Is there Objective Morality?

[Moral Orel]

When "relative" is used to arbitrarily subdivide humans then it is non-objective, which is what I was saying in that last post. That is, when "relative" has the effect of exempting some humans from moral precepts, or establishing entirely different standards for different groups of people, then it is not objective.

When it's arbitrary, sure, it's non-objective. When it's prudent, it is objective.

If something is objective then it is true and accessible (or confirmable) for all, not just for some.

Eh... I'm not sure if we disagree on this or not. Let's explore it. I like chocolate ice cream. Can we say that the fact "Orel likes chocolate ice cream" is objective? We would agree that it's my subjective opinion that chocolate ice cream is tasty, yes yes? But "Orel likes chocolate ice cream" is true, but it only relates to me.

Now I agree that those who believe that morality is relative to certain situational variables can at the same time be moral objectivists (or hold to an objective morality). We just wouldn't tend call them moral relativists. As noted earlier, I'm not quite sure who qualifies as a "moral absolutist." From my reading it would seem that a moral absolutist holds to only one single moral principle so that there are no conflicting principles even in theory. If that is right then moral absolutists are few and far between, and it's not clear to me what your relative concept of morality is concretely opposed to?

Relative and absolute are on a spectrum. The more general the rules, the more absolute it is. The more you have to specify the circumstances, the more relative it is. For instance, "Torture is wrong" is more absolute than "Torture for fun is wrong".

In this case "relative" is not subdividing humans into different moral sects.

Yes it is. Trained is one sect, untrained is another sect.

This is because the moral rule, "Do not perform CPR if you are untrained," applies to all humans regardless of culture, historical epoch, etc. It is universally applicable and accessible. So it would not be moral relativism in the colloquial sense of the "ism", and yes, you are right that it would be objective.

I could say, "Do not cut off people's heads if you are not an ancient Aztec" and that would apply to all persons, yes yes?

Side note, since I acknowledged my mistake, I get to ignore your references to "isms" and "ists". We're talking about what it means for things to be relative and objective and subjective.

But it is worth pointing out that the common understanding of morality is objective and is also "relative" in the sense you are describing. Nearly everyone would agree that the application of moral rules requires prudence, and thus it seems to me that what you describe has no special name because it is characteristic of all (or nearly all) moral systems. I don't understand why such a ubiquitous quality of moral reasoning would need to be highlighted, or what it is intended to be contrasted with.

Well, we're dividing folks based on some criteria. One group should act one way, and the other group should act in the opposite way. You agree that criteria (trained vs untrained) is prudent, but you seem to only want to acknowledge the relative nature of the division if it isn't prudent.

Thanks to @Kylie for pointing out that even untrained people should begin CPR, which subsequently makes my analogy fail. But I'm sure Zippy saw your post too and we're both sticking to the analogy solely for simplicity's sake. If Zippy wanted to get all pedantic about it we could switch to something else like entering confined spaces to retrieve an unconscious person or something to that effect, but I don't think he's that pedantic.

 

[Kylie]

Thanks to @Kylie for pointing out that even untrained people should begin CPR, which subsequently makes my analogy fail. But I'm sure Zippy saw your post too and we're both sticking to the analogy solely for simplicity's sake. If Zippy wanted to get all pedantic about it we could switch to something else like entering confined spaces to retrieve an unconscious person or something to that effect, but I don't think he's that pedantic.

You could easily rephrase it to something like...

Let's say you see a painting in need of restoration, but you haven't been trained in art restoration, you just kinda sorta remember seeing it in a few TV shows and movies. Should you carry out what you think is restoration on the painting? No, right? But if you are a trained art restorer, then yes, you should carry out the restoration. If I grant for the sake of argument that morality can be objective, and restoring paintings in need is objectively good, then the statement "Trained art restorers should carry out restoration on paintings that need restoration" would be a factual, objective statement. Not a subjective opinion. Just like "Untrained non-professionals should not carry out restoration" would be a factual, objective statement. But the statements makes clear that what action you should perform is relative to your level of training, does it not?
​

Because that's how you get this:

 

[o_mlly]

As I pointed out before, the age of consent varies from State to State so two people having consensual sex in one state is considered rape in another; do you agree? If so, you’ve made my point.

Do you agree that your point attempting to deflect the debate to be limited to statutory rape is just a red herring? This is the Ethics and Morality forum; not the Legal forum. Rape is the sexual violation of a person's body without their consent. Why not address the issue as defined?

Murder is a legal term defined according to the law of the land. Different lands have different laws. In Nazi Germany, it was not considered murder to kill a Jewish person. In some Islamic States, it was not considered murder to kill Homosexuals, or killing a daughter who shames the family for refusing to marry someone she doesn’t love. My point is; an act committed in one country is called murder, but the same act committed in another country is not. Do you agree? If so you make my point.

