Is there Objective Morality?

[Moral Orel]

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

There is nothing special about negative claims, I already proved that. Just because some claims, positive or negative, are impossible to prove doesn't mean you're excused from the burden of proof ever.

Do you expect me to just accept your claim as true without you giving me a reason to or what?

You were on the right track earlier. You can't have experts on subjective things, that's true. But you need a whole separate argument to prove that morality is subjective first. That's the whole point in our discussion. We agree that morality is subjective, but you've chosen a bad route to that conclusion.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

The traits exist because of random changes to our dna. That natural selection is not a random process and that certain traits turn out to be beneficial doesn't change that fact. And whoa...no, I don't see survival as a goal of morality. Or anything else. The only aim of evolution is to stop you getting removed from the game. 'Hey, I didn't lose in this round' is the only success you'll ever have (assuming you took the opportunity to pass on a few genes).

If we'd have consciously made a decision to avoid something because we realised that it had a detrimental effect on the survival of the species - 'we will have a better chance of survival if we avoid X', then your point would be valid. We'd be determining what is good and bad ourselves. But we didn't. It's simply that the ones that were genetically disposed to think that there's nothing wrong with doing X were removed from the gene pool and the ones that were genetically disposed to prefer not doing X were left. So those genes, now distributed throughout all survivors are then predominent. So everyone prefers not to do X. And so class it as being wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

Playing the Devil's Advocate, I'd suggest that if God existed as generally defined then He wouldn't be making decisions on what is good. He would be goodness itself. But then I'm just repeating what some other have said. It makes no sense to me whatsoever. I'm not sure it does to most others either. Beats me that so much can be said about something that's defined as ineffable.

 

[zippy2006]

Do you have a particular definition of "objective" that you are using? Or "moral"?

And whoa...no, I don't see survival as a goal of morality. Or anything else.

This is the quote I had in mind when I claimed that you based morality on survival:

Those protocols we have termed morality. That is, how we should act (in order to survive).

---

The traits exist because of random changes to our dna. That natural selection is not a random process and that certain traits turn out to be beneficial doesn't change that fact.

You argued that the protocols of action that ought to be undertaken in order to survive have been termed "morality." You then went on to claim that since the evolutionary traits are random, they can't be objective.

Now one way that something can be considered objective is if it adheres to an objective rule or pattern. Random colors are not objectively blue, random numbers are not objectively prime, and random genetic traits are not objectively moral (or conducive to survival). But if I start with a random number generator and then apply a filter that discards all of the non-prime numbers, then what I will be left with is a set of objectively prime numbers. Similarly, the traits in question are not the set of all random traits, but rather the set of traits filtered by natural selection, and that filter produces something that is objectively moral (assuming your definition of morality which apparently relates to survival).

If we'd have consciously made a decision to avoid something because we realised that it had a detrimental effect on the survival of the species - 'we will have a better chance of survival if we avoid X', then your point would be valid. We'd be determining what is good and bad ourselves. But we didn't. It's simply that the ones that were genetically disposed to think that there's nothing wrong with doing X were removed from the gene pool and the ones that were genetically disposed to prefer not doing X were left. So those genes, now distributed throughout all survivors are then predominent. So everyone prefers not to do X. And so class it as being wrong.

I assumed that when you referred to the "social contracts that have been developed," these contracts were built on the groundwork that Evolution had already laid, since "Morality is a function of our evolutionary development." This would also dovetail with what you have said in the other thread, where you claimed that to say something is 'wrong' is to say that it will result in negative outcomes. The opposite of survival--death or extinction--seems to be an excellent candidate for a negative outcome.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Objectivity does not always bring consistency, eg., ask the "Flat Earth International Society" about this nonsense regarding a spherical earth.

Yes, reality is singular and independent of the thinking mind but all thinking minds seldom agree.

The objectivity of a claim is not dependent on universal consensus but on the validity of the argument offered in support. Can you defeat the arguments offered?

 

[Bradskii]

You argued that the protocols of action that ought to be undertaken in order to survive have been termed "morality." You then went on to claim that since the evolutionary traits are random, they can't be objective.

Now one way that something can be considered objective is if it adheres to an objective rule or pattern. Random colors are not objectively blue, random numbers are not objectively prime, and random genetic traits are not objectively moral (or conducive to survival). But if I start with a random number generator and then apply a filter that discards all of the non-prime numbers, then what I will be left with is a set of objectively prime numbers. Similarly, the traits in question are not the set of all random traits, but rather the set of traits filtered by natural selection, and that filter produces something that is objectively moral (assuming your definition of morality which apparently relates to survival)

Sure. It's an objective fact that we have these randomly generated characteristics that increase survivability (assuming that you accept the premise - and it's only a premise). And it's an objective fact that these characteristics have been selected for in the evolutionary process. But that just determines that which works. Which we call 'good'. It doesn't determine the morality of what we do. That's us trying to work out why we do what we do. That's us looking for meaning.

