Is there Objective Morality?

[Kylie]

If there is then Joe would be right about that claim as well.

But there's no way to tell. Such a claim is not justifiable.

Which claim?

The one I clearly spelled out in post 262 (including providing a link to the post where the claim was first made) and which you quoted in post 273.

So you would claim that punishing a child is based entirely on opinion, is not objective, and yet there is a correct, rational, and good way to do it?

I would say that there are circumstances where it is probably best for a child to be punished. If they steal a chocolate bar from the supermarket, for example, they should be punished in my opinion. I think most people would agree that a very low punishment (such as saying, "That was naughty, don't do it again") would be too little punishment. And I also think that most people would agree that an extreme punishment (torture, execution) is way too harsh a punishment. If you were to create a graph showing what a large sample of people thought was an appropriate punishment was, you'd probably find that they clustered around certain things. Maybe a lot of people would agree that the child should be grounded. But some people could say one week is fine, others might say that's not enough, and two weeks is more appropriate. The first group could say that two weeks is too much, and their original one week is better.

The point is that if a non-objective claim is circumstantial and unfalsifiable, it is non-objective because it is unfalsifiable, not because it is circumstantial. See post #234.

I agree that non-falsifiability is grounds for something to be considered non-objective, but why shouldn't the fact that it is circumstantial also be grounds?

Let's take something that is circumstantial. I heard someone cry out in pain, I ran to help, saw an injured person on the ground and saw another person running away. Assuming that those are all objective facts, I might conclude that the person running away was the same person who committed the assault. But that conclusion is based on circumstantial evidence. If I claim that the runner was the attacker, that is not an objective claim.

But I won’t believe you because your theory was disproved, not because it is circumstantial. A theory needs to account for data, whether the theory is circumstantial or not. If it doesn’t account for the data then it is falsified. Post hoc rationalizing a bad theory is a problem, but it isn’t a problem that per se attends circumstantial theories. The relevant circumstances just need to be spelled out ahead of time, when the theory is proposed, rather than after the fact.

But when we are given the excuse in real life, it always comes as a post hoc rationalisation. That's what I was talking about, I make post hoc explanations to avoid admitting I was wrong.

And going back to the second post, the same applies to subjective claims. Yes, you are justified in holding your moral belief, but it doesn't follow that this makes the moral belief objectively true. I am just as justified in my belief that Star Trek is the best TV franchise ever, but that doesn't make it an objectively true claim.

Here you’ve shifted to a different definition of “objective” than the definition you provided in post #101. Ironically your new definition is based on consensus (“agreement”), as opposed to your original definition which was “not something that exists just because someone says so.”

If X is objective when it enjoys consensus then morality is surely not objective, and this is due to moral disagreements (described in post #2).

Sorry, I can see how it would be unclear.

I was making the assumption that, given rational people, any fact that is objectively true as defined in post 101 would be held in agreement by all the people. In other words, given rational people, the existence of an objective fact will lead to all people agreeing on that particular issue. If agreement is impossible, then this suggests that the fact is not objectively true.

 

[Moral Orel]

But is the permissibility of murder here based on circumstances or persons? If Sally shouldn't murder Larry because she is Sally, then we have relativism based on persons which is apparently non-objective. If Sally shouldn't murder Larry because she is in a different circumstance than Bob, then what we are really talking about is circumstances, and this could be objective.

Saying, "Sally shouldn't murder Larry because she is Sally," is apparently non-objective. I don't know of a legitimate definition of objective that could apply.

So how does that even work, to say "Because she is Sally"? Is it some other reasoning besides the circumstances that shaped her into who she is today?

And do remember that I'm not defending relativism. If the relativist claims that "Sally shouldn't murder Larry because she is Sally" is a true fact, then that relativist is arguing for what they believe to be an objective morality. I don't care if it actually works or not.

 

[stevevw]

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

No because laws given by governments are still based on human subjective views. They just happen to be organised under some official banner. Whereas under the moral argument for God the reason a transcendent being is said to be the law maker is because objective morals have to originate from outside humans. We can only get objective morals from beyond humans whether individually or organised groups like governments.

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?

The example I am using is not about you being honest with someone else in knowing all the facts to ensure you are honest or any other specific situation about honesty.

It’s about an epistemic/moral value we use to measure things when interacting with others. So in our debate you have an implicit expectation that I should or anyone you debate should be honest with you, that I should not lie or misrepresent your arguments.

