Is there Objective Morality?

[Ken-1122]

I don't agree.

List everything I said that you disagree about.

 

[zippy2006]

@Moral Orel - I think my last post leaves something to be desired, so let me try to flesh out what I mean by "arbitrary".

And we will probably have to spell out what exactly arbitrary means in this context, but an example would be that racist moral systems are not objective because they are based on variables that are arbitrary with respect to morality, namely race.

Let's just ask the question: Why can we have a special rule for the person who is untrained in CPR but not for the Aztec? Why does a system that makes distinctions based on competence count as an objective morality, but a system that makes distinctions based on culture does not? Now I have claimed that the first distinction is prudent or relevant and the second distinction is arbitrary, but what does that really mean?

An aribrary distinction is a distinction that treats one group of humans as irreducibly different from another group. An objective morality presupposes that all human beings are on a fundamentally equal footing, and because of this arbitrary distinctions are not allowed. (It seems that this is so for two reasons: first, because objectivity relates to rationality, which is a universal property of humans; and second, because "morality" means "human morality," namely a normative system that applies to the actions of all human beings rather than just some subset.)

When we make a distinction based on CPR competence we are not saying that trained humans are irreducibly different from untrained humans. The distinction is based on reason according to the principle of harm, for an untrained person is more likely to harm the patient than a trained person is. When we make a distinction based on culture the distinction is not transparent to reason and has the effect of treating one group of people as irreducibly different from another group of people. It is therefore arbitrary.

Rules based on arbitrary distinctions will not be objective because they are not rationally accessible or intelligible, and thus are not universally accessible to all human beings. They will not be moral because they are not intended to apply to all human beings. If someone promotes a set of behavioral guidelines for only French people we would not tend to call that set of guidelines a morality. If such a person wanted to use the word morality they would have a duty to qualify it to indicate that it is not a morality in the usual sense (e.g. "Relative morality" [in the sense of moral relativism]).

Of course some cultural distinctions might be transparent to reason and therefore reducible to more fundamental factors. For example, maybe the French have a significantly higher chance of being symptomatic carriers of Covid-19. In that case a hospital rule, "French nurses are not allowed to treat those with Covid susceptibilities," would be consonant with objective morality. If the rule were given without any underlying rationale then it would be arbitrary in the sense described.

 

[TheWhat?]

As a moral sense theorist, I say yes, contrary to popular opinions about moral sense theory.

As a programmer trained to develop algorithms, I at first was taken in by Kant's brand of deontology, but, also as a programmer trained to develop algorithms, I came to the sad conclusion that no matter the proposed solution, none have been found which do not fail in some edge case of a moral dilemma within our impossibly complicated world. So I abandoned moral absolutism.

In a similar way, Hume's sentimentalism was developed in contrast to rationalism -- in observing a problem similar to mine, he proposed that moral actions are a matter of preference (which in my opinion may be interpreted as intrinsic qualities and not subject to opinion) -- so even in the case that a rational imperative may lead to the conclusion that it is better or moral to kill a group of innocent individuals for the good of the larger whole, murder being defined instead by human preferences would render this action to be wrong.

That said, it does seem that this would be an open door into moral subjectivity, wherein a psychopath with no moral preferences at all could do as he wills without doing wrong, or, if a man happens to be suicidal on a given day and would prefer to be shot and killed, someone could rightfully do the deed. This, however, is just another attempt to apply a kind of rationalism to translate moral sense theory into a rational system to test for some conclusion, which is contradictory from the start if it is true that all rational systems are bound to fail at some point. As for moral sense theory, one cannot be a moral sense theorist unless one assumes there must exist an objective morality to be perceived even in some limited way, by the moral senses.

 

[Moral Orel]

@Moral Orel - I think my last post leaves something to be desired, so let me try to flesh out what I mean by "arbitrary".

