Is there Objective Morality?

[zippy2006]

I'm not talking about what's true or false, I'm talking about what's right or wrong. Nobody debates the issue of slavery by debating if the phrase "slavery is wrong" is a true statement or not, they just debate the issue of slavery.

There's no difference. "I think slavery is wrong," is the same as saying, "I think 'slavery is wrong' is true." You can't say slavery is wrong and think it is false that slavery is wrong.

Yes; in a debate (which we are having) in order for a moral issue to be objective, you have to be able to demonstrate the action as moral or immoral. I'm saying this can't be done, thus all moral issues are subjective.

And I replied that if it can't be shown to be moral or immoral, then you shouldn't go around trying to show people that it is moral or immoral. Then you said that it can be shown on the basis of "empathy, fairness, or kindness." But immediately afterwards you said it can't be shown by fairness, because "fairness is completely subjective." And round and round we go.

Like many atheists here, you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want morality to be subjective and slavery to be (objectively) wrong. You want fairness to be a legitimate basis to argue against slavery, and you also want fairness to be "completely subjective." This is a double standard.

You all have to make up your minds. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Bradskii]

It still doesnt equate because what we use to determine what works or not can be subjective. It may turn out that killing all old people because there is not enough resiurces to go around become the workable solution for humankind and therefore is the right thing to do.

For morality to be truely determined as what is right or wrong has to be measured by something outside humans altogether regardles of what humans use to determine what is right and wrong.

You either survive. Or you don't. You're dead. Or still alive. I don't think that can be described as subjective in any sense of the word. And even in fairly recent times, senicide has been practiced in some parts of the world:

'In the past some nomadic tribes of Native Americans and Eskimos, such as the Shoshone (Steward) and the Ahtna (De Laguna and McClellan), motivated by the need to move in pursuit of food and other necessities, felt the need to abandon the elderly—a practice known as senicide.' Euthanasia and Senicide | Encyclopedia.com

And infanticide is still practiced among many Amazon tribes.

If you're living in 'a state of nature' then it makes sense, although you and I would be appalled. But it's only because we have been able to control our own evolutionary path that this has changed. So we don't leave grandma out in the snow any more. But we remove her from society and put her away in a home instead.

Personally speaking, I think I might prefer the first option when the time comes. Or some modern version of it.

 

[Bradskii]

I think people exaggerate the differences. I think you will find that we all have a fairly similar view on the core moral values.

People confused misunderstandings about how morality was/is applied by different cultures and time. Just because we may have had a different understanding in the past for example that 'slavery was OK' doesn't mean that was an objective right moral position. We have since come to understand better the truth of slavery being morally wrong.

It is exactly the same for science. In the past people may have thought that the earth was flat but have since come to understand better that the earth is roundish. The point is in each example there is an objective truth to be found but people misunderstood or could not see that truth for different reasons at that time so were objectively wrong.

So just because another culture has a different view of morality doesn't mean they are morally right and cannot be shown to be objectively wrong. They may just misunderstand the truth.

The fact that for example that all the different nations of the world agreed that German officiers were guilty of war crimes despite their pleas that they were only following the orders and thought they were morally right to kill the Jews shows that we all know there are certain morals that apply to everyone regardless of culture.

The fact that you say you have come to change your moral values only shows that there must be a moral truth to measure that changing scale of morality. Otherwise its a meaningless thing as different morals in different times and places would just be 'different' and have no 'difference of value' because there wasn't any ultimate moral truth to use as the grounding.

That's a fair point. If morality is subjective then why is there a sense that we are 'improving' our moral views. If morality is objective then it could be argued that we are constantly approaching some moral ideal.

I think that the hard wired concept of what was good (that which worked) has been changing since we became more civilised (in the original meaning of the term). So we don't abandon the elderly. We don't make young children work long hours. Neither is necessary in the sense that it was in the past. So we're changing from a more instinctive application of concepts which led us to moral rules to a more modern one. It's a sense of realising 'Hey, it doesn't actually have to be like this any more'.

If a species lives long enough then it will go through changes as the environment changes. The changes aren't 'good' in themselves. They are simply a better fit. So if you've gone from a warm climate to a cold one then lots of fur is then 'good'. But not in objective sense that lots of fur is better than very little. I think morality might be like that. It's always a good fit for the environment in which we find ourselves, so we'll always consider it to be 'better' than it was.

 

[Bradskii]

...or accidentally sleep with a transgendered person.

Some women are so clumsy...

