Is there Objective Morality?

[Kyrani]

Of course, there's always a danger that you've heard about these events previously, and that is influencing your recollections.

If it was just the events, then what you say is true, but the things I recall are personal.
For instance the temple fell down due to an earthquake and I ran out but when I looked back I saw that my body was crushed under the big boulders. I realized I was in spirit. I found that there were earthquakes in Egypt in the ancient times.

Then there is a scene I recall where I was standing at the top of the stairs to the hall of Praise (of Ra of course) and I was talking to another priest standing at right angles at the top of the hall of letters (historical writings). Both of these are underground. Then when I looked around I saw the great pyramid and further back the sphinx. So I recall a location that may be found one day.
And there are other times, like being killed by a man on a horse wearing a white robe with a cross on it. I think this was probably a crusade as I believe it was in what is today Turkey. And lots of other events like that. So there is personal things happening.

 

[Kylie]

The moral argument for God states that if there are objective morals then there has to be a moral law giver that is outside humans and yet with understanding of morals and humans as morals can only apply to sentient beings. Therefore it follows that this moral law giver has to be a transcendent being like God as who else is beyond humans yet understands them.

This is based on the assumption that these laws are like laws passed by government.

No just giving you an example of how honesty is an implicit moral value in debates and any interaction between humans when trying to determine the truth or fact of the matter. Therefore it is independent of humans and stands regardless of what people’s personal view is and so is an objective moral truth.

That's a bit of a grey area. I can tell you my account of something that is completely honest from my point of view, but unless I know all the details I could have reached an incorrect conclusion, and thus my account (given with total honesty) could still be wrong.

And that's assuming that honesty is objectively a morally good thing. Would it be morally good to say to someone that their clothes looked like the floor of a diarrhoetic horse's stables and smelled like a stagnant sewer, even if the statements were completely true?

As the example of honesty is applied above we can determine the moral truth of honesty without the need to show it was handed down as a decree from a higher power. Just like the law of gravity stands as a fact/truth when we walk off a cliff the truth of honesty is seen as a truth when we try to debate without honesty and the interaction breaks down and becomes incoherent.

No we can't, as described. Claiming that total honesty is always morally good is an assumption.

The thing is there is a set of morals that all people know of regardless of what society or culture we come from. That points to a common knowledge of moral truths. It’s just like the argument as to whether math is created or discovered.

The fact that we share similar viewpoints such as "Murder is wrong" does not show that those viewpoints are objectively correct.

If math is discovered then we can all understand math when we look at the world and universe without ever learning maths just like the Egyptians used geometry in building the pyramids before society came up with math. Math is scattered throughout history like it’s a law of nature. The same may be true of morals. We all come to a similar conclusion about moral values because they are truths of nature.

Or perhaps we share similar morals because we live in the same kind of society and those morals are the ones that work well for the kind of society we live in. Do you expect that people who live in vastly different societies will have the same morals as us?

The argument for commonality with morals whether subjective or objective is never a good argument because it’s a non-sequitur.

You mean claiming that I have similar morals to my neighbour because we live in the smae society is a non sequitur? How so?

Try and take honesty out of a debate or argument or even discussion between people and see how far they get before things break down and become incoherent. So because morals like honesty are real in lived situations despite people’s opinions that they are not this shows that values like honesty are an independent fact/truth outside humans (not based on subjective views).

Sure a person can take the position that honesty is not a truth in a lived situation like a discussion seeking the truth or fact of a matter. But because things break down without honesty it shows an independent determination that the person is objectively wrong.

I've already shown that honesty is not a moral trait. You can't say that honesty is always good.

Here is a link that makes an arguement for objective morality or moral realism.
Moral Realism: Defended
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjkgD4w9w1k&ab_channel=InspiringPhilosophy

Honestly, that video lost me as it used a lot of terms I am unfamiliar with.

I have just given the example above with the moral value of honesty. I think that’s a pretty non-extreme example. As for your example of smacking a child it will depend on the circumstances. We cannot just say its right or wrong across the board with a strict rule. That is not how objective morals work. You would have to be more specific.

You say you can't apply a rule across the board with moral facts, and yet that is exactly what you did when you claimed that honesty was morally good. ANd the more something depends on the circumstances, the less justification there is for concluding that it's obecjtive.

But here's the reality. It doesnt matter what you or I say about it. Its in the lived experience. That can be seen in the way people act and react depsite their words and views. A general observation can tell us a lot. In a society that promotes subjective morality we see an aweful lot of protesting about the wrongs other people do as organised groups, whole communities and even as nations. That would be contrary to what subjustcive morality represents and points more to objective moral truths that people are expressing.

