Is there Objective Morality?

[Ken-1122]

For example....?

My moral views on racism, abortion, and countless other moral issues is applied to everyone; I don't just apply them to myself.

 

[durangodawood]

My moral views on racism, abortion, and countless other moral issues is applied to everyone; I don't just apply them to myself.

Yes, I agree that opinions you apply universally are still subjective.

 

[o_mlly]

But not its objective nature.

Doesn't matter. We're attempting to go beyond the "objective / subjective" kinds of knowledge confusion.

Both kinds of knowledge aim toward the same end, ie., truth. If one arrives at truth then the source of that truth must be indisputable facts. Neither objective or subjective knowledge can claim certitude.

I submitted a deductive argument that concludes with certainty that "rape is immoral". Those who disagree must show the error(s) in the argument, if they are rational. Of course, those who are emotional about the thread will not do so. The deflection that some people do immoral acts, eg., still rape, does not defeat the argument.

Outlaw circumcision?

Implicit in the definition of rape is the use of violence. Violence involves subjecting one to an act which is against their express will. Is a haircut a violation of one's body integrity? No.

 

[durangodawood]

....Implicit in the definition of rape is the use of violence. Violence involves subjecting one to an act which is against their express will. Is a haircut a violation of one's body integrity? No.

I asked you about a proposed "right to bodily integrity".

Circumcision would violate that, no two ways about it. Removal of a functioning body part. No consent, typically.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Doesn't matter. We're attempting to go beyond the "objective / subjective" kinds of knowledge confusion.

Well, that's the topic of the thread. So if you want to go beyond that, maybe you can do it in a thread about whatever it is you want to talk about.

Implicit in the definition of rape is the use of violence. Violence involves subjecting one to an act which is against their express will.

A baby can't express its will; we can't just assume. Similarly, a drunk sorority girl.

 

[Kylie]

You said that if everyone knows objective morals then they should follow them. I am saying that just because people know objective morality doesn’t mean they will follow them. Thats pretty simple and straight forward.

And doesn't fit in with anything else that is objectively true.

Can you show me anything else that is objectively true that people reject for a good reason?

That wasn’t what we were debating about. You were saying if God is declaring moral laws then this is just like a government declaring societies laws. I am just saying your analogy is wrong as God doesn’t declare morals he is the moral law. I was saying your analogy and comparison is wrong.

Special pleading.

You were using evolution as a reason for how morality came about and that we don’t need an external source beyond humans. I am saying evolution does not explain why we ought to be good; it only describes how morality came so it is not a valid explanation for morality in the first place.

There is no basis for assuming that there is an "ought" anywhere in there.

That’s a non sequitur. It doesn’t follow that morals are subjective and that there are no objective morality just because we see varying moral views good, bad and ugly.

Please, then, show me something that we both agree is objective that also has similar levels of acceptance.

I wasn’t posting this to support objective morality but to counter your claim that evolution explains morality.

And yet you didn't explain how evolution is unable to account for morality. Evolution can easily explain social behaviors just the same way it can explain physical characteristics.

But if I did want to make a point that supports objective morality we could say that despite evolution not being able to explain morality or any other subjective position people act like morals are objective.
They act like there are certain right and wrong morals in the world beyond them, not created by humans through evolution. They appeal and live morality like it is stating something true beyond them. So evolution or any other explanation for subjective morality is inadequate for explaining how humans actually live out morality.

Evolution can explain morality.

People acting like their subjective beliefs are objective facts does not make those subjective beliefs are objective facts.

If that’s the case then what C. S. Lewis and anyone else does in protesting and condemning moral wrongs like they are truths out in the universe is all just an illusion, a meaningless waste of time because they don’t really equate to something really right and wrong but just a reflection of personal opinion, preference, likes or dislikes similar to tastes in food which can never be about something morally right or wrong in any real sense beyond the person.

So it would seem.

But the fact that people do live like morals are real beyond themselves, protesting and condemning others like there is real evil in the world shows that what we subjectively feel and what we intuitive know and therefore how we live out morals shows we live like morality is objective. The evidence is in our moral experience. We live like morals are subjective and as they say actions speak louder than words.

Again: just because people act like their morality is objective doesn't make it objective. I've said this twice already in this post, and I'm sure I've mentioned it several times previously. I hope I won't have to say it again.

You have just repeated the same example and are missing the point. How does that example devalue honesty as a moral? What is the moral that is applied to your scenario? Is it not to hurt fellow humans? As far as moral values are concerned your scenario is not about honesty anymore but about not hurting humans.