 

[Ken-1122]

There's no difference. "I think slavery is wrong," is the same as saying, "I think 'slavery is wrong' is true."

There is a difference because nobody talks that way. If you were like that guy from Hong Kong I would understand a language barrier, but you're from the US you should know this. In the US nobody debates the truthfulness of phrases, like slavery is wrong is true or false, they debate issues; like slavery is wrong or right. See the hoops you gotta jump through just to try to prove morality is objective?

And I replied that if it can't be shown to be moral or immoral, then you shouldn't go around trying to show people that it is moral or immoral.

No, you said if it can't be shown to be OBJECTIVELY moral or immoral. Of course it can be shown to be moral or immoral, just not objectively moral or immoral; because it can't be demonstrated as such.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Like many atheists here, you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want morality to be subjective and slavery to be (objectively) wrong.

It's just not true. Having recognized the subjective nature of reality, the only way things can be right or wrong is subjectively. So we are not trying to somehow promote our own preferences into objectivity -- we recognize that's just an unobtainable illusion. Nevertheless, we really do have preferences. And slavery is not among them. It is not required for it to be 'objectively' wrong in order to say it's wrong.

One of the great frustrations of this thread is the apparent inability of some people to truly grapple with and grasp the idea of morality being subjective.

Statement: Placenames are arbitrary human conventions that have no objective connection to the areas they describe in human discourse.

Response 1: If names are arbitrary then please produce a logical argument that Bloppity-boo is the real name that is objectively connected to the landmass we both agree is called Australia.

Response 2: And yet you invariably refer to that southern continent as Australia. When asked to name it when it's pointed out on a globe, you responded "That is Australia". You didn't say 'That is called Australia, but only in human terms'. You want your cake and to eat it too.

Response 3: If there is no objective fact-of-the-matter about placenames, then it is impossible to argue about whether Ayers Rock should be called Uluru or not.

 

[zippy2006]

There is a difference because nobody talks that way. If you were like that guy from Hong Kong I would understand a language barrier, but you're from the US you should know this. In the US nobody debates the truthfulness of phrases, like slavery is wrong is true or false, they debate issues; like slavery is wrong or right. See the hoops you gotta jump through just to try to prove morality is objective?

Dude, you are the one jumping through some crazy hoops. You're claiming that when someone claims slavery is wrong they don't think slavery is wrong. "Slavery is wrong" is a predication. It predicates "wrong" of "slavery." If the predication is thought to be true then we assert the predication. If someone does not believe it is true that slavery is wrong they should never say "slavery is wrong" (unless they are trying to lie to someone).

This is basic English.

No, you said if it can't be shown to be OBJECTIVELY moral or immoral. Of course it can be shown to be moral or immoral, just not objectively moral or immoral; because it can't be demonstrated as such.

How do you show something to be wrong without showing it to be objectively wrong?

 

[zippy2006]

It's just not true. Having recognized the subjective nature of reality, the only way things can be right or wrong is subjectively. So we are not trying to somehow promote our own preferences into objectivity -- we recognize that's just an unobtainable illusion. Nevertheless, we really do have preferences. And slavery is not among them. It is not required for it to be 'objectively' wrong in order to say it's wrong.

The problem is that you think other people should believe that slavery is wrong. You would never say that other people should believe that Brussels sprouts are disgusting.

As soon as you hold another person culpable for not believing a proposition, either that proposition is objectively knowable or you're a tyrant (for it is tyranny to claim that someone is at fault for something which cannot be known).

Statement: Placenames are arbitrary human conventions that have no objective connection to the areas they describe in human discourse.

More equivocation. You don't get angry with someone if they use the word Deutschland rather than Germany. You don't get angry with someone if they say they don't like Brussels sprouts.

But you do get angry with someone if they say slavery is good.

Slavery is not like a place name or Brussels sprouts. You are equivocating, and you are not even comprehending the argument I have given.

 

[Ken-1122]

Dude, you are the one jumping through some crazy hoops. You're claiming that when someone claims slavery is wrong they don't think slavery is wrong.

I didn’t say that. I’m saying when someone claims slavery is wrong, they are making a subjective statement; not an objective one.

How do you show something to be wrong without showing it to be objectively wrong?

By pointing out why you believe it to be wrong.

 

[zippy2006]

I didn’t say that. I’m saying when someone claims slavery is wrong, they are making a subjective statement; not an objective one.

By pointing out why you believe it to be wrong.