In this situation it will always be a good thing because without honesty between people in debates people cannot have coherent discussions. So in this case honesty stands on its own merit independently from people’s opinions as something needed in debates.

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

As explained above I am talking about honesty as a epistemic/moral value. As a guide or rule that governs the way people discuss things when seeking the truth of a matter.

Also more generally when you say honesty is not always morally good you are conflating the moral value of honesty which never changes with being honest in certain situations which doesn't devalue honesty itself but rather the circumstance determines not use honesty which is relative morality. You can' t have good and bad honesty. Honesty as an objective moral value is not changed but rather the situation in using it has. This is a common misunderstand people have.

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

That’s why lived experience is important because it’s not about correlations but factually living out morality. Regardless of opinions we see what people really believe by the way they act/react to moral situations and the fact is all people unless they are incapable of being constitutionally honest with themselves will react the same when having to live that moral out as opposed to verbalize it.

For example all people will act as though someone abusing their child is wrong. All people will act like someone stealing from them is wrong despite some of them claiming that stealing or abusing kids is OK. Show me a parent who is happy with someone abusing their kid or having someone steal their possessions.

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?

But this argument has been refuted because western societies condemn other societies for moral wrong when it doesn’t fit with their view of morality. We often here of western governments condemning the acts of Islamic people in mistreating their women. We hear of how barbaric it is for some African tribe to circumcise women. So it seems the type of morality in western societies is claimed to be the truth for all societies around the world.

This is the lived morality I am talking about. People can verbalize that under subjective or relative morality we should respect and allow different views of morality. As the saying goes you have your truth and I have mine so let’s not impose them on each other. But when people actually live out morality they cannot help but be objective about it because we all know there are certain moral truths in the universe that apply to all.

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

OK fair enough. Those terms are common terms in moral/ethical philosophy. It may take a couple of views but it does give logical arguments for moral realism in what I am talking about and is very informative.

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.

Once again I am not talking about evaluating individual situations where honesty is involved. I am talking about honesty as an epistemic/moral value that is used to guide people when they interact especially when trying to determine the truth of a matter. I don’t think anyone would disagree that we need honesty to determine the truth and it really doesn’t matter whose truth because honesty will still apply as a rule.

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

I think this is one of the biggest confusions people have about objective morality. What you are talking about in accommodating different circumstances for morality is about absolute morality and not objective morality.

Absolute or universal morality means being rigid about morality and applying the same rule no matter what the circumstances. So for the moral not to Kill we would have different circumstances of killing like 1st and 2nd degree murder, manslaughter and killing in self-defence. These all have varying degrees of seriousness and culpability and the law shows this with different penalties.

Under absolute morality all killing is judge with the same seriousness and culpability and it doesn’t matter about the circumstances. But under objective morality each circumstance where killing happens is judged individually and an objectively right or wrong moral action can be applied that is beyond human opinion.

So under objective morality sometimes it will be objectively wrong to kill and sometimes it will be objective right to kill like in defending your family or an innocent child from a crazed gunman. But if you applied absolute morality to a situation where a crazed gunman was going to kill your family you could not kill the gunman even to save innocent lives.

That would create an immoral situation for objective morality because saving life also a moral value and you could be deemed culpable of allowing killing to happen. Sorry the following link comes for the same video

The next thing to remember is that moral realism does not necessarily imply moral universalism and assume unbreakable moral laws. This is one of the biggest confusions in the moral debate.

For example just because I am a moral realest doesn’t mean I may always think it’s wrong to kill.

Circumstances can be seen to play a role for the moral realist in interpreting moral action.

So one could say

It is objective wrong to kill for personal pleasure.

It is objectively right to kill the man holding a gun to an innocent child, in order to save the child.

 

[Kyrani]

There are plenty of cases of people who have suffered deciding that no one should have to suffer like they did.

You might like to think in this way but the inhumane are a lost cause. They can't be helped and in any case they have crossed an abyss from whence there is no return.

I have on a few occasions, tried to help people that are inhumane, though I didn't know they were inhumane at the time. I found it was useless. They are not helpable. They belong to a corrupt mindset. So if their circle of friends, you may have heard the catch cry "where would you be without your friends", anyway if their friends want to do them harm there is nothing they can to prevent being harmed because they are part and parcel of the same mindset. They have no independence, no free will.

Why help anyone who is part of a system that destroys other people's lives?

 

[stevevw]

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?