Ditto on murder. I defined the act as a moral, not legal, act.. Why not respond to the moral definition?

I believe rape and murder to be immoral, and I believe all moral and immoral acts to be subjective.

Begs the question. I don't doubt that you express accurately what you believe but this is a debate forum. Do you have an argument?

 

[o_mlly]

Yes, I hold that opinion. But this kind of discussion is not getting us any closer to whether moral statements are objective or not. Have you answered the OP's questions? Maybe that's a better place to start.

• You have agreed that everyone has a right to their own bodily integrity.
• Rationally, you must also agree that if one has a right then others have a reciprocal obligation to respect that right.
• You have agreed that the act of rape violates one's bodily integrity.
• Therefore, you must conclude that rape is intrinsically, ie., an objectively immoral act.

Thank you for the exchange.

 

[stevevw]

That's the point! We know that those things are subjective, but you have a reaction as though they are objective. That's human intuition at work.

How can people know that morals are subjective when they contradict their own subjective moral position by acting/reacting to situations objectively. Thats what I mean by lived moral experience as opposed to people claiming subjective morality.

They may claim that all morals are subjective and people have a right to their own moral views. But when someone acts on their subjective moral view on the person claiming morality is subjective the person reacts like morals are objective by protesting that the other person is wrong in their actions and claims.

Whenever we see a protests in the streets or people on social media and forums condemining others for their bad behaviour or for holding certain views and beliefs or condemning God as evil they are not just expessing their personal moral view. They are sending a claim from beyond themselves and out in to the world that the other person or God is wrong objectively.

This is lived moral experience where people cannot help but express morality objectively. We all know that certain things are morally wrong and therefore act/react like certain things are objectively wrong. We cannot help it because its in us. They say you act/react according to whats in your heart and head and thats where objective morality is within our conscience. We are born with it.

 

[Ken-1122]

Do you agree that your point attempting to deflect the debate to be limited to statutory rape is just a red herring? This is the Ethics and Morality forum; not the Legal forum. Rape is the sexual violation of a person's body without their consent. Why not address the issue as defined?

Because rape is not just sexual violation of a persons body without their consent. I was trying to point that out to you. If you want to make a scenario about violence, and limit the violence to sexual violation of a person’s body without their consent in order to make your point, then you should make that clear, and quit pretending as if that is the only definition of rape.

Ditto on murder. I defined the act as a moral, not legal, act.. Why not respond to the moral definition?

No, murder is a legal act, it doesn’t become a moral act unless you make it one. What I call murder, the law may not, and visa versa. Lots of people call abortion murder; some don’t. Lots of people call slaughtering animals for food murder; others don’t. Some call “death with dignity” murder; others don’t. Do you see the subjectivity in all of this? If you want to ask me if murder is wrong, and you are not going by the legal definition of murder; but the moral definition you have in your head, you need to make that clear and explain which act you are talking about.

 

[Ken-1122]

How can people know that morals are subjective when they contradict their own subjective moral position by acting/reacting to situations objectively. Thats what I mean by lived moral experience as opposed to people claiming subjective morality.

People who believe morality is subjective will react the same to immorality as a person who believes morality is objective; they both will proclaim the act is wrong. This (objectivist) idea that subjectivity means you believe all moral views are equal, or that everybody is entitled to their moral views is absurd.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You are presumably attempting to claim that your opinion should be universally held

Why on earth would I attempt that? Matters of aesthetics, like morality, are subjective.

 

[essentialsaltes]

• You have agreed that everyone has a right to their own bodily integrity.
• Rationally, you must also agree that if one has a right then others have a reciprocal obligation to respect that right.
• You have agreed that the act of rape violates one's bodily integrity.
• Therefore, you must conclude that rape is intrinsically, ie., an objectively immoral act.

No, my opinion that rape is immoral does follow logically from my assumptions and opinions. But that does not somehow transform my opinion into an objective fact.

 

[o_mlly]

Because rape is not just sexual violation of a persons body without their consent.

? Rape is always a sexual violation of person's body without their consent. If the rapist follows the rape with a murder that does not make the rape to then become a non-rape.

Let us agree that the word "saobi" means the act of sexually violating another person's body without consent. Is it ever moral to commit saobi?

Let us agree that the word "dkaih" means the act that directly kills an innocent person. "Directly" means that the proximate end-in-view of the act is the death of an innocent for any actor. "Innocent" means that in the moment, the victim was not in the commission of a lethal act upon an innocent person. Is it ever moral to commit dkaih?

 

[o_mlly]

No, my opinion that rape is immoral does follow logically from my assumptions and opinions. But that does not somehow transform my opinion into an objective fact.

We know how you feel. I can't argue with how you feel. I've given you a rational argument and your response is ... well, to tell me again how you feel. OK. Good luck with that feeling.