I dunno, I think I agree with you mostly, and I don't think there's much of an argument to be had here. Making distinctions by arbitrary differences is a non sequitur. When culture has no effect on the act itself, there's no rational reason to take it under consideration at all. We're on the same page with that.

What I'm saying is that if "Only ancient Aztecs should cut off heads" is a moral statement relative to time and culture, then "Only trained professionals should perform CPR" is a moral statement relative to skill level. The first is arbitrary, we agree on that. You seem reluctant to acknowledge that the second is relative in the same sense as the first simply because it isn't arbitrary.

If different groups have different rules to follow and yet these distinctions aren't arbitrary and follow from reason, then we have objective rules that are relative to who we are speaking about.

 

[stevevw]

Woah, hang on there.

If all Humans intuitively know them, then we should see ALL human societies tend towards the same moral viewpoints. Yet in some we see plural marriages are find, but not in other societies. We see some societies are okay with the death penalty, and others are not.

Just because there are objective morals and everyone knows them doesn’t mean people choose to acknowledge and folow them. People do have free will. People do ignore their conscience and deny the truth.

It doesn't matter if anyone sees God do it or not.

If you claim that moral laws are laws because God has declared them to be so - that there is a law maker - then that's all that matters.

I think I may have mentioned this to you before.
God doesn’t dictate moral laws like governments. He isn’t separate from the moral law. He is the moral law and we know of these moral laws because we are made in His image. We have a God like nature and we also have an evil side. God’s creation and morality are intertwined. So like the laws of nature moral laws are inherent in God’s creation and are like natural laws.

We don't need some external source to show us what works to keep a society working. Any society where murder, theft, etc was common would quickly find itself falling apart and failing. So any society that lasts is naturally going to have attitudes against murder, theft, etc.

this is the evolutionary explanation for morality which actually cannot ground morality. Evolution is descriptive and not prescriptive. Evolution describes what does survive not what ought to survive. It tells us how we come to know morals and not why we ought to follow those morals.

Who says that we should not kill or steal? So if evolution cannot ground morals and is only about survival then it doesn’t really matter what behaviour is used to help allow people to survive. Someone can make a case in the future that killing and stealing is good because there is not enough resources to go around for everyone to survive. There is no way to measure anything as far as being ultimately good so anything can go when it comes to evolution and survival.

We have already seen this with dictators like Starlin and Hitler. But also with how people scrambled to wipe out supermarket shelves and denying others so they could survive during the Covid 19 epidemic.

The reason evolution can't give us genuine morality is because it doesn't follow that because things are some way that they therefore ought to be that way. Evolution can only make things be some way. Evolution can't make it to where things ought to be some way.

Now, it's true that if we don't behave in certain ways, that will be detrimental to us and our species. But evolution doesn't care about whether our species survives or not. In fact, natural selection is one of the twin pillars of evolution, and that entails that many things die off so that those that are suitably adapted to their environment can survive and reproduce. So the fact that we die if we don't behave in a certain way doesn't mean that it's right or moral for us to behave in that way, and evolution can't make it morally right for us to behave in such a way as to ensure our survival.
How Do Moral Absolutes Prove That God Exists?

How do you figure? Why does a person's personal views have to come from beyond that person?

Not their personal views but objective morals have to come from beyond the person. By C. S. Lewis using the argument against God that the universe was cruel and unjust this caused him to wonder where he got the morals of just and unjust from in the first place.

For those morals to have any weight to use against God they must come from beyond his own personal views because subjective moral are just opinions. That made him realized that these morals were objective and independent of himself and that there had to be a moral lawgiver to ground morality.

In my experience, the average person doesn't.

The important thing is honesty will remain a beacon even in discussions where people are bias or lack understanding. When people interact they debate, question others, clarify issues, usually point out bias and get a better understanding of issues. The important thing is that honesty is the guide to prevent people misrepresenting others and lying on purpose.

True. Honesty is needed for clear communication. However, I don't see that makes it a moral issue.