Yes provable facts are not just about physical objects like the earth is round rather than flat. Morals are more about self-evident and intuitive truths and can be argued as propositions through logic like other logical arguments as used in philosophy and science. Science also uses math to support their ideas which are not physical but theoretical.

I have linked the moral arguemnets already which is based on lived experience.
Moral values and duties are simply self-evidence and intuitive.
If we see a child getting tortured, we don’t think that is how other people see the world and we should move on. No, we all think that must be stopped and justice must be done.
The idea of moral facts and duties are real and objective is self-evident and is our intuitive starting point.

In the sciences we decide between theories based on observations, which have an important degree of objectivity. It appears that in moral reasoning, moral intuitions play the same role which observations do in science: we test general moral principles and moral theories by seeing how their consequences conform (or fail to conform) to our moral intuitions about particular cases. Richard Boyd Essays on Moral Realism, How to be a Moral Realist Page 184.

This should also be obvious because we do this with every other topic.
For example, we do not assume skepticism for our experience of the physical world unless we are given reason to. It is possible you are a butterfly dreaming you are human but there’s no good evidence to suggest that.

So why accept a skeptical attack on intuition if there is no evidence to support it.
Possibility is not probability likewise we do not doubt the intuitive trust of our 5 senses unless we have a good reason to think that one of them has failed us.

So why should we doubt intuitive sense of moral facts unless we are given good reason by moral non-realist to do so. The burden is on the skeptic who wants to argue moral realism is false.

Unless they can give us a good reason that female mutiliation is not objectively wrong that our moral intuitions should be doubted their argument is dead in the water.

The skeptic has to mount an argument, not just assume the moral realist must bear the burden of proof and lack any reason to hold to their position.

The above relates to how we intuitively know that certain behaviours are morally wrong. Like the abuse of women and children, like when someone steals from us. We can verbalize about how morals are subjective or relative but we act/react like their objective. This cannot be hidden or denied in live experience.

Nor can they just assume their wider metaphysical belief (like materialism) is true and incompatable with moral realism, therefore moral realsim cannot be true.

This is how many layman moral skeptics argue. They just assume moral realism is incompatble with their materialistic or similar beliefs therefore there cannot be objective moral facts.

That is a form of assuming your conclusion and not making a case for an alternative to moral realism. Until the skeptics do moral realism is intuitive true and the best explanation of the moral landscape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk88sZw4YhM

The above shows that objective morals cannot be rejected because they don't fit in with the materialist view of reality which expects all evidence to be materialistic/physical like in science. So when you say that I should provide provable facts for objective morality the evidence is not about physical objects.

Personal experience can be an objective fact as well. So moral lived experience is observable fact when we see how it is binding and real in human interactions. Like honesty is real in any debate between people. Or when we see a child or women being abused we don't just think it all depends on the subjective view. We want to stop the abuse because we know its wrong.

Just because two people are being honest with each other does not mean they will agree.

People can disagree but the point is they are agreeing or disagreeing about the truth or untruth of a matter. But to determine that truth they are both implicitly imposing honesty into their discussion because without each person being honest the truth can never be found and there would be nothing to agee or disagree about.

So when anyone is debating a matter the moral value of honesty is the rule and guide that ensures the debate is coherent and doesn’t fly off into all sorts of made up claims and misrepresentations. Each person knows intuitively and expects that honesty is respected as an objective value in their debate because it doesnt belong to anyones subjective view but is an independent value for all people.

Again; who decides when honesty is the morally right thing to do?

No person in a debate decides when and if Honesty is morally right. Its an independent reality in lived experience when having a debate/discussion between people seeking the truth of a matter. It cannot be denied if people want a coherent debate to find the truth.

Because of this the moral value of Honesty stands on its own merit and acknowledged implicitly as a necessary value in any discussion to find the truth. This is the example of moral lived experience because any debate doesn’t allow for anyone to deny honesty if they want a coherent discussion.

So no person can be subjective about Honesty as a value without being shown to be objectively wrong if they want to deny honesty's role in truth seeking debates. It’s happening right now between you and me. You are questioning my claims and therefore seeking the truth. You are accepting the value of honesty whether you like it or not. In that sense Honesty stands as an independent moral value regardless of people’s views in debates seeking the truth.

Otherwise explain to me how a debate between people seeking the truth can accommodate a subjective view that rejects honesty and yet still have a coherent debate seeking the truth. It cannot be done. We have to accept honesty for its self imposed value whether we like it or not.

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

Ok no worries.

 

[o_mlly]

If morality is subjective then there are no human acts* that are immoral for everyone, in every place, at every time. True or False?

