Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

It's often said in forums such as this that the bible doesn't actually say 'do not kill'. The command is better translated as 'do not murder'. And the difference is obviously important, because killing someone could be done in a variety of circumstances, some justified and some not.

So the trolley problem doesn't ask 'should you murder this person to save five?' Because we understand the term murder to be used for an act that is considered wrong in the first instance. But murder is defined as killing 'with malice aforethought' (with no malice aforethought it's 'unlawful killing').

But as regards rape, there have been moves, fairly recently I think, where the grey areas have been removed. To the point where malice is not included and it has been defined simply as sexual intercourse without consent.

So o_mlly has picked a bad example to use as an example of objective morality because almost all reasonable people would say that a drunken married couple having sex - without her consent (the very definition of rape), is perfectly acceptable (hands up all those that haven't been in that position). Assuming of course that the wife would have readily agreed should she have been able to. So whether it's 'wrong' is entirely up to the subjective view of the woman.

What o_mlly has been doing is looking for an example of an act that we would all agree is wrong and then, and therefore, declaring it to be objectively wrong (and, as we have seen, suggesting that anyone who argues against that must think that the rape is acceptable). He would have been better served by asking if having sex with a woman (or man) against their will could be acceptable in any way.

But note the term 'against their will'. It is crashingly obvious that the act is wrong or not depending on how the person feels about it. It's wrong if she thinks it's wrong and acceptable if she thinks it's OK. When o_mlly asks if rape is acceptable, then what he is asking is whether having sexual intercourse when the woman doesn't want to is ok. If the woman is personally against it (and it doesn't matter if it's a gang of strangers or her husband) then it's wrong. If she's ok with it, it's not wrong. That makes it relative.

And I might note that whether it's a premise or a conclusion put forward promoting objective morality, the question is always asked in some form: 'Surely you agree with this?'

I'm actually being asked my opinion as to whether something is objective?

wasnt sure I understood this post properly. But I think upi asked me this one. I think you were establishing if there were varying degrees of any specific wrong ie 1st degree murder, and manslaughter ect, which I agreed.

But I fail to see how this does away with the possibility of there being an objective moral truth for each situation.

 

[stevevw]

That which is objective does not change because life is at stake, or for whatever reason you deem necessary. One thing that is objective cannot override something else that is objective; that would be as absurd as saying the objective existence of the tree on my front lawn is overridden by the objective need for sunshine on my lawn thus there is no shade under my tree. If it can be changed when you deem it necessary, that is by definition subjective.

There is no one objective overiding another objective. There can only be one objective in that situation like there can only be one "Truth" and that is the moral objective "to save life". There is no greater moral. It trumps not to lie.

Otherwise if there is going to be any absurd situation to be faced it is being faced with killing a bunch of Jews because you have to stick to some rigid rule (absolute morality) that doesnt apply anyway. That is no longer being moral. There has to be some way to do the most morally right thing to do in that situation. We must be able to find one because we act like there is one there to be found. So why not look for it at least. Seems the wise thing to do.

 

[Ken-1122]

There is no one objective overiding another objective. There can only be one objective in that situation and that is the one to save life. It trumps not to lie.

If the moral of saving a life trumps (overrides) the moral of lying, lying is not an objective moral because one objective moral cannot over ride (or as you call it "trump") another objective moral

 

[Bradskii]

She's at the Birkenhau camp in Auschwitz. She says, "I'm fine. The friendly camp counselors have just told me it's my turn to have a nice warm shower."

Then she's either keen on getting killed, in which case she'll think it's a good outcome as far as she is concerned or she doesn't know what's about to happen, which makes the situation invalid. So that's my response to that. And now my turn.

A man is having sex with a woman who is bound and gagged. The only way that you're actually going to know if it's a morally bad act is for the woman to tell you. It would seem likely that it would be, but if the woman prefers to have sex bound and gagged then it cannot be bad. Hey, prudish people might think it's wrong, but it's not up to them. It's up to the woman.

Same with the unconscious woman (whom, incredibly, you think cannot be raped). If she wakes up and it's her husband and she has no problem at all with it then it wasn't morally bad. If it was a stranger and she's horrified, then it was. Again, it's up to the woman. Unless you think you can make an objective decision without knowing her opinion on it? What would it be?