If we are to accept your position that honesty is a moral issue, then we can take it that you mean honest = good, dishonest = bad. Thus, by saying something untrue to my friend, I am being immoral. Or morally wrong, whatever you want to call it.

You might make the counter claim that any moral goodness I lose by being dishonest I regain by not hurting my friend, and so I would break even (or even come out ahead). But how do we measure morality like this? Deciding how much moral harm is done by being dishonest and how much moral good is done by not hurting my friend is a purely SUBJECTIVE decision.

This is where people get confused about objective morality by making it absolute morality like we must keep a value the same when circumstances change rather than seeing that because the circumstance changed the moral value relevant also changes.

How can you claim it is objective when you also admit that it varies for each and every different situation? Even if you want to claim it is objectively true in each unique situation, that would mean that different observers watching a particular situation would all reach the same conclusion about the morality of that situation, and that simply isn't true.

What you are talking about is absolute morality. What you are saying is that because killing is wrong then under objective morality we must not kill ever even if a crazed gunman is about to shoot an innocent child. But wouldnt that put the moralist in a difficult situation where they may be found guilty of allowing a life to be destroyed when they could have saved that life. Wouldn’t that make the moralist guilty of moral wrong?

If there is always an objective moral right and wrong for every changing situations shouldn’t there be a way out for the objective moralist in this situation. If sticking to morals strictly leads to being morally wrong as well then objective morality has to be flexible.

Therefore the objectively right thing to do in this situation is to save the child and if that may mean killing the crazed gunman in the process then so be it. Surely the killing of the crazed gunman is not the same as the killing of a child for fun.

But this in no way makes killing subjective because the allowance of killing the crazed gunman was only allowed because of a greater moral which was protecting/saving life when morally called to do so which was the objectively right thing to do. It wasn’t arbitrary to people’s personal views but followed an objective criteria (saving life).

So it is with Honesty.

Sounds like a way for you to call subjective morality "objective morality."

That’s because you keep equating absolute morality with objective morality. Objective morality is not sticking to being honest no matter what. That is absolute morality as the name says “you must stick to the same moral value absolutely without any compromise.

Whereas objective morality means that in any situations including changing circumstances there will be an objectively right or wrong things to do that are beyond human personal opinion. So long as it’s beyond human views it really doesn’t matter if Honesty is not always abided by.

Same comment.

Actually though it’s a little unreal as in any situation you may not have time to even think let alone try to be so perfectly good all round. But in fact you have just made a case for objective morality because under subjective morality there is no value moral scale towards better or more perfect because morals are just personal preferences and likes which say nothing about any ultimate better or worse moral state. You can only say to another person with a difference moral view that it’s just different and not better or worse.

It’s because you are introducing the idea that there is a better moral state to aim for which says there is an ultimate best moral state to measure things by. That’s objective morality and that is what I am talking about. So that can only happen under objective morality. So you have actually just explained objective morality.

You got what I was saying completely wrong.

The value judgements made by the two different people in my example are SUBJECTIVE in nature. Thus, the morality in the example is SUBJECTIVE.

No I haven’t said that Honesty can be immoral. You are getting things the wrong way around. Avoiding being honest because you may hurt someone doesn’t not make honesty immoral. IT just means avoiding being honest not because it’s bad but because a greater moral wrong would be committed which is hurting someone.

What about cases where a person tells a lie to avoid hurting someone's feelings? That is deliberate DIShonesty, not just avoiding saying something honest.

 

[Moral Orel]

Please, then, show me something that we both agree is objective that also has similar levels of acceptance.

How about climate change?

 

[Kylie]

How about climate change?

The science on climate change is pretty conclusive. The fact that various people look on YouTube at videos that tell them what they want to hear and then say the scientists have it wrong, and the fact that politicians act as though there is still uncertainty does not change the science.

Try again.

 

[Moral Orel]

The science on climate change is pretty conclusive. The fact that various people look on YouTube at videos that tell them what they want to hear and then say the scientists have it wrong, and the fact that politicians act as though there is still uncertainty does not change the science.

Try again.

Huh? Who's trying to change the science? You asked for an objective thing that people disagree on, why doesn't this match your criteria?

Even if you want to claim it is objectively true in each unique situation, that would mean that different observers watching a particular situation would all reach the same conclusion about the morality of that situation, and that simply isn't true.