Look at the opposite of Honesty. Purposely lying and misrepresenting others is a moral issue. So honesty is a virtue as they say that prevents people from lying.

There are cases where dishonesty can be the more morally correct thing to do. I could meet a friend for a night out on the town and think she's wearing a dress that looks bad on her, but I'm not going to tell her that. It will ruin her whole night. I'll just tell her that she looks great and we'll both go out and have a good time.

Yes but that doesn’t change honesty being an objective moral and moral guide. In your scenario you still referred to the value of honesty to determine not to use it.

As I mentioned objective morality doesn’t mean that we have to rigidly stick to being honest in every situation. That is more like absolute morality. Objective morality means that in any situation there will be an objectively right or wrong thing to do that is beyond human opinion.

So in your scenario the objectively right thing to do was to not be honest because a greater moral wrong would have been committed in hurting your friend. This is the same for example where it is objectively right to kill a crazed gunman with a gun to a child’s head.

So being honest or not killing is not necessarily a strict rule we have to stick to in every situation under objective morality. Sometimes it’s morally right not to be honest or to kill. But this doesn’t make dishonesty or killing a moral good or a subjective moral. This is a common misunderstanding.

That doesn't make it a moral quality.

Why not, if you look up honesty it will tell you it’s a moral quality. It’s associated with integrity, trust, truth, fairness, moral character etc. It is actually a foundational moral that other moral values stem from. Honesty is closely linked to truth and truth is one the greatest moral values.

Again, this is making a connection that honesty has some bearing on morality, and I don't see that this is the case.

Honesty is a moral value though. If someone is dishonest then they are untrustworthy, as opposed to having integrity, being sincere and trustworthy. That seems to speak about moral values. This is how significant Honesty is as a moral value

Honesty or truthfulness is a facet of moral character that connotes positive and virtuous attributes such as integrity, truthfulness, straightforwardness, including straightforwardness of conduct, along with the absence of lying, cheating, theft, etc. Honesty also involves being trustworthy, loyal, fair, and sincere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honesty#:~:text=Honesty%20or%20truthfulness%20is%20a,loyal%2C%20fair%2C%20and%20sincere.

 

[stevevw]

I've heard situations where parents allow people to assault their children in return for money. It's very rare, thankfully, but it does happen.

Just because people allow this sort of thing doesn’t mean it’s a justified moral position. What we can say is that we can show that this is objectively wrong and reject any subjective claim that this is morally good. That’s unless you can give some justification for why its morally good to assault children.

But just saying a person has a subjective view and thinks this is morally good is no arguemnet for subjective morality. Because if we can show that this is objectively wrong then it becomes a broken objective law. Just like the same person may claim they disagree with the law on this matter. It just means someone is legally wrong and they havent created a new subjective law where its OK to assulat kids.

It's subjective, because the ideas of what is moral or not will depend on the opinions of those in the society.

But you were saying that people in our society see things a certain way because of the society they live in and not because of their personal view. Therefore their relative situation (the society they live in) has a bearing on how they see things.

Your society’s moral norms that are determined by your society’s culture, environment, traditions, politics, and beliefs etc. is relative to you. Another person’s society which may have different culture, beliefs, politics, and customs will be relative to them (from where they stand).

It’s not subjective but rather relative morality because people in that society are influenced by the same outside force of their societal moral norms whereas subjective morality is more about individual views or opinions within the borders of that. So you could say subjective morality comes from the inside to the outside of a person and relative morality comes from outside to inside of the person.

There are always going to be people who think that what is good for them will be good for everyone. A person can hold a moral view and think that since it works for them, everyone should hold the same view, but that doesn't make it objectively true.

Yes it is objective because the person themselves is trying to promote a moral position that only applies to them onto other people. That is saying I know the ultimate truth about morality that it’s objectively true enough to apply to other people. Objective morality means beyond the human so taking a personal moral view from within and applying it outside the person makes the moral objective.

Doesn't stop a person from holding such a view and still thinking it's objectively moral.