 

[stevevw]

If the moral of saving a life trumps (overrides) the moral of lying, lying is not an objective moral because one objective moral cannot over ride (or as you call it "trump") another objective moral

Yes thats exactly right. Not lying is no longer a good moral objective. Obviously if saving a life or lives becomes the moral objective in that situation then it would follow that it would be objectively wrong not to lie.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes thats exactly right. Not lying is no longer a good moral objective.

That would mean to not lie was never an objective moral because that which is objective does not quit being objective simply because someone decides something else more important is at stake.

Obviously if saving a life or lives becomes the moral objective in that situation then it would follow that it would be objectively wrong not to lie.

Who decides saving a life or lives is more important than lying? Because if somebody decides this, it is not objective.[/QUOTE]

 

[Bradskii]

Of course not but its not longer a moral situation about truth and lies. Its about life and death.

How can that not be a moral problem? It involves either telling the truth or telling a lie to save or sacrifice a family. It's almost the very definition of a moral problem. But at least we now know that you don't take an absolutist position on moral matters. That context can determine whether something is the right thing or the wrong thing to do. On that we are agreed.

Now you can read the scenario in the post above about the woman bound and gagged. Normally we might say that it's wrong. But we've seen (and agreed) that context can determine that. So what do we need to do? We need to ask if the woman herself considers it an awful experience or a great one. You're not in a position to determine that for her.

But what if we were right in our original assessment and she was being assaulted and obviously didn't want to be? It's the same situation except that our original thoughts were correct. It even might be a scenario where it would be next to impossible to come to any other decision. Does our increased certainty make it 'more' objective? Obviously not. Even in extreme examples, it's still subjective.

It's easy to see in simple scenarios that we need the opinions of the people involved. And yes, it's a lot harder to get one's head around the more egregious examples. But the principle doesn't gradually change as they become gradually more difficult. The concept is always the same.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok I get what you mean. Yes how she feels about a situation is important. But that is different to whether a moral wrong has been done. The two don't line up.

I am having trouble equating a positive or negative experience with a morally good or bad thing. Can you be a bit more specific.

It's my position that something cannot be wrong (immoral) if no harm is done or intended. And if someone then says 'Hey, I enjoyed that', then you cannot tell them it was wrong. It cannot possibly be immoral if she got something positive from the experience and no harm was done or intended.

I can imagine you now coming up with some example and saying something to the effect of: 'Surely you must agree that this is immoral'. But again, unless you can show that harm is done or is intended, then no. It ain't.

And I've read a lot of Bloom's work (and listened to him on Youtube). I think the claim that 'Empathy is useless for making us good' isn't reflecting his views in the sense that it's being claimed. If we had no empathy, then 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' wouldn't work. You need to put yourself in someone else's position for that command to work.

 

[stevevw]

That would mean to not lie was never an objective moral because that which is objective does not quit being objective simply because someone decides something else more important is at stake.

Thats the point, It wasnt someone else that decided that to "Save a life" mattered more. It was rationality and logic that determed this. As I mentioned all reasoning converges on human life being something that matters both from evolution and from religious belief. So if there was a moral truth we could ground morals in then we are justified to believe it is this one. So it trumps not to lie.

But saying that its OK to lie in that situation doesnt reduce the fact that lying is a moral wrong. It is morally wrong to lie to hurt someone. Honesy is an objective moral value when seeking the truth of a matter so its wrong to lie in that specific situation. We can find a logical, rational and often self-evident real moral truth in all situations taking all context into consideration. The objective truth will change with changing situations.

Who decides saving a life or lives is more important than lying? Because if somebody decides this, it is not objective.

Its not decided by anyone. It is a truth that stands independent of peoples personal views about the value of life. Humans live like life is a valuable and precious matter so their actions speak louder than thei subjective opinions or feelings and that is how we really measure morality by how people live them outside themselves.

Thats our intuition. But we also know that its a rational and logical position to take which is determined not by human opinion but fact. Its a fact that evolution says life matters, thats why we try to survive. But its also a justified belief through our lived experience of how people respect and value life.

