Is there Objective Morality?

[o_mlly]

If she believes that she has cause for a police complaint then that is the fact of the matter. If she feels she does not, then that is also a fact. If she tells you honestly that she has decided that what happened wasn't wrong as far as she was concerned, then that's a fact. If she tells you that her decision was that it was wrong, then that's a fact.

? The logic in these sentences defies reason. That one has a feeling is a fact. But the truth of the matter is not determined by emotions. Feelings may be true or not. But if it is a fact then it is true. To wit:

If a "flat earther" believes that the earth is flat then that is the fact of the matter.
If a "flat earther" tells you honestly that she has decided that the earth is flat as far as she was concerned, then that's a fact.​

 

[Kylie]

Only after the act is categorized as moral or immoral does the question of how good or how bad is the act become meaningful. For instance, murder is immoral. If the victim is one's sleeping mother then that murder is an even greater wrong. To give to the poor is a moral act. To give from one's substance rather than surplus is more commendable. Again, note that one cannot comment on how good or bad an act without first categorizing the act. Categorizing, not measuring, the act is this thread's topic.

I presume you pursue this point of measurement because you have a point to make on how measuring determines an act moral or immoral. I'm giving you a chance to explain how that is supposed to work.

No, that is not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that if you have two different acts, say murder and theft, that are both considered immoral, and one is considered more immoral than the other, then you need some way of measuring the morality of them in order to show that one is more immoral than the other.

 

[stevevw]

'Measured logically'? Who said that?

Sorry my grammar is not the best. I am saying that it logically follows not logically measured.

There are some acts that we will agree on as being wrong (or right). Some others we will disagree on. If a decision needs to be made (perhaps because the act will affect us both) then it will just be harder for each of us to persuade the other that the long term effects are good or bad. Quite often we will simply agree to disagree (like chook cages).

Your still missing the important point. All this agreeing and disagree and persuading the other about rightness logically implies that there is some objective measure that this can all be measured against. Otherwise what are you agreeing or disagreeing about, what are you trying to persuade the other person with. What fact are you using to back up your arguement to convince the other person. If its just your opinion or preference then thats not a good basis.

 

[stevevw]

What I am arguing against is your secular interpretation of a religious belief.

I am not sure what you mean by my secular interpretation of religious belief. I dont think I've mentioned religious belief.

 

[stevevw]

I can't believe that you are seriously suggesting that.

Why

 

[o_mlly]

No, that is not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that if you have two different acts, say murder and theft, that are both considered immoral, and one is considered more immoral than the other, then you need some way of measuring the morality of them in order to show that one is more immoral than the other.

So, you are claiming that in order to be objective, two items in the same category must have measurable (edit: categorical) differences.

In the category of mammals, is a dog more mammal than a cat? In the category of food, is wheat bread more food than rye bread?

 

[essentialsaltes]

In the category of mammals, is a dog more mammal than a cat? In the category of food, is wheat bread more food than rye bread?

Maybe you can answer that.

Within each category some acts may be more egregious or commendable than others.

 

[o_mlly]

Maybe you can answer that.

Sure. Some dogs can run faster than most cats.

 

[Ken-1122]

So, you are claiming that in order to be objective, two items in the same category must have measurable (edit: categorical) differences.

In the category of mammals, is a dog more mammal than a cat? In the category of food, is wheat bread more food than rye bread?

Actually it is a bit backwards. Often with things that are subjective there are such differences; like morality. With things that are objective like mammals, there is no such measurable differences.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Actually it is a bit backwards. Often with things that are subjective there are such differences; like morality. With things that are objective like mammals, there is no such measurable differences.

I think the problem is thinking of a category as an objective thing. Humans define categories. Categories exist because of their usefulness. How useful is this category? Humans decide and decide objectively.

What is objective is that animal X is a warm-blooded vertebrate that bears live young that the females nourish with secreted milk. We call such an animal a mammal. But sometimes it's fuzzy. A quick search shows that a platypus is a mammal yet it has eggs. Subjective categorization at work.

A better example that I should have thought of first: Pluto exists, objectively, regardless of the subjective meaning of the category of planet.