See, it sounds like you think if something is objective, we'd all have the same belief about it. But we see that isn't the case with a lot of things, like climate change. Stuff can still be objectively true with widespread disagreement.

 

[stevevw]

Yes it is. We act like subjective things are objective and we are mistaken.

Ok if your bringing things back to morality rather than 'likes and dislikes' we can focus on this. But I am not sure you are understanding what is meant by "lived Moral Experience".

Usually when talking about morality it is the moral behaviour or the moral value applied to a situation being determined as right or wrong. Some people view moral acts as subjective where the determination of right or wrong is within the person (the subject) whereas others view the moral act as objective where determination of right or wrong is outside the person.

So people will either be subjectivist or objectivists when it comes to determing moral right and wrong and the two positions cannot be held at the same time.

So under a subjective moral position there is no ultimate moral truth outside the person and moral truth only applies to the person hold the moral view. So people’s subjective moral view says nothing about moral acts being ultimately right or wrong and therefore they cannot really condemn other peoples moral behaviour as ultimately wrong.

But what seems to happen a lot is that people with subjective moral views take the position that the wrongs don’t by others or to themselves especially are ultimately wrong like they are a moral truth that applies to all. They don't just say "in my opinion or it’s my view" that the act is wrong. They send a truth out into the world beyond themselves like the act is wrong as a truth beyond themselves.

This is understandable because all people intuitively know that there are certain moral values that are like laws that we all must live by and cannot be justified as subjectively OK. So in reality people cannot proclaim a subjective moral position while at the same time wanting to claim moral truths beyond themselves that apply to all people. That’s a contradictory position to take and is unworkable.

 

[stevevw]

No; my moral views on racism, abortion, and countless other issues can have an affect on anyone who talks to me.

Do you mean have an effect. The point is with subjective morality is that you can tell me that what I did was morally wrong and I can just say "that doesnt mean much as its just your opinion and not a moral truth outside yourself to give it any weight". That would be the same for everyone. Subjective morality only tells others about the subject and what they prefer, like, believe, view and doesnt proclaim any truth beyond the subject.

If someone else provides a compelling argument proving my views wrong to my satisfaction, this will change my views based on how someone else thinks

But to do that you would have to accept that there are moral facts and therefore objective morals. Because for the other person to convince you they would have to come up with evidence beyond themselves. Otherwise you would just say "but thats just you own opinionated arguemnet without any basis".

Subjective morality is about right vs wrong. If we assume you like that which is right and dislike that which is wrong, I guess in a round-about way it can be seen as likes and dislikes.

Thats why so many compare subjective morality to 'likes and dislikes' because its about what the subject prefers, believes and views what morality is. 'Likes and dislikes' are closely related because they are also about what the subject prefers, believes, 'likes and dislikes' about anything like food, behaviour, colours, cloths, social settings, relationships ect.

 

[stevevw]

The science on climate change is pretty conclusive. The fact that various people look on YouTube at videos that tell them what they want to hear and then say the scientists have it wrong, and the fact that politicians act as though there is still uncertainty does not change the science.

Actually this is an interesting comparison for subjective and objective morality. Climate change is a contentious issue IMO and though there is some scientific evidence like temperatures are rising, ice caps are melting, weather is becoming unstable these are indirect supports its not conclusive that human made behaviour is totally responsible.

So this opens the door for speculation, climate change deniers and extreme claims like oceans will rise 100 feet by 2020 which hasn’t happened. So there is a case for legitimate denial of some of the claims and this muddies the waters as to what is truth or not.

So even though we can use science to find some objective facts about climate change there are a lot of unknowns so people will have varying subjective views. So applied to morality we can say that there are objective moral values but people will still have subjective views and finding the objective truth like climate change can be hard sometimes but it doesn’t mean there is no moral truths.

 

[Kylie]

Huh? Who's trying to change the science? You asked for an objective thing that people disagree on, why doesn't this match your criteria?

Because you will find people to disagree on ANYTHING if you're willing to include nutjobs. Don't you think it's a better idea to keep it limited to rational people?

See, it sounds like you think if something is objective, we'd all have the same belief about it.

Yeah, like how we all agree 1+1=2, or how we all agree on the shape of the moon, or that Jurassic Park was a movie about dinosaurs....

But we see that isn't the case with a lot of things, like climate change. Stuff can still be objectively true with widespread disagreement.

In my example, I specifically said that I was talking about two different people both watching the same situation can reach two different conclusions.