Yes but if they are claiming subjective/relative morality they can claim that their personal morals are objective truth for themselves. But the moment they then push their views onto others like they should also live by their morals they are taking an objective moral position beyond themselves.

That contradicts the subjective moral position and shows that subjective/relative morality is actually impossible to live by and that people know that there are moral truths that apply to everyone (once again lived moral experience cannot be denied). It keeps exposing the hypocrisy of a subjective/relative morality in secular society.

I don't see how thinking other people should share your opinion makes that opinion objectively moral.

But isn’t subjective morality about what you think is right. If you have another person standing next to you they will have their subjective opinion on what is right and wrong which may be different to you. How can you then say to that person they should hold the same moral view as you and deny their personal moral view? That contradicts the very idea of subjective morality.

As someone mentioned (likes and dislikes with food), it’s would be like someone who likes peas saying to another person they should also like peas and they are wrong for not liking them. Its a sort of enforcement. What they should say is "in my opinion peas are the best to eat" or in my opinion execution is wrong.

A person living in a large European city may hold a certain moral viewpoint, and so think that this moral viewpoint should be applied to the man living in a tribe in the Amazon. The city man may believe that his viewpoint is objectively true, which is why he feels justified in trying to apply it to the Amazon man. But that doesn't make it an objectively true viewpoint, even if he thinks it does.

It does if subjective morality is only about the subject (person) who holds the view. If he is truly a subjectivists or a moral relativist for that matter he should be saying “I have my view and someone over in the Amazon will have a different view because they have different beliefs, customs and culture and have a right to their different view”. In that way they are being true to their relative moral position.

In short, living like there is an objective morality doesn't mean there is an objective morality.

Actually its what is called moral realism and an arguemnet can be made from experience that we intuitively know certain morals are real and true for everyone because when lived they stand on their own and cannot be denied. You can make a case that trying to contradict them is objectively wrong.

Its a bit like we intuitively know our physical world is real and an arguemnet can be made that because we accept what we percieve with our sense is real and true until someone proves otherwise. Its the same logic with morali realism.

 

[o_mlly]

"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."

Assuming you are not intentionally being nonsensical:

How rapists should be punished is subjective. "No one should rape" is objective. The former is not universal, the latter is universal.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Nope. In post #381, I disagreed with your claim that you had answered the question on the morality of Dkaih and Saobi. You continued to attempt to muddle the moral definitions with legal ones. So, here's another chance to directly answer the same questions:

Is it ever moral for anyone, at any time, or any place to commit Dkaih or Saobi?

 

[Ken-1122]

Nope. In post #381, I disagreed with your claim that you had answered the question on the morality of Dkaih and Saobi.

My bad, it was post #380 that I answered your question; #381 was your reply to my answer.

Is it ever moral for anyone, at any time, or any place to commit Dkaih or Saobi?

Again; No. Those acts are always immoral.

 

[Ken-1122]

How rapists should be punished is subjective. "No one should rape" is objective.

What makes one subjective, and the other objective?

 

[stevevw]

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.

I don't think you understood what I meant. I am saying people live out morality like its objective and contradict their subjective moral position.

So if you apply the subjective taste example This would show that a person who claims they like chocoalte and that chocolate is the best tasting food will react like chocolate is horrible when someone gives them some choclate. Their claimed subjective view of chocolate is contradicted when they actually live out eating chocolate. So the truth is in living the morals not verbally claiming them.

But food is a poor comparison to objective morality being something within humans because as food tastes cannot be something natural within people. Taste can change and can be aquired whereas objective morality doesnt change and is not aquired. Plus right and wrong don't equate to taste likes and dislikes. Its not morlaly wrong to hate chocolate.

So applying lived morality to objective morality being something within all of us is like someone who claims that stealing is OK because it helps the poor. But when a poor person steals their car they react like stealing is wrong and the thief should go to jail.