*Human acts are those acts willfully done, ie., requiring knowledge, freedom and choice.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If morality is subjective then there are no human acts* that are immoral for everyone, in every place, at every time. True or False?

I think your question is posed more at relative morality.
I would say false.

I support the notion that morality is subjective. However, in my opinion, rape is immoral universally. It applies to everyone, everywhere, everywhen.

Universal: moral rules apply the same way to people similarly situated, no matter where, when who.
Relative: not sure if there is a good precise definition, but it seems to deny that morals are universal.

Subjective: Statements like "Abortion is/isn't murder." are opinions, albeit strongly held. There is no fact of the matter. They are like matters of music or taste.
Objective: These moral statements are either true or false (although it may be difficult or impossible to determine which).

 

[o_mlly]

I think your question is posed more at relative morality.
I would say false.

I support the notion that morality is subjective. However, in my opinion, rape is immoral universally. It applies to everyone, everywhere, everywhen.

Universal: moral rules apply the same way to people similarly situated, no matter where, when who.
Relative: not sure if there is a good precise definition, but it seems to deny that morals are universal.

Subjective: Statements like "Abortion is/isn't murder." are opinions, albeit strongly held. There is no fact of the matter. They are like matters of music or taste.
Objective: These moral statements are either true or false (although it may be difficult or impossible to determine which).

So, do we agree that there are at least two human act that are objectively immoral, ie., rape and murder?

 

[essentialsaltes]

So, do we agree that there are at least two human act that are objectively immoral, ie., rape and murder?

No. We share the same subjective opinion. Just like we agree that candy tastes better than dog poop.

Even if everyone in the world agrees that candy tastes better than dog poop, that's just a popularity contest. Things aren't objectively good or bad because we all voted on it. The earth is objectively round because that description is in accordance with objective reality.

 

[zippy2006]

So how does that even work, to say "Because she is Sally"? Is it some other reasoning besides the circumstances that shaped her into who she is today?

And do remember that I'm not defending relativism. If the relativist claims that "Sally shouldn't murder Larry because she is Sally" is a true fact, then that relativist is arguing for what they believe to be an objective morality. I don't care if it actually works or not.

I don’t know how it works, but it seems to be identical with moral subjectivism.

Let me just cite a few sources to give evidence for the claim that moral relativism is not considered objective:

In detail, descriptive moral relativism holds only that people do, in fact, disagree fundamentally about what is moral, with no judgment being expressed on the desirability of this. Meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong. Normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when considerably large disagreements about the morality of particular things exist. (Wikipedia)

--

For some, moral relativism, which relativizes the truth of moral claims, follows logically from a broader cognitive relativism that relativizes truth in general. […] A common, albeit negative, reason for embracing moral relativism is simply the perceived untenability of moral objectivism: every attempt to establish a single, objectively valid and universally binding set of moral principles runs up against formidable objections. (IEP)

--

The term ‘moral relativism’ is understood in a variety of ways. Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons. (SEP)

--

“Even if it were established that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements that cannot be rationally resolved, and that these disagreements are more significant than whatever agreements there may be, it would not immediately follow that MMR is correct. Other nonobjectivist conclusions might be drawn.”
[…]
“However, this objection might reflect a more sophisticated epistemology, for example, that we have more reason to accept these objectivist intuitions than we have to accept any argument put forward in favor of MMR.”
[…]
“A similar point arises from the fact that it is sometimes thought to be an advantage of MMR that it maintains a substantial notion of intersubjective truth or justification: It avoids the defects of moral objectivism, on the one hand…” (SEP)​

Moral relativism is more or less the idea that morality, rather than being uniform and objective across time and space, is relative to culture or historical epoch. Moral objectivism entails the idea that morality is not dependent on the culture or the historical period in question. The two are incompatible. I grant that the moral relativist could be imagined to say, “It is objectively true that child sacrifice is moral in an Aztec context.” In reality a meta-ethicist would not speak that way, for moral objectivism does not include cultural relativity. You are using the terms contrary to common and professional usage.

The logical sense is that morality is objective when it is universal to all humans or rational beings, and it is relative when it sub-divides in some way (usually cultural or historical). But moral relativism is usually not applied down to the level of the individual, so maybe that was confusing on my part. This website seems to be a good overview of the four basic positions.