Again, that is explained by people sharing similar subjective morality because they face the same issues as part of a single community. Subjective morality doesn't mean that you can't have large groups of people who hold similar moral viewpoints.

I don’t think you understand what is meant by lived experience. It’s about how people act/react and about the practical application of morals rather than what people say in their personal views. Quite often someone may have the view that stealing is OK but then when someone steals from them they object.

That seems very subjective to me.

Or we see how people are bound by their conscience when they try to pretend that they haven’t done anything wrong. It comes out in one way of another and people sense that guilt as well like they intuitive know. Because moral truths are within people and are a sort of law of nature we cannot help but live out their truths regardless of personal opinion.

I don't see how guilt is impossible under moral subjectivity.

 

[Kylie]

I don't think objective morality is the same as the objective rule that something will drop because of the law of gravity. I think humans have much more difficulty in determining what is morally right.

Wouldn't that difficulty be best explained by concluding that morality is subjective, not objective?

 

[Kylie]

shall we? >

What would you mean by "testable evidence"? examples? | Christian Forums

Thanks!

Let's see what the moderators do with this >

Why did God not start humans by making us like Jesus? | Christian Forums

Again, thanks, I've posted in both threads.

 

[Kyrani]

Wouldn't that difficulty be best explained by concluding that morality is subjective, not objective?

If it was subjective then it is only a matter of personal opinion. But there is more to it. God made us in such a way that we have a moral compass, our conscience. Sure we have free will to decide we want to follow it or interpret it in some way or even deaden it, but the fact is we have a conscience. And that enables us to determine right from wrong, albeit how perceptive and thoughtful we are. Sill it is dependent on a quality that is not simply a matter of our own experience and opinion. If it was there would be no understanding between people as to what is right or wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

ANd the more something depends on the circumstances, the less justification there is for concluding that it's obecjtive.

How so?

 

[Kylie]

If it was just the events, then what you say is true, but the things I recall are personal.
For instance the temple fell down due to an earthquake and I ran out but when I looked back I saw that my body was crushed under the big boulders. I realized I was in spirit. I found that there were earthquakes in Egypt in the ancient times.

That's hardly conclusive. Earthquakes in Egypt are fairly common. Today's Earthquakes in Egypt

Then there is a scene I recall where I was standing at the top of the stairs to the hall of Praise (of Ra of course) and I was talking to another priest standing at right angles at the top of the hall of letters (historical writings). Both of these are underground. Then when I looked around I saw the great pyramid and further back the sphinx. So I recall a location that may be found one day.

And it if is found, then this could be considered evidence. But until then, there's no reason to conclude that what you describe is a description of a real place or real event.

And there are other times, like being killed by a man on a horse wearing a white robe with a cross on it. I think this was probably a crusade as I believe it was in what is today Turkey. And lots of other events like that. So there is personal things happening.

Crusaders would have worn armor of some kind in battle, not robes. In any case, there are many ways that you could have been exposed to this image in popular culture, movies, etc. There's no evidence that it must have been a recollection of a past life.

 

[Kylie]

If it was subjective then it is only a matter of personal opinion. But there is more to it. God made us in such a way that we have a moral compass, our conscience. Sure we have free will to decide we want to follow it or interpret it in some way or even deaden it, but the fact is we have a conscience. And that enables us to determine right from wrong, albeit how perceptive and thoughtful we are. Sill it is dependent on a quality that is not simply a matter of our own experience and opinion. If it was there would be no understanding between people as to what is right or wrong.

A few fallacies here.

First of all, you assume that God created us with a moral compass. That's begging the question. Secondly, after starting with the premise that there is an objective morality, you then have to explain why we don't act like there is, but you don't justify why this claim about some objectively true nature of ourselves is any different to other objectively true things about ourselves, like our need for oxygen.

And the fact remains that everything you have described here can easily be explained by morality being subjective. Occam's razor indicates subjective morality is correct.

 

[Kylie]

How so?

Because there are more assumptions that must be made to account for any deviation from what was expected.

For example, if the theory of gravity predicted that if I toss a ball it will land in a particular spot, yet the ball landed elsewhere, I could start explaining it away by saying things like, "Ah, but there's a large hill which could have caused a slight distortion in the gravity here," or, "The plane flying overhead affected the ball's path." Things like that. When you try to apply this to morality, there are so many variations to consider and given that no two people will be in complete agreement about them, objective morality becomes hard to support.

I could get several people to witness the child being disobedient, all of whom are exposed to the same facts, and yet they could well reach very different conclusions about what an appropriate punishment is. This is not what we would expect for something that is allegedly objective.