Or how people on social media say that morality is subjective and theres no moral truth. That people have a right to their personal views on morality and no one should condemn others for their moral views. But then the same people critisize and troll a high pofile case where someone was busted for doing something wrong.

The point is these people are contradicting their own subjective moral position and are acting like morals are objective when faced with having to live out those moral situations in real life. Its like something inside them took over (like the monkey on the shoulder or your conscience) and is telling the person what is the real and true morality even to the point of making the person go against their own moral position like their moral views were not how they really felt about morality when faced with a real moral situation.

Now here is what I think is the most pertinent point. Because this force or voice or whatever you want to call it inside people is bubbling up and being released outside people and into the world and because in real lived moral situations it often contradicts peoples personal views (like it takes them hostage). Because in lived situations these moral truths cannot be denied and must be applied or the consequences are too great.

This must be something independent of people, it doesnt come from the person because it goes against the persons personal views. The person gets caught out and their true moral beliefs come flooding out. Its like another person taps them on the shoulder and speaks out opposing the persons verbally claimed moral position. This shows that this is not from the perosn but is a knowledge of something beyond them, a truth if you will, like a natural law that governs everyone that has been planted within people from outside.

 

[stevevw]

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,

I havnt said that as far as I recall.

or that everybody is entitled to their moral views is absurd.

So let me know if I am wrong on this. Under subjective morality if two people are at a table and they have different moral views is each person entitled to their own moral view. With all things being equal is there something that states when a person cannot have that view.

Does the idea of subjective morality mean that its a personal view of the person. Does that personal moral view say anything about the ultimate truth of morality outside the person or does this view only apply to the person. If the persons personal view on morality doesn't say anything about ultimate morality does that mean any personal subjective moral view is just like an expression of likes and dislikes for food.

If that is the case does that mean if two people sitting at the table had different views on chocolate where one person likes chocoalte and the other doesnt are each person entitled to their likes or dislikes for chocolate. If subjective moral views are 'likes and dislikes' and not really about moral values then does that mean under subjective morality there is no moral right and wrong for society in an ultimate truthful kind of way.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Assuming you are not intentionally being nonsensical:

How rapists should be punished is subjective. "No one should rape" is objective. The former is not universal, the latter is universal.

How is the former not universal? It applies to all rapists everywhere everywhen.

Universality is whether the statement applies to everyone everywhere everywhen or not. It is just about the form of the moral statement. It has no connection to being objective or not. Or true, since any universal statement can just have a not thrown in to make it its own opposite, which is also universal.

"One should never get an abortion." <-- universal moral statement
"One should always get an abortion." <-- universal moral statement
"One should never get an abortion, unless it's my teen aged daughter whose life would be ruined by having a child out of wedlock -- in that case, it's morally okay." <--- not universal
"One should never enslave people, unless it's back in old-timey days, and then it was morally okay." <---not universal

I don't see that punishment makes any difference in moral statements, but consider my second statement:

"If a woman dresses a certain way, it is morally permissible to rape her. No matter who, where, when."

It is a universal statement about the morality of actions of any people similarly situated.
Some people profess to believe the statement to be true.

I disagree with them, and can marshal arguments based on the moral assumptions on which my own worldview is based. But I see no way to objectively determine the answer. As a matter of objective fact. The way I can objectively determine whether a person is speeding on the freeway or whether a box is empty or not.

 

[Thera]

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.

You can't have morality without a foundation. If you reject the foundation (i.e. God and His revealed word), there is no morality. With the foundation (i.e. God and His revealed word), it doesn't matter which people or where in the world they live, people can consistently reach the same moral pronouncements.

Otherwise, it is essentially might is right.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So if you apply the subjective taste example This would show that a person who claims they like chocoalte and that chocolate is the best tasting food will react like chocolate is horrible when someone gives them some choclate.

What are you even saying? People who like chocolate like chocolate (and have no reason to lie about it to you or to themselves). Why would someone react like that?

