to know something exists). The premise in the logical proposition presented is only saying that we know objective morality exists therefore it is about moral ontology (whether objective morality actually exists). So I don't need to show how we know objective morality exists or where it comes from.
The logical proposition claims that our lived moral experience shows us objective morality exists. So we can see it and measure it when people act/react morally objective. We know it exists by the way we believe and act like some moral acts are always wrong and can never be right despite subjective personal views and opinions.
I don't need to show this to show that objective morality exists, that is about epistemology. The logical proposition only uses a premise that claims objective morals exist. I only need to show objective morals exist once to do that.

Then why do most non- religious people believe there is such a thing as evil in the world. Why do they describe certain acts as evil? When people use the word evil to describe an act they are saying that the act is profoundly immoral, wrong to the extreme, and never right regardless of subjective moral views.

Heh, well, you couldnt answer anything.

 

[Ken-1122]

They are not demonstratable if you don't understand the equation to explain to someone else. You just have to trust the theory verifies the objectivity of something like gravity or the Big Bang despite you or the other person not being able to work it out yourself. So to a degree, there is some trust and faith involved.

Demonstrable does not mean it can be explained to the ignorant, it means it can be explained to someone who understands the language you are speaking. Math is demonstrable to those who understand math.

Yes, it does. IE here are a couple of articles that state objective morality is independent of human opinion, views, position or beliefs, etc.
Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
Objectivity (philosophy) - Wikipedia
“To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independently of whether any human believes it to be so.
Philosophical Disquisitions: Craig on Objective Morality (Part Two)
The term “objective” employed here is notoriously difficult to explicate; it means something like “independent of human desires, perceptions, beliefs, and practices”
Moral Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Okay; the link I provided did not specify independent of humans, it just said independent of personal opinions or thoughts. But obviously some links doe specify humans hence the one you provided. The problem I have with the link you provided is if we specify human, that means if my dog or cat says “X” is wrong, that makes it objectively wrong because they are not human. I think that is a poor argument to make.

So when someone claims that another person is wrong and it's only their personal measure based on their opinion then how can they say the other person is really wrong. It's just their personal opinion and cannot be verified against an independent measure to see if it is objectively correct.

How does your God do it?(assuming he exist) If your God claims someone is wrong and it is only God’s personal measure based on his opinion, how can he say the person is wrong? It’s just his personal opinion and cannot be verified against an independent measure to see if it is objectively correct.

Personal opinions cannot determine if something is really right because it is only the view of the person saying it. There is no independent measure to prove it is correct.

An independent measure is not required for someone to go around saying they are right and someone else is wrong. There is nothing physically preventing someone from saying that.

Yes when I say really wrong, I mean not just wrong because you say so but wrong because it has been proven wrong by an independent measure besides you.

But there is no independent measure that stands above humans that’s why morality is subjective to human thought.

Ultimate right means it is objectively right and not just right because you say so. The same as the ultimate claim. It is just another way of saying objectively right or making an objective claim. There is no greater or correct right than an ultimate right. It is right for everyone.

Just because you claim something is right/ultimately right for everyone does not make it so.

No objectivity is not in the definition as people may have different definitions. The earth is objectively round because the earth is round. The object being the earth is demonstratory round. So the objectivity of rape in the act of rape itself. We can demonstrate the act of rape and that is what we use to determine what rape is and not what you or I say it is.

Okay; I can demonstrate the shape of the Earth round, can you demonstrate that rape is wrong?

 

[Kylie]

Now you're doing what you claimed was irrelevant when I was trying to add mitigating conditions to the Trolley problem. There are not a multitude of reasons for why the audience was against killing a person to take their organs. Like you said there are just 2 options kill one to save 5 or let the 5 people die. The point is 99% of the audience agreed that it was wrong and any reason given did not stand up as it could be factored out in tests.

You obviously didn't watch the videos. The experts said that in the Trolley problem the objectively right thing to do was to go down the track with 1 person and in the organ transplant the objectively right thing to do was to not kill the individual for their organs to save the 5. The experts were saying that these moral choices were not subjective choices but a "truth statement" about morality and they were not religious.

The experts are saying that the difference cannot be completely understood because there is something within people that sees things this way and it is consistent through the tests they have done. You have to watch the video to see what I am talking about but they clearly say it is not because of subjective morality.

You added conditions to try to claim that the situation wasn't relevant to real life.

I'm adding conditions to show that the morality of the situation changes.

You can't answer the question.

You have failed to show that there is an objective morality, you have failed to show objective morality applies. All you have ever done is claim that there is an objective morality and stated things you claim are objectively morally true, but you have NEVER been able to show us how you arrived at those conclusions. All you ever do is spout logical fallacies like claiming that if lots of people share the same moral position then it must be morally true.

You have not supported your claim of objective morality.

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie

In the meanwhile Ken's body lays bruised and bloodied on the ground.