To apply this to the climate change analogy, it would be like two different people looking at the way the climate is changing and one says it's getting hotter and the other says it's getting colder. It just doesn't happen.

The way two different people both watching the same situation can reach two different conclusions about the morality of it is exactly the same as how two different people both watching the same movie can reach two different conclusions about it - they are forming different subjective opinions.

 

[Kylie]

Actually this is an interesting comparison for subjective and objective morality. Climate change is a contentious issue IMO and though there is some scientific evidence like temperatures are rising, ice caps are melting, weather is becoming unstable these are indirect supports its not conclusive that human made behaviour is totally responsible.

So this opens the door for speculation, climate change deniers and extreme claims like oceans will rise 100 feet by 2020 which hasn’t happened. So there is a case for legitimate denial of some of the claims and this muddies the waters as to what is truth or not.

So even though we can use science to find some objective facts about climate change there are a lot of unknowns so people will have varying subjective views. So applied to morality we can say that there are objective moral values but people will still have subjective views and finding the objective truth like climate change can be hard sometimes but it doesn’t mean there is no moral truths.

Thank you for proving my point.

The scientific consensus is that climate change is greatly due to man made effects. Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

Among the scientists who actually study it, it is not contentious at all.

It seems that being sure that a particular issue has one objective truth (perhaps that there is an objective morality, or perhaps that there is contention regarding climate change) can be wrong, no matter how certain the people are who hold that opinion.

 

[o_mlly]

Circumcision would violate that, no two ways about it.

? Of course there are two ways about it: willed and un-willed. The former is non-violent; the latter violent. By definition, there is no such act as a non-violent rape.

Well, that's the topic of the thread. So if you want to go beyond that, maybe you can do it in a thread about whatever it is you want to talk about.

Thank you. If the truth of the matter is known then all modes of knowledge must be in agreement.

Because you cannot refute my argument, your response confirms the truth of my argument: rape is universally, objectively and (if properly understood) subjectively an immoral act.

 

[Ken-1122]

Do you mean have an effect. The point is with subjective morality is that you can tell me that what I did was morally wrong and I can just say "that doesnt mean much as its just your opinion and not a moral truth outside yourself to give it any weight".

The same for objective morality.

That would be the same for everyone. Subjective morality only tells others about the subject and what they prefer, like, believe, view and doesnt proclaim any truth beyond the subject.

The same for objective morality. The only difference? They can’t even prove their subject exist!

But to do that you would have to accept that there are moral facts and therefore objective morals. Because for the other person to convince you they would have to come up with evidence beyond themselves. Otherwise you would just say "but thats just you own opinionated arguemnet without any basis".

Exactly! In other words, in order for me to believe you, you will have to provide more than an empty claim, and a bunch of excuses. Is that too much to ask? I don't think so.

Thats why so many compare subjective morality to 'likes and dislikes' because its about what the subject prefers, believes and views what morality is. 'Likes and dislikes' are closely related because they are also about what the subject prefers, believes, 'likes and dislikes' about anything like food, behaviour, colours, cloths, social settings, relationships ect.

The same for objective morality. The difference, they can’t provide any evidence that their subject even exists! At least I exist.....

 

[Ken-1122]

Thank you for proving my point.

The scientific consensus is that climate change is greatly due to man made effects. Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

Among the scientists who actually study it, it is not contentious at all.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/ther...-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/

 

[durangodawood]

? Of course there are two ways about it: willed and un-willed. The former is non-violent; the latter violent......

Yes. I was talking about the typical practice of infant circumcision. I should have mentioned that. My fault.

I do think we should recognize a right to bodily integrity.

 

[stevevw]

In a legally free society, each person is LEGALLY entitled to their own moral views. But we are not talking about legislation, we’re talking about morality. Though legally they are entitled to their own moral views, morally they are not.

Why is that. If subjective morality is about how one sees morality personally and doesn't hold any moral weight beyond the person then how can they be denied a moral opinion. Theres no reason they can't.

You are sort of making a case for objective morality. Because saying people are not morally entitled to hold moral views means there must be some moral truth that we can use to determine/measure this by.

Actually it does because people will have different moral views even if they believe morality is objective. If morality were objective, everyone would agree on morality the same way everyone agrees with math, colours, or anything else objective.

Because people don't agree with objective facts in science doesn’t mean there are no objective fact to be found. In complex maths equations there can be more than one answer or people arrive at the wrong answer because of assumptions but believe it to be true.