But food is a poor comparison to objective morality ...

Well... that's why it's being used as a comparison to subjective morality.

Taste can change and can be aquired whereas objective morality doesnt change and is not aquired.

I daresay many people, myself included, have changed their minds about moral issues like homosexuality and other hot button issues of the day. We certainly see that people acquired moral beliefs they did not have before, as they also may develop a taste for beer when it was noxious at first.

The point is these people are contradicting their own subjective moral position and are acting like morals are objective

Morality being subjective does not mean 'anything goes' and 'nothing matters'. If you don't like Brussels sprouts, you are not indifferent if someone serves you Brussels sprouts. If you don't like rape, you are not indifferent if people rape.

If that is the case does that mean if two people sitting at the table had different views on chocolate where one person likes chocoalte and the other doesnt are each person entitled to their likes or dislikes for chocolate. If subjective moral views are 'likes and dislikes' and not really about moral values then does that mean under subjective morality there is no moral right and wrong for society in an ultimate truthful kind of way.

It is important to keep in mind that morality is a separate kind of thing from the law.

But as a society, we the people (in a democracy) can set the laws to forbid things, including many of the things the majority finds immoral, like murder and rape and theft.

Some people may feel that theft is morally justified in some situations. But that has no effect on the law.

But laws are written by people. I don't think anyone would consider them objective facts of nature. Nor are they sure signs of morality. In various places and times, abortions have been both illegal and legal. This alone doesn't tell us anything about whether they are moral or not.

All of this is just to say. If morality is (in essence) subjective, this does not prevent society from having laws that apply universally.

 

[durangodawood]

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:

​

I think those 2 acts are immoral.

 

[TheWhat?]

What's further, post-Kantian developments completely distort the topic of objective vs subjective morality, in my opinion. I'll demonstrate.

Suppose Frank is a man who is asking himself "is it wrong to kill an innocent man?"

Suppose Frank also is not a rationalist. Frank cannot arrive at an infallible rational basis that would determine the morality of the act, and decides that killing an innocent man would violate his conscience for reasons that he cannot define, rationally.

After Kant:

"Subjective" means "in the mind." A rationalist might claim that Frank is adhering to a kind of subjective morality.

Before Kant:

"Subjective" has not yet taken on this meaning. As it pertains to a thing, it indicates that it is a thing that can be subjected or is subject. "Subjective" vs "Objective" is not nearly as scary of a topic, and to Frank, it is clear that he is not asking himself if the rightness of the act of killing an innocent man is subject to himself, as though he has some authority to make it so, rather, it is implied that he assumes it is not subject to himself by asking himself if the thing is right or wrong apart from his own determination. He assumes the truth is objective, and he applies his moral sense, conscience, in an attempt to discern the matter. Further, he has no qualms with the fact that sneaking a video game after 9 pm is wrong for his children to do after he has declared the fact that it is wrong to do so under his roof, nor does he have reason to worry that the truth of the matter is in fact partially subject to his authority.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You can't have morality without a foundation. If you reject the foundation (i.e. God and His revealed word), there is no morality. With the foundation (i.e. God and His revealed word), it doesn't matter which people or where in the world they live, people can consistently reach the same moral pronouncements.

Otherwise, it is essentially might is right.

So are you saying that ~70% of the world's population has no morality because they don't use the same source material as their "moral foundation" that you do?

 

[o_mlly]

Again; No. Those acts are always immoral.

So we agree that universally acts of Dkaih and Saobi are objectively immoral.

How is the former not universal? It applies to all rapists everywhere everywhen.

The statement, "No one should rape" is deduced as a conclusion certain from the premises, "Everyone has a right to their bodily integrity" and, "Everyone has an obligation to respect the rights of others".

Do you have a similar argument for your punishment of rapists? Or arguments for your other examples?

 

[o_mlly]

What makes one subjective, and the other objective?

See post #419.

I think those 2 acts are immoral.

So do I.