Check out my latest reply to Kenny.

After reading my reply to Ken and you now understand my motivation, Am I immoral?

How do you judge my actions and who am I accountable to?

Who has the right to judge me?

Cheers

Is your desire to help disadvantaged people morally wrong? No. Is your assault on Ken wrong? Yes. At least that's my subjective opinion. Someone who doesn't like Ken and hates homeless people may have the exact opposite opinion.

How do I judge your actions? By how I would feel if you had done those things to me.

Who are you accountable to? The people whose lives you influenced, namely Ken and the homeless guy.

 

[stevevw]

You added conditions to try to claim that the situation wasn't relevant to real life.
I'm adding conditions to show that the morality of the situation changes.

But like I said the experts said it wasn't about subjective moral views but rather the situation is different altogether and the agreement was more about an objective truth that we all know applies.

It seems more logical to say they all believed that there was only one right moral for each situation and the tiny variance was just denying the objective truth. That seemed to be supported by the fact that when they were asked why they disagreed they couldn't give a good reason.

You can't answer the question.

As I said the experts already answered it as mentioned in the last post. They stated that the conclusion that it was wrong to kill someone by introducing an innocent bystander to the scenario was a truth statement and not just a personal view. That is was the right thing to do for everyone.

You have failed to show that there is an objective morality, you have failed to show objective morality applies.

That cannot be true as I posted several links on supports of atheists' objective morality. Are you disputing what they are saying? If so you need to show why they are wrong.

All you have ever done is claim that there is an objective morality

That's all I need to do and am doing so by "proposing a proposition that objective morality exists.

and stated things you claim are objectively morally true, but you have NEVER been able to show us how you arrived at those conclusions.

I don't have to show you how we arrive at the conclusion that objective morality exists because the proposition I have presented is not about epistemology (how we come to know something exists). The epistemological question is irrelevant to the moral argument presented about objective morality existing. It is only about moral ontology (whether objective morality actually exists). Can't you see the difference?

All you ever do is spout logical fallacies like claiming that if lots of people share the same moral position then it must be morally true. You have not supported your claim of objective morality.

I have not based the proposition on this. I have said that people know and agree that certain moral acts are always wrong regardless of their subjective morality. That contradiction is strong support for objective morality because it goes against their own views they claim. Something is within them causing them to do this, something they cannot help know and do.

I have shown that under subjective morality there is no claim to true right and wrong, so there is no way to make real meaning out of morality under subjective positions. Yet people know that morality has more meaning than just their personal opinions and they act that way.

So that is why people contradict their own subjective position because it doesn't work. Yet at the same time, they live like objective morality does work by claiming certain things are always right and wrong despite their own and other subjective positions. That's the lived moral experience I am talking about.

So you need to come up with a defeater of the logical proposition that we are justified to believe that there are objective morals based on our lived moral experience. You need to show that people believe that some things are always right or wrong regardless of subjective morality is completely unreliable as evidence and that objective morality cannot be realized at all.

Any argument against moral experience being evidence for objective morality needs to be just as good any argument that will dispute our lived experience that the physical world around us is not real. You still haven't done this.

 

[stevevw]

Heh, well, you couldnt answer anything.

Isn't that calling the kettle black? Here I post a reply and you don't answer it at all. Just fob it off. You presented several questions and I answered each and everyone you presented. I even broke them down. Yet you don't reply to any of it. You don't even engage which is kind of rude and dismissive.
I can almost predict your reply.

 

[stevevw]

No; nobody makes the flavor of cake a moral issue

Under subjective morality right and wrong is the same as "likes and dislikes" because it is the same as personal preferences and opinions. So when someone makes a judgment that another person is morally wrong about something and they are right they are saying I like that moral action and the other person is wrong to dislike it.

For example, they are really saying I don't like stealing as opposed to someone else saying they like stealing. It has nothing to to with ultimately true moral right and wrong because subjective opinions cannot determine this.

 

[stevevw]

I am quite aware that there are atheists who think there are an objective morality, that does not mean that they are correct.

I see, no relevant background.

But they give some good logical arguments for objective morality. For example, rape is wrong because it can be scientifically shown that rape harms human wellbeing. Anyone who claims that rape is good can be shown to be objectively wrong through the scientific evidence that shows how rape harms people. Therefore under this position, we can show that rape is objectively wrong.

It is relevant to the argument because it is one way to dispute the claim of subjective morality. If objective morality can be shown to exist then it exists and it doesn't matter how or which way you show it exists.

 

[VirOptimus]

Isn't that calling the kettle black? Here I post a reply and you don't answer it at all. Just fob it off. You presented several questions and I answered each and everyone you presented. I even broke them down. Yet you don't reply to any of it. You don't even engage which is kind of rude and dismissive.
I can almost predict your reply.

But you havent answered my questions. You just keep posting assertions without any support. You are clearly out of you depth.