Moral relativism is more universal and more objective than moral subjectivism, but less universal and less objective than moral objectivism. It is probably not considered objective because it is reducible to a collection of subjective data points (i.e. a culture, a historical epoch, a group of people, or something along those lines).

 

[o_mlly]

No. We share the same subjective opinion.

However, in my opinion, rape is immoral universally. It applies to everyone, everywhere, everywhen.​

Are you now saying that in your biased opinion rape is universally immoral but you could be wrong? That is, as a matter of taste -- not truth -- rape is objectively immoral just for you?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Are you now saying that in your biased opinion rape is universally immoral but you could be wrong?

No, because if there are no moral facts, one cannot be incorrect. I cannot be 'wrong' when I express the opinion that "Brussels sprouts taste nasty [to me]." They do taste nasty to me.

No one can show a reference book that says: 'we've done the tests, it's objectively true: Brussels sprouts taste nice.'

In principle, I could change my opinion, but that's as likely to happen with rape as it is with Brussels sprouts. Not happenin'.

rape is objectively immoral just for you?

No, that's the thing. I don't believe it's objectively immoral in any shape or form. It's a category mistake to talk about objective morals.

 

[Moral Orel]

Moral relativism is more or less the idea that morality, rather than being uniform and objective across time and space, is relative to culture or historical epoch. Moral objectivism entails the idea that morality is not dependent on the culture or the historical period in question. The two are incompatible. I grant that the moral relativist could be imagined to say, “It is objectively true that child sacrifice is moral in an Aztec context.” In reality a meta-ethicist would not speak that way, for moral objectivism does not include cultural relativity. You are using the terms contrary to common and professional usage.

I did a little more reading last night and I think I see where the confusion stems from. The divide is between moral realism and non-realism. Moral subjectivity is a form of non-realism, and relativism is a form of realism. That's the dividing line I'm talking about. So you think relativism is related to subjectivism because it involves some subjective things like culture, but I say relativism is related to objectivism because they both claim moral realism, i.e. facts.

 

[o_mlly]

No, because if there are no moral facts, one cannot be incorrect.

But that response merely begs the question of this thread: are there moral truths? Assuming the answer to be false is not an argument.

No one can show a reference book that says: 'we've done the tests, it's objectively true: Brussels sprouts taste nice.'

Paralleling the above argument on a matter of taste:

No one can show a reference book that says: 'we've done the tests, it's objectively true: rape is good for some.
​

Can you make an argument that being raped is good for some?

No, that's the thing. I don't believe it's objectively immoral in any shape or form.

? But you have already posted just the opposite: However, in my opinion, rape is immoral universally. It applies to everyone, everywhere, everywhen.

Please clarify your position on rape.

 

[essentialsaltes]

? But you have already posted just the opposite: However, in my opinion, rape is immoral universally. It applies to everyone, everywhere, everywhen.

Please clarify your position on rape.

My position is pretty clear. But as I was trying to say, and Moral Orel and others in this thread, being universal is different from objective. I think Brussels sprouts are nasty, even when I am in Argentina. They were nasty when I was a child, and they are still nasty today. My opinion applies everywhere. That Brussels sprout you just ate? It tasted nasty. Maybe not to you, but that doesn't change my judgment.

 

[o_mlly]

But as I was trying to say, and Moral Orel and others in this thread, being universal is different from objective.

Is an idea that is universally true not necessarily objectively true as well?

 

[Ken-1122]

If morality is subjective then there are no human acts* that are immoral for everyone, in every place, at every time. True or False?

False. things are still wrong, we just can't agree often on what is right or wrong, because it can't be demonstrated to be right or wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

Is an idea that is universally true not necessarily objectively true as well?

Yes!

 

[Ken-1122]

So, do we agree that there are at least two human act that are objectively immoral, ie., rape and murder?

What’s rape? What’s murder? A 19 year old guy has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend in the State of California it is rape. Go a couple miles East to the state of Nevada, and it’s not.
If a guy is beating me up in my house and I’m afraid he is going to kill me, so I get my gun and shoot and kill him, is it murder? Suppose he is not in my house but on my property? Now is it murder? How about if he is not on my property, but on public land, and I kill him; now is it murder? It all depends on which state you are in. If we can’t decide what actions constitutes rape or murder, how on Earth are we supposed to agree if it is immoral or not?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is an idea that is universally true not necessarily objectively true as well?

No.

"When used in the context of ethics, the meaning of universal refers to that which is true for "all similarly situated individuals.""

This is unrelated to whether "Rape is wrong" is an objective fact or a subjective opinion.