Is there Objective Morality?

[o_mlly]

If Dkaih means murder and saobi means rape, Of course they are immoral! How many times do I have to say this?

No, they do not. Apparently you missed the definitions given to get us out of the muddling of the moral meaning with the legal meaning. Here you go:

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?

 

[Thera]

Some might see the fact that everybody doesn’t agree on intuition, as evidence against it

Perhaps female mutilation/circumcision is not objectively wrong to some people for the same reason male mutilation/circumcision is not objectively wrong to others. Can you provide proof that any of them are wrong?

Isn't this as simple as referring to the bible? Circumcision of males is a biblical practice and therefore not wrong (unless done for the wrong motives, as condemned in Galatians). Female mutilation is nowhere considered in scripture, and is therefore objectively wrong.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Your extreme skepticism removes you from the ordinary world in which most of us live and in which, according to you, we live under the illusion that we can discriminate between statement that are true and statements that are false.

Once again, you appear to fail to grasp what my position actually is, and in this case substitute some strawman to dismiss it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Isn't this as simple as referring to the bible? Circumcision of males is a biblical practice and therefore not wrong (unless done for the wrong motives, as condemned in Galatians). Female mutilation is nowhere considered in scripture, and is therefore objectively wrong.

Your statement is ambiguous about male circumcision (MGM). Being a "biblical practice" could mean that it occurs within the bible without condemnation and is therefore permissible (it is morally allowed, or it is at least not immoral); it is the preferred action (it is morally superior or righteous); or it is morally *required* (it is a moral obligation).

Certainly, among Christians, circumcision does not seem to be a moral obligation, though it does seem to be morally permissible. There are some debates in the early church about how Jewish the new practice should be, but eventually the "gentile" faction won out and the OT Jewish ritual practice fell out of favor (including the dietary laws, etc.). [Circumcision of adults is, by all accounts, exceedingly painful and might have been a bit of a turn off if required for male converts. At least infants don't remember it.]

(I shall address "objectivity" in separate post.)

 

[o_mlly]

Once again, you appear to fail to grasp what my position actually is, and in this case substitute some strawman to dismiss it.

I understand your position quite well.

Your position impelled me to discontinue any further conversation with you on the grounds that it can lead nowhere. There is no point in talking to someone who is willing to answer any question by saying both yes and no at the same time.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I understand your position quite well.

I doubt that.

Can you see that there is a difference in kind between these true statements?

A) Women have the right to vote in the US.
B) The earth is roughly spherical.

Both are true, but A was not true in 1900. B has been true as long as there has been an earth.

B is an objective truth.
The truth of A depends on human conventions.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Isn't this as simple as referring to the bible? Circumcision of males is a biblical practice and therefore not wrong (unless done for the wrong motives, as condemned in Galatians). Female mutilation is nowhere considered in scripture, and is therefore objectively wrong.

The problem with this characterization of this moral opinion as "objective" is that less than 1/3 of the world's population is part of your religion and feels some obligation to accept the moral teachings with in your scripture. There are plenty of non-Christians that would disagree with many of the moral pronouncements inside the bible including this one. This eliminates the possibility that biblical moral judgements are automatically objective and means that some of them may be subjective.

The involuntary genital mutilation question certainly fall in the "some people think it's immoral and some think it is moral" box, which means that opinions about GM are therefore subjective.

I do think there are possibly objective moral foundations, but only at the level of the fundamentals of human nature, but at a higher level that becomes difficult, so I have not answered the poll question. On top of those we make all sorts choices about what outcomes or systems we prefer and these result in natural moral choices that are predictable.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, they do not. Apparently you missed the definitions given to get us out of the muddling of the moral meaning with the legal meaning. Here you go:

So provide a scenario when it is not immoral to commit those acts.

 

[Ken-1122]

Isn't this as simple as referring to the bible? Circumcision of males is a biblical practice and therefore not wrong (unless done for the wrong motives, as condemned in Galatians). Female mutilation is nowhere considered in scripture, and is therefore objectively wrong.

We were talking about what is moral vs immoral; not right vs wrong according to the western version of the Bible.

 

[o_mlly]

Can you see that there is a difference in kind between these true statements?

A) Women have the right to vote in the US.
B) The earth is roughly spherical.

A) Men should not have more political power than women.
B) The earth ought to be roughly spherical.