It's difficult to work through so many layers of misconceptions. Let's just do a redux of #737 and #741. Yes/no questions:

1. Do you believe slavery is wrong?
2. Do you have an argument against slavery?
3. Is your argument sound?
4. Is slavery objectively wrong?​

 

[Kupdiane]

List everything I said that you disagree about.

I disagree that this universe has any inherent truth, whether that be logic, morality or reason.

 

[Ken-1122]

It's difficult to work through so many layers of misconceptions. Let's just do a redux of #737 and #741. Yes/no questions:

1. Do you believe slavery is wrong?​

Yes I believe it is wrong

2. Do you have an argument against slavery?

I wouldn't want to be a slave, so I don't think someone should be forced into it against their will

3. Is your argument sound?

I think it is

4. Is slavery objectively wrong?

No nothing is objectively wrong; it's subjectively wrong.

 

[Kylie]

And presumably you would only legitimately argue about things that can be objectively verified, like the freshness of the ingredients or whether the food is burned? If the presentation is subjective then it is unable to be verified as good or bad, and cannot be argued about. So insofar as you (legitimately) argue about something, you think it is objectively knowable. I sure don't know why you would be arguing about things that are not knowable or not subject to truth and falsity.

Why can't I argue about subjective stuff?

My husband and I have argued many times over what to watch on TV, yet there is no objectively best option.

In any case, how can anyone argue over whether the food is burned or not? You really think someone's going to say, "The food is burned," and the other person will say, "No it isn't!" If it's objective, then shouldn't there be agreement?

Seems to me the only argument should be about the SUBJECTIVE things. For example, my husband likes his steaks very rare, I prefer mine medium to medium well. So a steak that is fine for me is burnt by his tastes, and what is fine for him is practically raw to my tastes. We've had arguments about that, and that's subjective.

 

[Ken-1122]

I disagree that this universe has any inherent truth, whether that be logic, morality or reason.

Truth in the Universe? What does that mean?

 

[Bradskii]

It's difficult to work through so many layers of misconceptions. Let's just do a redux of #737 and #741. Yes/no questions:

1. Do you believe slavery is wrong?
2. Do you have an argument against slavery?
3. Is your argument sound?
4. Is slavery objectively wrong?​

This is like Groundhog Day...

My argument will contain premises with which someone else would not agree. So my argument will be sound based on my premises but not so in the opinion of someone else. There are certain premises that some religious people hold to that those of a different religion - or no religion at all, would not. I would have thought that that was obvious.

So if someone holds that consequentialism trumps deontology, that's their personal opinion based on their view of how life should be lived. And someone who has the opposite opinion will reach different conclusions as to what constitutes a moral act.

And if a conclusion is formed on a premise that is based on opinion then the conclusion is subjective.

 

[Kylie]

I don't think building dams is morally good or bad and I don't think animals have morals.

Rats will free trapped rats and even save them some yummy treats. Rats free each other from cages - Nature

Nevertheless it doesnt matter as dam building or any survival behaviour says nothing about why they"ought" to behave that way.

As I've mentioned before, there's no reason to think that there must be an "ought" in there at all.

As I've also mentioned, behavior is just as open to selection as physical traits, and any behavior that increases the likelihood of the individual surviving long enough to pass on genes - such as a social creature behaving in a way that helps the social group survive - is going to be selected for.

Once again evolution is just a description of something and not a prescription. You mayt say its good that bats share food but bats sharing food doesnt equate to being morally good. According to the experts this is just a survival extinct.

And why shouldn't we see morality as the same thing? Seems likely to me that in a small group of Humans struggling to survive, an individual who acted immorally would put the entire group at risk. Those who acted morally would be of benefit and would help the group survive.

But you used evolution to account for why people act morally. So you are the one assuming morality by evolution says something about what is actually right and wrong.

Otherwise it is as I said not really about moral right and wrong but survival or preferences for example "I prefer you not act that way" which says nothing about moral right and wrong.

There is no objectively right and wrong.

But there is objectively helps the group to survive and objectively makes it harder for the group to survive.

No because God is not subject to moral laws, He is the moral law. He is the moral values that make up the law such as Love, Kindness, Fairness, Justice, Generousity ect.
God is the ultimate stopping point for what is good so if he was subject to the moral law then He could not be the ultimate stoppoing point and not God.

I don't see how an entity of any nature can be an abstract concept like moral values.

But if evolution is not really about moral right and wrong then it explains nothing about morality in any true sense of the world beyond humans. If thats the case then it explains nothing about morality full stop.

"...in any true sense of the world beyond Humans."