 

[Bradskii]

wasnt sure I understood this post properly. But I think upi asked me this one. I think you were establishing if there were varying degrees of any specific wrong ie 1st degree murder, and manslaughter ect, which I agreed.

But I fail to see how this does away with the possibility of there being an objective moral truth for each situation.

I was just pointing out that the legal definition for murder leaves no wiggle room. You're killing an innocent person with malice aforethought. By definition it's wrong (which doesn't stop people from agreeing to throw the switch in the trolley problem, mostly because it's not felt that it's done with malice - i.e. a desire to specifically harm the one person. Most people would say that they have no real desire to harm him, but feel a need to save the others).

And that the legal definition of rape is defined as sexual intercourse without consent. Which some would say isn't always wrong. Leading to the example of the drunken married couple, which I don't think anyone would class as rape (some even claiming that anyone having sex with an unconscious woman is not rape).

 

[stevevw]

I was just pointing out that the legal definition for murder leaves no wiggle room. You're killing an innocent person with malice aforethought. By definition it's wrong (which doesn't stop people from agreeing to throw the switch in the trolley problem, mostly because it's not felt that it's done with malice - i.e. a desire to specifically harm the one person. Most people would say that they have no real desire to harm him, but feel a need to save the others).

Of course moral wrong is usually don't with intent and acidents happen. But the point in the whole exercise is that it matters about what we do, what is the right action and that human lives are worth saving are valuable. So its the fact that it matters that there is a moral truth to be found. If it was just about feeings or preferences then it wouldnt matter as much. BUt because it matters there must be a moral truth.

And that the legal definition of rape is defined as sexual intercourse without consent. Which some would say isn't always wrong. Leading to the example of the drunken married couple, which I don't think anyone would class as rape (some even claiming that anyone having sex with an unconscious woman is not rape).

From memory I said that determining whether rape is wrong or not or the degree of wrongness implies that this matters. Implying that it matters means that there are some moves that matter more than others when it comes to rape and that implies that there has to be an objective measure to determine which moves are better than others.

 

[Ken-1122]

Thats the point, It wasnt someone else that decided that to "Save a life" mattered more. It was rationality and logic that determed this.

Logic and reason is based solely on human thought, they are completely subjective. What is logical and rational to me may not be logical or rational to you or someone else. You can’t have something objective based on something subjective like logic and reason.

 

[o_mlly]

Then she's either keen on getting killed, in which case she'll think it's a good outcome as far as she is concerned or she doesn't know what's about to happen, which makes the situation invalid. So that's my response to that. And now my turn.

What? "She's "keen on dying"? She thinks she's going to have a nice warm shower. The "situation is invalid"? Are you really writing that it's all good if, let's say, the victim doesn't see the mugger coming? "No need to arrest the mugger. She didn't see him coming from behind so the 'situation is invalid'". You'll have to do better than that. Again, as in the other thread, thanks for your non-input.

A man is having sex with a woman who is bound and gagged. The only way that you're actually going to know if it's a morally bad act is for the woman to tell you. It would seem likely that it would be, but if the woman prefers to have sex bound and gagged then it cannot be bad. Hey, prudish people might think it's wrong, but it's not up to them. It's up to the woman.

Then why not ask the woman, "Ma'am, were you raped ?"

Same with the unconscious woman (whom, incredibly, you think cannot be raped). If she wakes up and it's her husband and she has no problem at all with it then it wasn't morally bad. If it was a stranger and she's horrified, then it was. Again, it's up to the woman. Unless you think you can make an objective decision without knowing her opinion on it? What would it be?

Strawman alert. You're at it again. Cite the post where I wrote an "unconscious woman cannot be raped". And, ask "her opinion"? Nonsense. "Ma'am, is that color black or white?" Either she was raped or she was not. Joe Friday never asked for opinions, “All we want are the facts, ma’am”".

In the "concrete" means all that is necessary to judge the morality is known. It's just silly (or a display of desperation) for you to play hide and seek with your imagined scenarios, bizarre as they are.

