Is there Objective Morality?

[Bradskii]

Actually studies have shown empathy is actually a very poor and unreliable moral guide. Its based on feelings which can be biased against some than others depending on our personal alliances, and even cause people to single out certain identity groups deserving of harm over others

Paul Bloom argues that empathy is actually a very poor moral guide. He compiles evidence from a range of sources to show that empathy can be innumerate, biased, parochial and inconsistent and can push us towards inaction at best and racism and violence at worst.
Empathy is crucial to being a good person, right?

I think you're misinterpreting Bloom. Empathy is simply an ability that we have. It's morally neutral. It cannot be used as a guide as to how moral good or bad someone is likely to be - which is what Bloom meant. You can't say 'She has a great deal of empathy, therefore she is a morally good person'.

You can empathise with someone to the extent that you know what will make them depressed and then use that information to either avoid what will depress them or actively cause them to be depressed.

Even a psychopath can have a great deal of cognitive empathy. Which is certainly not a good thing if she's thinking about you. But the golden rule as Jesus espoused simply doesn't work without it. It's a requirement for morality in that sense.

 

[Moral Orel]

However, we can easily tell if they are INCONSISTENT with reality - which you've said they could never be.

No, we can't tell if they are inconsistent with reality because we don't have a complete picture of reality. Some things are unknown. We do not know whether or not a collapsing wave function is consistent with reality. And yet one of those propositions must be objectively true.

Just because it is true for that particular case, it does not mean it is true for every case.

Moving the goalposts. Again.

No, not every claim can be proved. The point was that there isn't anything special about negative claims, like you said. Not every positive claim can be proved either.

If you believe your claim for some reason, then you can tell me what reason there is to believe your claim is true. If you can't tell me what reason there is to believe your claim, then you believe things for literally no reason.

Again, you are asking me to prove a negative.

So what? I just demonstrated that proving a negative is possible, so why would you still be arguing this like it's a thing?

 

[Bradskii]

However, since we are discussing whether morality is objective or not, NOT whether morality comes from God, I am not obligated to assume a God as a provider of morality for the entire discussion.

I'm somewhat bemused by the fact that the question as to whether objective morality exists could even be debated at all in a Christian forum. Surely, if one believes in God then objective morality must exist. Almost by definition. God would know the right answer to all moral problems.

The only point of debate then becomes whether we can access it ourselves. And as we never could it becomes something of a moot question.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well

I'm somewhat bemused by the fact that the tion as to whether objective morality exists could even be debated at all in a Christian forum. Surely, if one believes in God then objective morality must exist. Almost by definition. God would know the right answer to all moral problems.

Well, that's just it. What does it mean for a god to "have the right answer"? If there is a "right answer", then the ability to tell that God has the right answer means we can evaluate the answer against some other standard. That is, God cannot be the source.

If he is the source, then like the idea that "God defines good" means saying "God is good" is simply to say "God is God" which is unhelpful. In the case of morality, to say that God knows the right answer implies a standard outside of God. To say that God is the source is to say God has a subjective opinion.

It's Euthyphro dilemma - Wikipedia all over again.

Hence the debate.

 

[o_mlly]

I'd say the subjective issues are matters of taste, and the objective issues are matters of fact.

What determines whether a claim is fundamentally fact or not? I think the difference is a factual claim has an attendant argument in support.

Examine the claim: Rape is objectively an immoral act.

If the argument begins with an experiential premise then one might cite the numerous scientific studies that demonstrate the manifold dysfunctional outcomes experienced by those who have been raped justifying labeling them as victims. The argument based on a posterior premise is an empirical fact and concludes to the fact that rape is objectively immoral.

If the argument begins with an a priori premise then one might propose that innately we know that an innocent person's has a right to their bodily integrity. (Note that the source for this first premise is not argued to be in God's design of human nature or acquired via evolution only that it is a fact.) The argument based on innate knowledge is a rational argument that concludes to the same fact, ie., rape is objectively immoral.