Newton thought he worked out gravity but Einstein came along and found a different way to view it. But while he was developing his relativity theory there were others who had their own versions and disputed Einstein. Some still do today. Even Einstein thought he was wrong at one and became disappointed in himself.

So though scientists may have different views on the natural world and may not fully understand things and thus come up with different ways of perceiving reality/Natural world doesn’t mean there is not an objective fact out there to be found. They just haven’t worked it out yet.

It’s the same for morality. Just because people have different views on morality doesn't mean there is no objective moral truths. It just may be we don't understand or tune into how moral realism works or are blinded by various influences like bias or self-interest.

True! And that would be the case if they believed morality were objective as well.

The difference is though if a person holds an objective moral position then they can claim that the moral system they believe is correct can also apply to the other person regardless of their subjective moral views. That’s because the objective moral laws have been determined outside humans and is an independent law.

Whereas under subjective moral system the person can only say “in my opinion or it is my view” that what you are doing is wrong. That’s because a subjective moral position only applies to the person holding that moral system and has no truth outside the person.

No it isn’t an opinion, it’s an objective demonstratable fact. If you are incapable of thinking, you are incapable of having a moral view.

Didnt you claim that "Morality does not exist outside of sentient beings; so what do you mean by outside of the person?"

I asked how can you objectively know that morality doesn't exist outside sentient beings. How can you demonstrate this claim. People are capable of thinking and reasoning to determine what is morally right and wrong. They intuitive know certain morals are truths apply to everyone.

When a person walks down the street and sees a women or child being abused or someone snatching on old ladies handbag they don't just walk on by thinking "Oh well the attacker must have different morals that allows him to do that. They know that the attacker should be stopped because its morally wrong. The real question is can you show that peoples intuitions about morality are wrong.

No, there is no ultimate morality, there are lots of ultimate truths; don’t confuse the two.

What do you mean by ultimate truths. What do they apply to.

Our intuition of moral objective is self evident. It is understood by our senses and appears in the way we live like morality is objective. There are also different arguements for objective morality.

Intuitionism in Ethics
One of the most distinctive features of Ethical Intuitionism is its epistemology. All of the classic intuitionists maintained that basic moral propositions are self-evident—that is, evident in and of themselves—and so can be known without the need of any argument.
Intuitionism in Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Intuitionism teaches three main things:
1) There are real objective moral truths that are independent of human beings.
2) These are fundamental truths that can't be broken down into parts or defined by reference to anything except other moral truths.
3) Human beings can discover these truths by using their minds in a particular, intuitive way.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intuitionism_1.shtml

An arguement from Epistemic Realism
How can a moral skeptic prescribe epistemic ‘ought’s’ while rejecting moral ‘ought’s’?
Premise 1: If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
Premise 2: Epistemic facts do exist
Conclusion 1: Moral facts do exist.
Premise 3: If moral facts do exist, then realism is true.
Conclusion 2: Moral realism is true.

Epistemics is almost identical in how morality operates.
For example, if someone replies to this post with an argument for moral relativism/subjectivism and I decide to reply they will assume that epistemic duties must be present in our debate. They will assume that I ought not misrepresent their argument and pretend to have refuted them. I cannot rely on logical fallacies; I should be honest in what I say and not lie. The moral skeptic assumes these things ought to be done in a philosophical debate.
They will prescribe epistemic duties such as the above and believe they should be kept and abided by.

If something is factual, it has to be applied to everybody. A moral view is not applied to everybody

Under moral realism certain moral values are factual. It applies to everybody because its like a law. In certain lived moral experiences such as any interaction between people seeking a truth matter there will be undeniable moral truths that have to apply regardless of personal moral view. Thats my understanding of objective morality anyway. Seems pretty plausable.

I will respond to the rest later

No worries.

 

[stevevw]

Thank you for proving my point.

The scientific consensus is that climate change is greatly due to man made effects. Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

Among the scientists who actually study it, it is not contentious at all.

It seems that being sure that a particular issue has one objective truth (perhaps that there is an objective morality, or perhaps that there is contention regarding climate change) can be wrong, no matter how certain the people are who hold that opinion.

But the important point for objective morality is that just because there are varying views and opinions about the observable world doesn't mean there is no objective fact in science or moral truth for morality to be found. Having subjective views on something factual in the science world shows this. As science determines things better a consensus is reached.

So therefore just like in science where we have to understand something better and then we determine the facts better. The same under moral realism we can get to understand how we act/react morally and determine if there are moral laws that apply independent of peoples personal views.