 

[partinobodycular]

Logic and reason is based solely on human thought, they are completely subjective. What is logical and rational to me may not be logical or rational to you or someone else. You can’t have something objective based on something subjective like logic and reason.

You have to understand, stevevw isn't actually arguing for objective morality, he's just mistakenly categorizing it as objective morality. It's more like relative morality, although technically it doesn't fall within the category of moral relativism.

Basically the argument is this, if you have a specific goal then certain actions become good or bad relative to achieving that goal. For example, if your goal is to run a marathon then sitting on the couch all day eating chips and ice cream are bad, relative to that goal. While training, eating right, and getting plenty of sleep are good relative to that goal.

So stevevw is essentially arguing that if you can identify a goal that "all" rational people will agree to, then the actions that tend toward that goal are objectively good.

Yes, it's not the greatest argument ever, for at least a couple of reasons. One, who gets to decide what the goal is? And two, how does being good relative to a goal equate to being moral? After all, training, eating right, and getting plenty of sleep are good relative to the goal of running a marathon, but that doesn't make them moral.

I just thought that I'd jump in here and try to clarify things. I would guess that according to stevevw that's the moral thing to do, since he's so keen on truth and honesty.

Anyway, continue as you were...

 

[Bradskii]

From memory I said that determining whether rape is wrong or not or the degree of wrongness implies that this matters. Implying that it matters means that there are some moves that matter more than others when it comes to rape and that implies that there has to be an objective measure to determine which moves are better than others.

You're drifting off into discussing morality from an absolute position now, and not an objective one. And there's no measure except the one we personally decide to apply. So in fact, you might personally decide that something can be the best or worst example of an act and use that as the standard to determine the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of that act. But...you've made that decision about the 'gold standard' yourself. No-one can make it for you. So it cannot be objective.

 

[Ken-1122]

You have to understand, stevevw isn't actually arguing for objective morality, he's just mistakenly categorizing it as objective morality. It's more like relative morality, although technically it doesn't fall within the category of moral relativism.

Basically the argument is this, if you have a specific goal then certain actions become good or bad relative to achieving that goal. For example, if your goal is to run a marathon then sitting on the couch all day eating chips and ice cream are bad, relative to that goal. While training, eating right, and getting plenty of sleep are good relative to that goal.

So stevevw is essentially arguing that if you can identify a goal that "all" rational people will agree to, then the actions that tend toward that goal are objectively good.

Yes, it's not the greatest argument ever, for at least a couple of reasons. One, who gets to decide what the goal is? And two, how does being good relative to a goal equate to being moral? After all, training, eating right, and getting plenty of sleep are good relative to the goal of running a marathon, but that doesn't make them moral.

I just thought that I'd jump in here and try to clarify things. I would guess that according to stevevw that's the moral thing to do, since he's so keen on truth and honesty.

Anyway, continue as you were...

About 5 pages ago, he and I were discussing, with him trying to make a case for objective morality. We went back and forth for a while till eventually he quit responding ( I suspect because he didn’t have a logical response) However I felt a desire to jump in because it seems some of the same points he is making to you guys is some of the same ones I dismantled pages ago. However; thanks for the insight.

Ken

 

[Bradskii]

Strawman alert. You're at it again. Cite the post where I wrote an "unconscious woman cannot be raped.

You actually forgot you said it?

Sexual assault on an unconscious woman is not rape.

 

[Bradskii]

And while I'm here...

What? "She's "keen on dying"? She thinks she's going to have a nice warm shower. The "situation is invalid"? Are you really writing that it's all good if, let's say, the victim doesn't see the mugger coming? "No need to arrest the mugger. She didn't see him coming from behind so the 'situation is invalid'".

You seemed to want to know whether the woman would be happy with the situation or not. If she knows that she's going to be killed and thinks it's perfectly OK (why, I wouldn't know - but if she's happy with it then that's her call) then it's her decision. If she doesn't want to be killed then that seems the more reasonable position and one with which we'd all concur. If she naively thinks she's literally going for a shower then it's not possible to suggest how she feels about being killed. She doesn't know. C'mon - this isn't difficult...

Then why not ask the woman, "Ma'am, were you raped ?"