 

[Ken-1122]

That’s a non-sequitur. Just because we happen to not know the objective measuring stick right now for something doesn’t mean there is no objective measuring stick to be found.

In this case it does. If there were an objective morality measuring stick, by now mankind would have found it by now

I have already given examples of the objective measuring stick and as mentioned several times it doesnt have to be a physical measure based on the scientific method. It can be a logical arguement, a deductive conclusion.

All of your examples have been proven wrong

But there can also be scientific facts about morality. We can observe peoples behaviour and see how they respond to moral situations and if there is some independent moral values that apply regardless of peoples subjective views. I gave the example of Honesty and TRuth in debates seeking the truth of a matter.

Dispelled already

But we can also see that all people react a certain way despite their subjective views like if someone stole from them. They don't just accept that the perpetrator is justified to steal because thats the way they view morality. They react like its wrong and want justice.

The fact that they alone concluded this makes it their subjective view, not an objective view.

Even atheists have come up with an objective measure of morality like with Sam Harris's Moral Landscape in using Human Wellbeing as the scientific measure. Basically any act that harms human wellbeing is objectively wrong. We can measure how human wellbeing is harmed by science such as by medical examinations and psychological assessments.

Human wellbeing has never been a measure for right vs wrong, even if Sam Harris says it is.

BUt the reason the why the person is being the Devils Advocate is to find the truth. They are not being dishonest in a way that is deceptive because they usually ask questions rather than make claims. So therefore if there ios no Truth and Honesty involved then theres no sense in being a Devils advocate.

No, people play the devil’s advocate to sharpen their debating skills.

But you injected corporal punishment into my scenario. I never said someone was disciplining a child or women in the street by corporal punishment. I said they were being abused. Abused means beyond any controlled measure of punishment. Even if corporal punishment becomes abusive its still wrong because its 'abusive'.

What you call abuse, someone else will call corporal punishment. There is no agreed upon line to distinguish the two

 

[Ken-1122]

While I agree with pretty much everything else you said here, I disagree with this. Awareness is caused by brain activity, as is thinking. Since both of these take place within the brain, I would argue that consciousness is indeed within your head.

But this is getting off topic...

Thanks for pointing that out to me

 

[TheWhat?]

In this case it does. If there were an objective morality measuring stick, by now mankind would have found it by now

You're presuming mankind wants to find it -- a huge assumption.

 

[Ken-1122]

You're presuming mankind wants to find it -- a huge assumption.

If such a thing did exist, mankind would want to find it. There has never been anything mankind has not had an interest in discovering and learning about; morality included.

 

[Bradskii]

Well
Well, that's just it. What does it mean for a god to "have the right answer"? If there is a "right answer", then the ability to tell that God has the right answer means we can evaluate the answer against some other standard. That is, God cannot be the source.

If he is the source, then like the idea that "God defines good" means saying "God is good" is simply to say "God is God" which is unhelpful. In the case of morality, to say that God knows the right answer implies a standard outside of God. To say that God is the source is to say God has a subjective opinion.

It's Euthyphro dilemma - Wikipedia all over again.

Hence the debate.

The debate is like two people arguing over a pot of gold. One person is arguing that it doesn't exist and the other is arguing about the best way to find it.

 

[zippy2006]

Morality isn't some Platonic ideal that is waiting out there for us to discover. Morality is a function of our evolutionary development. How can it be objective if it was effectively brought about by random variations in our genetic make-up?

I would say: because the relevant evolutionary traits exist not primarily because of randomness, but rather because they turned out to be conducive to survival (which is what you see as the goal of morality).

To use your examples, if monogamy and outbreeding are beneficial to survival, then the prohibitions on polygamy/polyandry and incest are not "accidents of the evolutionary process." They are not accidental because evolution is about survival, and those prohibitions aid survival. Evolutionary morality seems to be objective insofar as it is based on the objectively measurable goal of survival.

 

[Kylie]

No, we can't tell if they are inconsistent with reality because we don't have a complete picture of reality. Some things are unknown. We do not know whether or not a collapsing wave function is consistent with reality. And yet one of those propositions must be objectively true.