 

[Ken-1122]

Once again you are confusing absolute and objective morality. For example under absolute morality you can never kill regardless of the circumstances. Whereas under objective morality there will be an objectively right action for each changing circumstance.

That which is objective is based on provable facts. If morality were objective, you would be able to provide proof as to why something is right vs wrong. Can you do this?

No the person faced with the moral decision has no say in the matter when applied to lived experience. Honesty stands as a moral truth regardless of their views.

Just because two people are being honest with each other does not mean they will agree. Again; who decides when honesty is the morally right thing to do?

That link just describes subjective and objective morality. It didnt mention universal or absolute morality. Here is a link that explains the difference between the two.

My disagreement was with the claim that morality was objective.
I will respond to the rest later

 

[com7fy8]

the claim that God is good is also a subjective one,

Jesus says God is good. So, if Jesus says something, I consider it to be objectively true . . . though as a limited human I do not experience all that His being good means. Plus, from God's standpoint, He knows He is good; so since it is based on His experience, it is also subjective.

This is what I mean.

I mean you can know what is objectively true but it is also subjective if you personally experience what is true. I know a tree is a tree > objective. I also subjectively experience the tree to be a tree.

So, yes I think there is objective morality . . . and there is more than we humans have subjectively experienced.

So-o-o-o . . . the original question, I think, was simply if there is objective morality. And this means, maybe . . . is there morality which of its own self stands above any question?

Well . . . my opinion is no real morality can stand on its own, because God gives correct morality its authority and legitimacy.

So . . . getting back @zippy2006 > God is the source of right morality; so we could say His morality is objective, meaning He Himself is the standard. But also His morality does not stand all by itself; so in a way it is not objective. Is this all right with you, or getting too tangled with words??

Yeah . . . there is objective morality, but it is so only because of God, I guess we could say; without God, it would not stand. I think someone has said this, before

 

[com7fy8]

Wouldn't that difficulty be best explained by concluding that morality is subjective, not objective?

What we humans can come up with has a way, I would say, of being subjective . . . subject to what we want to be true??

So, the question is if there is morality which is above how we might be able to wish morals into existence to suit our purposes. And I say, yes there is morality more and better than human; and so it is objective for this reason.

Meanwhile, so you might see part of where I am coming from > there are people who have preferences for how they get pleasure. And once someone has a pleasure which is a treasure, he or she can decide, invent, dictate rules which are compatible with him or her getting that treasure pleasure.

But a moral problem, which I believe can be an objective issue, is the person might put the pleasure before how the person could discover how to love. And then in weakness for the pleasure, the person can readily be hurt and ruined and suffering in selfish anger, unforgiveness, stress, frustration and other unloving things in the person, which are not nice to the person, like the pleasure has been.

But there is love which is stronger than the nasty and cruel feelings and reactions of not getting one's selfish treasure pleasures. And objectively correct morals can help a person to get into this strong love. Therefore, I now consider what we might consider to be objective > what helps a person to get into real love which is strong enough to fend off cruel and nasty feelings and emotions and drives, and also makes someone creative for how to love any person, at all.

We could, if this is correct, get into quite some word spinning about what means what!! I will try > objective morality, then, would not only be about outward human conforming to good practical rules; but the right kind of love would be needed in order to keep the rules really well. And this would bring us to the issue of if there is such love in existence . . . so that there can be objective morality.

yes

If there is such strong love which does us better good than our feel-good pleasures can, then it is desirable to discover this love. If there is such love, then there is no need to try to control and change morals in order to have and to guard our selfish pleasures. The objectivity of such love's morality is superior to how humans subjectively try to rig their rules so they can have their way.

 

[zippy2006]

Nope. Absolute vs relative and subjective vs objective. Relative and absolute are both under the umbrella of objective.

Relative has nothing to do with subjective because it deals in facts (that's why it's objective). There are no moral facts in moral subjectivism. Likes, dislikes, tastes, and preferences. That's all morality is under subjectivism. Feel free to disagree that is what morality really boils down to, but understand that is what subjectivism is.

"Relative morality" has no standard meaning. It can mean that morality is relative to circumstances or it can mean that morality is relative to people.

Moral relativism is contrary to moral universalism, and moral subjectivism could be seen as a species of moral relativism where the relativity attaches at the individual level (the level of the subject).

I myself don't understand the supposed distinction between "circumstance-dependent" morality and "circumstance-independent" morality. "Circumstance-dependent" morality always appeals to general norms that apply independently of circumstance, and "circumstance-independent" morality always has to assess what is occurring in order to decide how to act.