If you mean sexually assaulted against her will (as opposed to someone having sex with her when she was unconscious but was an act with which she would have no problem or there was some bondage involved - some people apparently enjoy that) then...sure. But you need to understand that you are effectively asking 'Is everything ok or not?' By asking her you are confirming that you need to know what her feelings are about the situation.

Otherwise what are you going to do? If she says she's fine, do you tell her she's not? Do you insist that someone has done something wrong even if she insists that's not the case? Do you demand that the police take action even if she tells them she's perfectly OK? What do you actually tell the police? She was tied up and someone had sex with her and that's wrong as far as you are concerned? How odd...

 

[Kylie]

We simply open our eyes (and mind) to see the light.

And that wouldn't take into account things like hallucinations. We must be able to measure the light in an objective way. You have constantly failed to show that morality can be measured in any objective way.

 

[stevevw]

You have to understand, stevevw isn't actually arguing for objective morality, he's just mistakenly categorizing it as objective morality. It's more like relative morality, although technically it doesn't fall within the category of moral relativism.

That doesnt make sense. You have said it is relative morality but it really isnt relative morality. I agree with the second assessment that it isnt relative morality because relative morality allows for anyones relative situation to dictate morality. Whereas my example doesnt allow for anyones relative position. It only allows for one option for morality if the situation is to function.

In trying to equate relative morality to my example would be like calling the way Western governments dictate that their relative version of morality is the only true morality to other cultures. Thats the opposite of relative morality but rather imperialism or dictatorship because it is not tolerating different relative positions.

That would require that other cultures or people in relative situations follow the governments view of morality not because its truth or factually right but because they say so. But what I am talking about is that an independent measure has determined the moral truth or fact. It is the way people live that moral and that the moral is necesaary for humans to function in that situation which makes it independently fact.

Basically the argument is this, if you have a specific goal then certain actions become good or bad relative to achieving that goal. For example, if your goal is to run a marathon then sitting on the couch all day eating chips and ice cream are bad, relative to that goal. While training, eating right, and getting plenty of sleep are good relative to that goal.

Thats not what I said and is misrepresenting what my arguement is. Running a marathon doesnt matter to humans morally. But being able to engage with others in seeking the truth is a vital moral matter of importance for humans to function together. We seek the truth of matters with others as part of being human so we have to uphold "Honesty and Truth"as moral values.

So stevevw is essentially arguing that if you can identify a goal that "all" rational people will agree to, then the actions that tend toward that goal are objectively good.

Its not a case of all rational people agreeing on a moral truth like there is some subjective rule that makes it good. Its rational because it is what humans already do regarding that moral situation. The proof of it being rational is in the way people function within that moral situation and therefore its a necessary moral value to function.

That makes the moral value independent from peoples subjective/relative views of what is rationally moral or not. That is why its called moral realism because its how morals are lived in real situations outside peoples heads.

Yes, it's not the greatest argument ever, for at least a couple of reasons. One, who gets to decide what the goal is?

No one gets to decide as mentioned. Its self-evident in that people live that way moraly and cannot function in that situation without living that way morally.

And two, how does being good relative to a goal equate to being moral? After all, training, eating right, and getting plenty of sleep are good relative to the goal of running a marathon, but that doesn't make them moral.

Exactly as I pointed out above. It doesnt matter morally if you don't run the marathon. That is why I used an example of a specific situation where the morals of "Honesty and Truth" are necessary to seek the truth of a matter which is a vital human function morally. It matters morally because humans make it matter morally.

I just thought that I'd jump in here and try to clarify things. I would guess that according to stevevw that's the moral thing to do, since he's so keen on truth and honesty.

Anyway, continue as you were...

Yes now we have 3 people engaged in finding the truth of this matter. Imagine if we dismissed as subjective or relative the moral values of "TRuth and Honesty". How far would we get in finding the truth.

You claiming that I am misrepresenting things with relative morality, me countering that with my arguement, Ken adding his contribution about what he thinks is the truth would all not be able to contested or determnined as to whether it is the truth if we made "Honesty and Truth" relative to peoples situations.

PS. What I find strange is that you have choosen to address this and left the elephant in the room regarding Kens claim that logic and rationality are subjective.