Then we can never prove that they are consistent or inconsistent with reality, and as such they can tell us nothing. You better go tell the scientists and let them know that all their work is for nought.

Moving the goalposts. Again.

You're a very argumentative person, aren't you?

So what? I just demonstrated that proving a negative is possible, so why would you still be arguing this like it's a thing?

Okay, if proving a negative is as easy as you make it out to be, prove to me that there are no living leprechauns.

 

[Kylie]

I'm somewhat bemused by the fact that the question as to whether objective morality exists could even be debated at all in a Christian forum. Surely, if one believes in God then objective morality must exist. Almost by definition. God would know the right answer to all moral problems.

The only point of debate then becomes whether we can access it ourselves. And as we never could it becomes something of a moot question.

I would say that if something is moral just because God says it is moral, then it's still subjective. I mean, how does God know that it's moral? It's still just God stating his opinion as fact, right? And if it's an opinion - even God's opinion - then it's subjective, not objective.

 

[Kylie]

What determines whether a claim is fundamentally fact or not? I think the difference is a factual claim has an attendant argument in support.

Examine the claim: Rape is objectively an immoral act.

If the argument begins with an experiential premise then one might cite the numerous scientific studies that demonstrate the manifold dysfunctional outcomes experienced by those who have been raped justifying labeling them as victims. The argument based on a posterior premise is an empirical fact and concludes to the fact that rape is objectively immoral.

If the argument begins with an a priori premise then one might propose that innately we know that an innocent person's has a right to their bodily integrity. (Note that the source for this first premise is not argued to be in God's design of human nature or acquired via evolution only that it is a fact.) The argument based on innate knowledge is a rational argument that concludes to the same fact, ie., rape is objectively immoral.

If something is a fact, then it would have to be independent of any observers. The speed of light, for example is a fact because no matter who measures it, it's the same. The best cocktail you can order, however, is not a fact, because different people will get different results. Objectivity brings consistency.

 

[Moral Orel]

Then we can never prove that they are consistent or inconsistent with reality, and as such they can tell us nothing. You better go tell the scientists and let them know that all their work is for nought.

I don't know what the purpose of this is.

You're a very argumentative person, aren't you?

Ditto.

Okay, if proving a negative is as easy as you make it out to be, prove to me that there are no living leprechauns.

I don't prove what I don't claim. You don't prove what you do claim because you believe things for no reason.

 

[Kylie]

I don't know what the purpose of this is.

Ditto.

I don't prove what I don't claim. You don't prove what you do claim because you believe things for no reason.

So you make a big noise but can't live up to the hype. I'm done with you. You're rude and unpleasant.

 

[Moral Orel]

So you make a big noise but can't live up to the hype. I'm done with you. You're rude and unpleasant.

I proved a negative, that's all the noise I made. I don't need to prove any claim you dream up to show that you are incorrect to believe "It is impossible to prove a negative". When I point out that you believe things for no reason, I don't do so to be rude. I mean it literally. If you can't prove it, then you don't have a reason to believe it, yet you believe it anyways. Quite literally you believe it without reason. I wish people held less beliefs. It's okay to say "I don't know".

 

[Kylie]

I proved a negative, that's all the noise I made. I don't need to prove any claim you dream up to show that you are incorrect to believe "It is impossible to prove a negative". When I point out that you believe things for no reason, I don't do so to be rude. I mean it literally. If you can't prove it, then you don't have a reason to believe it, yet you believe it anyways. Quite literally you believe it without reason. I wish people held less beliefs. It's okay to say "I don't know".

And you assumed that because you did it for one you can do it for all.

 

[Moral Orel]

And you assumed that because you did it for one you can do it for all.

Nope, never said anything of the sort. In fact, I've already explicitly stated the opposite:

No, not every claim can be proved.

 

[Kylie]

Nope, never said anything of the sort. In fact, I've already explicitly stated the opposite:

Then it's unreasonable for you to now demand that I prove a negative.