Do you see the difference in kind between these two statements? "A" belongs in this forum, "Ethics and Morality" and "B" belongs ... well, nowhere.

"A" is prescriptive and "B", if it were rewritten replacing "ought" with "is", belongs in the "Physical Science" forum as a declarative statement.

 

[o_mlly]

So provide a scenario when it is not immoral to commit those acts.

That's up to you to demonstrate. And if, as you claim, the morality of such acts is subjective then surely it would be easy for you to do so. Of course, if you agree with me that both acts are objectively immoral then simply admit it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

A) Men should not have more political power than women.
B) The earth ought to be roughly spherical.

Do you see the difference in kind between these two statements? "A" belongs in this forum, "Ethics and Morality" and "B" belongs ... well, nowhere.

"A" is prescriptive and "B", if it were rewritten replacing "ought" with "is", belongs in the "Physical Science" forum as a declarative statement.

Right, so we agree there's a difference between is and ought statements. They belong to different realms (or at least different fora). It's easy to see how some 'is' statements can be not only true, but true objectively.

Since they are a different kind of statement altogether, it is not immediately obvious (otherwise why this thread?) that ought-statements can be true objectively.

 

[Kupdiane]

Objective does not mean to never change, it means to not be influenced by the opinions of sentient beings.

What is the difference?

 

[o_mlly]

Since they are a different kind of statement altogether, it is not immediately obvious (otherwise why this thread?) that ought-statements can be true objectively.

First, it seems you have already admitted that

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.

I would say false.

Your "false" reply affirms that there are human acts that are immoral for everyone, in every place, at every time. That is, there are objectively immoral acts.

On the "ought" question: yes, it is not immediately obvious. However, if one admits of a universal right that all human beings possess, as you have regarding bodily integrity, then it rationally follows that all others have an obligation -- ought not -- to violate that right.

 

[essentialsaltes]

First, it seems you have already admitted that

​

Your "false" reply affirms that there are human acts that are immoral for everyone, in every place, at every time. That is, there are objectively immoral acts.

No again, you're confusing universal for objective. If I believe all rapists everywhere everywhen should be boiled alive in cauldrons of duck fat, that does not mean it is an objective moral truth that all rapists should be boiled in cauldrons of duck fat.

However, if one admits of a universal right that all human beings possess

Then your moral opinions based on that assumed right apply universally. But that doesn't make them objective.

 

[o_mlly]

No again, you're confusing universal for objective. If I believe all rapists everywhere everywhen should be boiled alive in cauldrons of duck fat, that does not mean it is an objective moral truth that all rapists should be boiled in cauldrons of duck fat.

Yes again, a universal moral truth is an objective moral truth.

Value judgments often express nothing more than individual likes or dislikes, desires or aversions. They are entirely subjective and relative to the individual who makes them. Most often, if they have any truth at all, it is only the truth that is contained in a statement about the individual who is making the judgment—the truth that he regards a certain object as good.

However, the truth in judgments that assert that certain objects are good for all human beings, not just for this individual or that, are value judgments that have objectivity. They would then cease to be entirely relative to individual idiosyncrasies.

 

[Ken-1122]

What is the difference?

There is a tree on my front lawn; this is an objective reality. If a sentient being; be it you, me, someone called God; etc. said there was not a tree on my front lawn, you, me, or God would be wrong. However if I removed the tree, now the objective reality has changed so there is no longer a tree on my front lawn. Just because something is objective, does not mean it can never change.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes again, a universal moral truth is an objective moral truth.

"All rapists everywhere everywhen should be boiled alive in cauldrons of duck fat." is an objective moral truth?

"All women who dress like that everywhere everywhen ought to be raped."

 

[Ken-1122]

That's up to you to demonstrate. And if, as you claim, the morality of such acts is subjective then surely it would be easy for you to do so. Of course, if you agree with me that both acts are objectively immoral then simply admit it.

On post #381 I am the one who said Dkaih (murder) and Saobi (rape) to be immoral, and you are the one disagreeing with me; remember? It's up to you to provide the example of them being moral acts.

 

[Kupdiane]

There is a tree on my front lawn; this is an objective reality. If a sentient being; be it you, me, someone called God; etc. said there was not a tree on my front lawn, you, me, or God would be wrong. However if I removed the tree, now the objective reality has changed so there is no longer a tree on my front lawn. Just because something is objective, does not mean it can never change.

I don't agree.