 

[essentialsaltes]

We know how you feel. I can't argue with how you feel. I've given you a rational argument and your response is ... well, to tell me again how you feel. OK. Good luck with that feeling.

Look, there's a difference between these two statements.

A) Essentialsaltes believes rape is immoral.
B) Rape is immoral.

One is a statement about my beliefs. It is objectively true.
One is a statement about the morality of a particular act. Whether it has an objective truth value is the topic of this thread. The logical argument you presented only leads to concluding A. Not B.

Indeed, if you did the same thing for the people who believe "She was asking for it." You could line up their statements to prove that they do not believe rape is [always] immoral.

So if these two lines of argument lead to opposite conclusions, we can hardly say the result is objective. Wow, the answer seems to change from person to person depending on what beliefs they hold! What do we call that kind of thing?

That's because you're only dealing with statements like A. And the topic of the thread is about statements like B.

 

[Kupdiane]

Hello Kupdiane, welcome to the forum.

I gave some links to arguments for non-divine objective moralities in post #83 (link). Perhaps you might want to read some of those posts to see attempts to derive objective morality in a way that is not dependent on God.

I appreciate the warm welcome!

Why do we have to have an objective morality?

 

[Kupdiane]

Bigger, stronger, or higher authority does not make you exempt from that which is objective. Objective morality is defined as a moral proposition whose truth conditions are met without bias caused by any sentient being not just humans. God is a sentient being. Objective morality would mean it's true apart from God.

I don't believe in a completely, if at all, objective world, so I don't need to believe in an objective standard. I am simply here to live life for the short time I have before I go on into oblivion in utter silence and darkness.

 

[Ken-1122]

? Rape is always a sexual violation of person's body without their consent.

It is also a sexual act without their legal consent. (legal consent has little to do with whether they consent or not.)

Let us agree that the word "saobi" means the act of sexually violating another person's body without consent. Is it ever moral to commit saobi?

It is always subjectively immoral as far as I am concerned.

 

[Moral Orel]

How can people know that morals are subjective when they contradict their own subjective moral position by acting/reacting to situations objectively.

How can people know that taste is subjective when they contradict their own subjective taste position by acting/reacting to situations objectively? This is the whole point of my analogy. I showed you something that you accept as subjective, yet you (like every other human) is compelled at times to react as though it is objective.

 

[Will Joseph]

Well since "objective" means not based on opinions or feelings, I still believe that "Heinie rape is wrong" is a part of objective mortality, where morality is principles discerning right from wrong. I'm using Google's definition of "objective" and "morality."

"Heinie rape" is sexual activity without consent where anything is forcefully inserted into the heinie. This definition of rape is based on the biblical definition of rape where a woman screams in the field and is comparable to murder:

Deuteronomy 22:25-27
"But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

"But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

"For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her."

This form of rape is objectively wrong because it greatly facilitates the spread of sexually transmitted diseases through feces. The great tendency of feces to spread disease is a "fact." Disease causes unmoderated or unpredictable damage. It can not be easily contained like murder, human activity, or fire. And heinie rape multiplies the spread and deadliness of disease.

 

[Kupdiane]

Well since "objective" means not based on opinions or feelings, I still believe that "Heinie rape is wrong" is a part of objective mortality, where morality is principles discerning right from wrong. I'm using Google's definition of "objective" and "morality."

But, if you believe it is wrong only for your own reasons, then it is only objective to yourself. But even then, you decide whether you want that to remain objective or not - which makes it subjective.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't believe in a completely, if at all, objective world,

What is an objective world?

so I don't need to believe in an objective standard.

Aren't laws objective standards? So you don't believe in laws?

I am simply here to live life for the short time I have before I go on into oblivion in utter silence and darkness.

Is this silence and darkness the prison you go to for breaking the laws of the land? Or am I missing something.

 

[o_mlly]

Look, there's a difference between these two statements.

A) Essentialsaltes believes rape is immoral.
B) Rape is immoral.

One is a statement about my beliefs. It is objectively true.
One is a statement about the morality of a particular act. Whether it has an objective truth value is the topic of this thread. The logical argument you presented only leads to concluding A. Not B.

No, you've got it backwards. "A" is your confession of your personal belief, ie., subjective. "B" is a statement of the reality that follows from one who holds that everyone, not just "essentialsaltes", has a right to their own bodily integrity.

Do you agree that everyone has a right to their own bodily integrity?

Yes, I hold that opinion. ...

Of course, one may and ought to have opinions that are true and congruent with reality. That's not the point.

While many value judgments (opinions) belong in the sphere of taste, some belong to the sphere of truth. The morality of rape is not in the sphere of taste.

The evidence on the morality of rape will be drawn from and the reasoning will be about our knowledge of human rights and obligations. The rational argument that rape is immoral stands.