 

[VirOptimus]

But they give some good logical arguments for objective morality. For example, rape is wrong because it can be scientifically shown that rape harms human wellbeing. Anyone who claims that rape is good can be shown to be objectively wrong through the scientific evidence that shows how rape harms people. Therefore under this position, we can show that rape is objectively wrong.

It is relevant to the argument because it is one way to dispute the claim of subjective morality. If objective morality can be shown to exist then it exists and it doesn't matter how or which way you show it exists.

Nope, thats not how it works.

Try answering my questions.

 

[Speedwell]

Yet people know that morality has more meaning than just their personal opinions and they act that way.

I'm sorry to see that after all this time you are still pushing the notion that subjective morality is the same as moral nihilism. Why is that? So you can continue to make the baseless claim that "lived moral experience" is an argument for objective morality?

 

[stevevw]

But you havent answered my questions. You just keep posting assertions without any support. You are clearly out of you depth.

So wait a minute you made an assertion without any support so I guess that is also an empty assertion.
VirOptimus said: ↑
I'm saying that there are no such things as objective or subjective.
Now is that your subjective opinion or do you have some objective evidence to support this claim. So you are doing exactly what you are complaining I am doing. That is not how it works.

Here's another
Indeed, if one studies how values has changed over time and cultures its very apperant that humans have very shifting opinions on what is right and what is wrong.
How does this prove that objective morality doesn't exist. Once again an empty assertion, in fact, a logical fallacy. Where is the evidence

In your first assertion, you are making a negative claim and under a logical argument, you can never prove a negative because you would have to show me that every single moral situation has never had an objective moral position. That I would say is impossible to do. But here's the crux of the logical argument. I am making a positive statement that objective morals exist. I only have to show this once to prove that objective moral exist.

You asked me where are these ”objective morals”? How do we find them? And why do they matter? What happens when we go against ”objective morals”?

I said all those questions are irrelevant in proving if objective morals exist. They are about epistemology, how we know something (the theory of knowledge). Whereas my assertion is about moral ontology (whether objective morality actually exists). If you disagree that this is not the case then show why. But don't just say I am making an empty assertion.

Show why I need to answer these questions to prove objective morality exists. But you have to ask yourself even if I could not answer those questions how does that disprove objective morality don't exist. They are irrelevant questions for my assertion.

So we have to establish the parameters for what needs to be substantiated before we can engage in a logical argument. I suggest that this is showing evidence that objective morality exists rather than all these other side questions you keep demanding I answer. But if you want I can go through the exercise and answer them just to prove my point.

 

[stevevw]

I'm sorry to see that after all this time you are still pushing the notion that subjective morality is the same as moral nihilism. Why is that? So you can continue to make the baseless claim that "lived moral experience" is an argument for objective morality?

Wait a minute you post a quote from me that says,
Steve said
Yet people know that morality has more meaning than just their personal opinions and they act that way.
which as far as I can see is acknowledging that people know and act morally. Isn't that a contradiction of what you just claimed.

 

[Speedwell]

Wait a minute you post a quote from me that says,
Steve said
Yet people know that morality has more meaning than just their personal opinions and they act that way.
which as far as I can see is acknowledging that people know and act morally. Isn't that a contradiction of what you just claimed.

No, because you use it as an argument that objective morality exists. It is possible for morality to have "more meaning than just their personal opinions" and still be subjective.

 

[stevevw]

Nope, that's not how it works.
Try answering my questions.

See I could say that you keep making empty assertions by claiming that what I keep posting is not how it works without providing any evidence and without providing any support for how it should work.

Here's an example of how you use the "empty assertion" wrongly.
I said objective morality can be supported by lived moral experience. You said
No, I contest that we cannot see it "in action", "we" certainly does not know its there.
I gave one example of how we can measure moral acts objectively through human wellbeing. That rape can be scientifically shown to harm human wellbeing. Science proves the objectivity of morality. You said that is not how it works. Yet I just showed you an example of how an act like rape can be objectively wrong.

Here is a question, do you think that there are some acts that are always wrong to do despite personal opinion such as sexually abusing a child for fun. Do you think that if anyone tried to rationalize and justify that it was morally good to do this that they would be a sick individual and the act would still be objectively wrong?

 

[Ken-1122]

Under subjective morality right and wrong is the same as "likes and dislikes" because it is the same as personal preferences and opinions. So when someone makes a judgment that another person is morally wrong about something and they are right they are saying I like that moral action and the other person is wrong to dislike it.

If that were true I would never be tempted to do wrong. There are times I prefer to do wrong because it works to my advantage, even though I know I should do right.

For example, they are really saying I don't like stealing as opposed to someone else saying they like stealing. It has nothing to to with ultimately true moral right and wrong because subjective opinions cannot determine this.

A thief prefers stealing because it works to his advantage, even though he knows it is wrong to steal. Your argument failed.