In other words, you are saying that evolution can't account for objective morality. That's not a problem for me, since I have never claimed that there is any objective morality. In fact, I have always argued that morality is SUBJECTIVE, and evolution can easily account for that.

Are you honestly saying that Bats share food because its morally good. As mentioned animals don't have morals and sharing food or humans helping each other out according to evolutionists is about survival, helping that species genes make it to the next generation.

Well, the bats won't help those individuals who beg for food but refuse to give it when they are begged. Sounds like the bats have some kind of morality if they decide, "Hey, that guy's a greedy one. He takes food from others, but he never helps out when he's asked! So let's stop helping him!"

Otherwise how can we explain how animals will kill each other for food, often in horrifiec and inhuman ways, how species will kill their own babies for survival and competition ect. But once again al this says nothing about why anyone ought to act a certain way. Who says that the survival of a species is good, who says that Bats sharing food is good.

It's almost like the morality of other species that do not face the same social requirements as us turns out rather different....

Not if the reaction and lived morality or the moral value that applies to the situation is one particular moral rather than any moral value.

This is argument from popularity. It's not a valid line of reasoning.

Just because a moral viewpoint is widespread, does not make it objective.

If there was no ultimate moral truth then any subjective moral truth could be lived like it was really true because there would be varying moral truths that all stand valid. So torturing babies for fun would be just one of many acceptable moral reactions/actions.

But the reality is you cannot have may truths and there is only one truth and that is what people often live like (they react like torturing baies is morally wrong) in a way that does not allow for any other moral position.

Which is perfectly explainable through evolution - we have evolved that kind of moral behaviour because killing babies is harmful to our social units.

Why when its the truth. As mentioned above if there is only one set of moral truth values then it would be expected that people live like that (they could not help but live like that). They may reject that truth on occassions but that truth will keep being reflected in peoples reactions.

I've have presented an explanation that covers everything. Your claim that it's the truth is not supported.

The arguement for lived objective morality is not just based on quantitative evidence, the act itself (just because people live like objective morality doesnt = objective morality) but on qualitative evidence. Its because of the way they live like moral values have truth beyond them. Moral situations don't make sense without that objective moral truth.

You've not presented anything that can't be explained with subjective morality.

Look at it this way when people claim something is morally wrong they have to be expressing a truth beyond themselves. Otherwise if was just a subjective view like "I think its wrong" or "In my opinion its wrong" then this has no weight and says nothing about it really being wrong. Its just like saying "I think chocolate cake is nice". That says nothing about it really being nice and when it comes to mroality people want to really make truth claims about what is right and wrong.

I don't see why subjective opinions would carry no weight. My husband has said things to me using subjective arguments that have changed my mind.

So I honestly don't understand why you think that subjective means "it's just an opinion, so who cares."

 

[zippy2006]

This is like Groundhog Day...

Tell me about it. Just so everyone knows, the positions that you all are holding do not exist in academic moral philosophy. This level of incoherence doesn't survive in academia. Take it for what you will.

My argument will contain premises with which someone else would not agree. So my argument will be sound based on my premises but not so in the opinion of someone else.

You apparently still do not know what soundness is. A sound argument has true premises. When something is true, it is true for all, not just for some.

And if a conclusion is formed on a premise that is based on opinion then the conclusion is subjective.

No, in that case the conclusion is merely probable rather than certain. But moving from certainty to probability does not get you out of the pickle of objectivity.

 

[zippy2006]

I wouldn't want to be a slave, so I don't think someone should be forced into it against their will

I think it is

Your argument is not sound. Just because you don't want to be a slave doesn't mean slavery shouldn't exist.

But if your argument was sound then it would be sound for everyone, and could be used to show anyone that slavery is wrong. There is no such thing as a "subjective argument." Arguments are based on reasons, and reasons are by definition accessible to all.

Arguments are like science. We have data which proves that the Earth is round. The scientific arguments which take that data and prove the Earth is round are true for everyone, not just for some. Just because someone does not follow an argument does not mean it is unsound or its conclusion is not true.

 

[Bradskii]

You apparently still do not know what soundness is. A sound argument has true premises. When something is true, it is true for all, not just for some.

To use an example: Five lives are worth more than one. That's true for all. If you disagree then it doesn't make that statement false. It just makes you wrong.

 

[Kylie]

True. However, one can argue that an alternate definition better relates to the context in which the word is used.

True, but that must be shown, and it hasn't been in this case.

Do you hold that the earth is spherical is an objectively held claim?

It is roughly spherical. It is, obviously, not a perfect sphere.

What's your point?