The better distinction is between hypothetical and categorical morality, where the first is entirely goal-oriented and the second is not.

 

[zippy2006]

Because there are more assumptions that must be made to account for any deviation from what was expected.

For example, if the theory of gravity predicted that if I toss a ball it will land in a particular spot, yet the ball landed elsewhere, I could start explaining it away by saying things like, "Ah, but there's a large hill which could have caused a slight distortion in the gravity here," or, "The plane flying overhead affected the ball's path." Things like that.

The trajectory and destination of a projectile depends a great deal on circumstances (angle, velocity, gravity, aerodynamics, wind speed...) and yet this does not mean that the physics problem is not objective. It's just more difficult to solve.

When you try to apply this to morality, there are so many variations to consider and given that no two people will be in complete agreement about them, objective morality becomes hard to support.

I could get several people to witness the child being disobedient, all of whom are exposed to the same facts, and yet they could well reach very different conclusions about what an appropriate punishment is. This is not what we would expect for something that is allegedly objective.

This is the phenomenon of moral disagreements noted in post #2. Here is what you have argued:

1. Morality involves lots of complex variables and circumstances.
2. Therefore there is widespread moral disagreement.
3. Therefore morality is not objective (or is unlikely to be objective).

This is actually invalid. Disagreement can be a sign of non-objectivity, but disagreement based on the complexity of a problem is not a sign of non-objectivity. It is just a sign that the problem is difficult. The sort of disagreement that flows from difficulty is not an indicator of non-objectivity.

If you gave middle-schoolers the difficult trajectory problem there would be widespread disagreement, but this wouldn't mean that there is no objective answer to the problem.

In my opinion there is widespread moral disagreement because moral philosophy is difficult and because expertise in this field is often neglected. These are reasons to maintain the possibility of objective morality, not to exclude it.

 

[com7fy8]

disagreement based on the complexity of a problem is not a sign of non-objectivity.

It is a sign of need for wisdom

 

[Ken-1122]

Where you are going wrong is conflating personal opinion (subjective morality) with situational circumstances (relative morality). The only thing dictating and influencing the view in subjective morality is the person.

Whereas situational circumstances are outside the person and thus are an outside influence acting on the person. So different outside circumstances can have different effects on people before they make their personal view.

Actually morality is both subjective and relative. It is subjective because it is based on personal views, beliefs, and opinions, of the person judging, it is relative because there will always be outside influences and extenuating circumstances that helps to shape beliefs, opinions, and views.

Thats because that video was only defining objective morality. There is another video from the same author giving an argument for objective morality or moral realism. The argument goes like this

Premise 1: If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
Premise 2: Epistemic facts do exist
Conclusion 1: Moral facts do exist.
Premise 3: If moral facts do exist, then realism is true.
Conclusion 2: Moral realism is true.

I disagree with both Premise #1 and Conclusion #1.

 

[Ken-1122]

I think you may have missed my points. It is eminently possible to live a sinless life if one does not ascribe to the belief that sin (as a biblical concept) really exists.

I would hazard that it is almost impossible to get through life without doing ‘a bad thing’ but a ‘bad’ thing and ‘sin’ are not synonymous.

Okay just between me and you; Atheist to Atheist, we both know sin no more exist than their God, Devil, or other fictional characters. But there are a lot of people on this forum who believe it does; so sometimes I try to respond to what they say in the context of what they believe, not what's real

 

[Ken-1122]

Nope. Absolute vs relative and subjective vs objective. Relative and absolute are both under the umbrella of objective.

Relative has nothing to do with subjective because it deals in facts (that's why it's objective). There are no moral facts in moral subjectivism. Likes, dislikes, tastes, and preferences. That's all morality is under subjectivism. Feel free to disagree that is what morality really boils down to, but understand that is what subjectivism is.

The person I was discussing with is describing relative as outside influences, and extenuating circumstances. these descriptions are under the umbrella of subjective. So according to the way he is describing relative, morality is both subjective and relative.

 

[Kylie]

Jesus says God is good. So, if Jesus says something, I consider it to be objectively true . . . though as a limited human I do not experience all that His being good means. Plus, from God's standpoint, He knows He is good; so since it is based on His experience, it is also subjective.

Actually, you can't say that Jesus said God is good.

All you can do is say it is written that Jesus said God is good. The quote could be a misquote, or entirely invented.

 

[Ken-1122]

Actually, you can't say that Jesus said God is good.

All you can do is say it is written that Jesus said God is good. The quote could be a misquote, or entirely invented.

Excellent point! Nobody really knows what Jesus really said because he never wrote anything down, all we know is what various people claimed he said.