 

[Kylie]

Playing the Devil's Advocate, I'd suggest that if God existed as generally defined then He wouldn't be making decisions on what is good. He would be goodness itself. But then I'm just repeating what some other have said. It makes no sense to me whatsoever. I'm not sure it does to most others either. Beats me that so much can be said about something that's defined as ineffable.

I agree that it's rather meaningless to describe a specific entity as an abstract quality like "Goodness."

 

[Kylie]

Objectivity does not always bring consistency, eg., ask the "Flat Earth International Society" about this nonsense regarding a spherical earth.

Yes, reality is singular and independent of the thinking mind but all thinking minds seldom agree.

The objectivity of a claim is not dependent on universal consensus but on the validity of the argument offered in support. Can you defeat the arguments offered?

The Flat Earthers are irrational. As I've said a few times, I'm taking it as rational [people doing this, so there is no personal bias introduced.

 

[o_mlly]

The Flat Earthers are irrational. As I've said a few times, I'm taking it as rational [people doing this, so there is no personal bias introduced.

It appears that you will not address the arguments directly pointing out some irrationality in the premises or conclusions. I presume, therefore, that you believe that either rape is moral or rape is only subjectively moral, correct? If either is your position then will you state an argument indicating the circumstances and the rationale that allows one to conclude that to rape is moral? After all, we're dealing with rational people, right?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Can you defeat the arguments offered?

The premises in my argument are not assumptions but demonstrable facts. Simply defeat the argument that rape is intrinsically evil.

• All innocent human beings have a right to their bodily integrity.
• All others have a reciprocal obligation to respect the rights of others.

Still waiting for your demonstration of these facts.

 

[o_mlly]

Still waiting for your demonstration of these facts.

Note that I obtained agreement of the truth of number 1 before arguing from it. However, you may make your case against this reformulation:

Number 1 is self-evident. One cannot rationally hold the contradiction of a self-evident truth. Do you?
Number 2 logically follows from Number 1. Are you logical?​

 

[essentialsaltes]

Number 1 is self-evident.​

That's not much of a demonstration. Having a demonstration would get us much closer to having some sort of objective basis. Like seeing a feather and a stone fall at the same rate in a vacuum. That gives us insight into how things really are.

 

[o_mlly]

That's not much of a demonstration. Having a demonstration would get us much closer to having some sort of objective basis. Like seeing a feather and a stone fall at the same rate in a vacuum. That gives us insight into how things really are.

Suggest you look up the definition of a self-evident truth.

 

[partinobodycular]

There's one thing who's decisions concerning "Good" and "Bad" are always objective... evolution. Probably because evolution doesn't really concern itself with such subjective terms as "good" and "bad". As far as survival of the fittest is concerned, if you survive you're good, and if you don't you're bad. No if's, and's, or but's about it.

Evolution never makes mistakes. It never makes the wrong choice, and therefore it's the perfect metric against which to measure good and bad.

 

[partinobodycular]

Number 1 is self-evident. One cannot rationally hold the contradiction of a self-evident truth. Do you?
Number 2 logically follows from Number 1. Are you logical?

Hmmm, then why is it that in Russell and Whitehead's "Principia Mathematica" it takes them until page 379 just to prove that 1+1=2?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Suggest you look up the definition of a self-evident truth.

OK, so your premise is not demonstrable.

 

[o_mlly]

OK, so your premise is not demonstrable.

? It is self-demonstrated.

 

[Kylie]

It appears that you will not address the arguments directly pointing out some irrationality in the premises or conclusions. I presume, therefore, that you believe that either rape is moral or rape is only subjectively moral, correct? If either is your position then will you state an argument indicating the circumstances and the rationale that allows one to conclude that to rape is moral? After all, we're dealing with rational people, right?

I believe that ALL moral issues are subjective, I have been very clear about this.

I have also clearly stated that there are things (such as rape) which cause objective harm.

 

[o_mlly]

I believe that ALL moral issues are subjective, I have been very clear about this.

I have also clearly stated that there are things (such as rape) which cause objective harm.

If all moral issues are subjective then rape is not objectively immoral. Yes?

Leaving out irrational persons (as we did with "Flat Earthers"), what rational argument can you offer to conclude that rape is ever a moral act?

 

[Ken-1122]

If all moral issues are subjective then rape is not objectively immoral. Yes?

Leaving out irrational persons (as we did with "Flat Earthers"), what rational argument can you offer to conclude that rape is ever a moral act?

The inability to provide rational arguments for something to be moral, does not make it objective immoral.