 

[Kylie]

So, you are claiming that in order to be objective, two items in the same category must have measurable (edit: categorical) differences.

In the category of mammals, is a dog more mammal than a cat? In the category of food, is wheat bread more food than rye bread?

[Staff Edit]

Being a mammal is a binary thing. Either something is a mammal or it is not.

If we apply this logic to morality, then rape is just as bad as stealing a chocolate.

You are going to extreme lengths to avoid answering my question, which just shows that you can't answer it. You have no objective measure for morality because morality is subjective.

 

[Ken-1122]

I think the problem is thinking of a category as an objective thing. Humans define categories. Categories exist because of their usefulness. How useful is this category? Humans decide and decide objectively.

I don't agree humans decide what is objective or not, they give objectivity a definition, and anything that fits that definition is objective.

 

[stevevw]

I'm sorry, but I really do fail to see the need for a transcendent source.

It logical stands that if there are objective morals then there needs to be a transcendent source. This is simply because morality can only happen between humans yet humans are infallible as to being perfectly good and rational about what is best to do morally. So the source has to be humanlike yet beyond humans, be perfectly good, rational and necessary. That logically leads to a transcendent being. Theres a good arguement for this here

The moral argument
Premise 1: Morality is a rational enterprise
Premise 2: Moral realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist
Premise 3: The moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality.
Premise 4: Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source (from 1, 2, and 3)
Premise 5: this source is what we call God or a god or transcendent being.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp9Nl6OUEJ0&ab_channel=InspiringPhilosophy

PS remember we are assuming objective morals exist to argue the necessity of a transcendent source. If you want an arguemnet for objective morality (moral realism) there that can be found here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk88sZw4YhM&t=2s&ab_channel=InspiringPhilosophy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjkgD4w9w1k&ab_channel=InspiringPhilosophy

To me morality is simply our deep-seated predisposition toward socially beneficial behavior. Many social animals exhibit the exact same tendencies, but it's only us humans who possess both the desire and the capacity to try to explain them.

I think what your talking about is social behaviour which are different to morality. Social behaviour may involve things like etiquette or protocols. A society may think chewing gum at the dinner table is inappropriate but that’s not morally wrong. Morality is different. It involves moral obligations, behaviour we should not do.

And historically, whatever we can't explain via natural means, we try to explain via supernatural ones. But in the case of morality no such supernatural explanation is required.

So luckily we have a rational and logiocal arguement to explain morality.

Morals exist simply because they make human societies possible. There are still gaps in our knowledge for a transcendent source to fill, but explaining the existence of morality isn't one of them.

As per the above logic arguement above a transcendent being as the basis for moral law is a logically argued conclusion. As I have saiid a few times now which you seem to ignore (you made a point of ignoring things) "Using survival, functioning, stability, making human societies possible are not objective foundations for morality.

These reasons are also determined subjectively by humans who are fallible when it comes to morality. Evolution is not a basis for morality either as what matters for survival is also subjectively determined by humans. Evolution itslef cannot explain why something is morlaly wrong. So all of these reasons are logical fallacies.

Remember, I'm an epistemological solipsist, so I can appreciate skepticism. But there's a point where skepticism turns into denial.

I think I can appreciate this view, a bit like the devil’s advocate as well.

For example, even if I question the nature of reality, I don't question the existence of reality.

This is an important point for moral realism. I agree we don’t question if our reality (physical world) is real. We just experience it, see it and sense it and process all that experience and determine we are justified to believe that what we see is real and not some computer simulation.

It is the same for morals. We experience moral situations, we test and process that moral experience and we intuitive know if somethings not right. So we are just as justified to believe what we see morally is also real. Just as justified about our intuition we experience of the physical world.

Neither do I question things such as the principle of sufficient reason, for if I question reason itself then what hope do I have of understanding anything? But reason tells me that if the world around me evolved, then morality probably evolved too.

I think the first conclusion “if I question reason itself then what hope do I have of understanding anything?” makes logical sense. It’s sort of self-evident like the moral fact of the "Truth". You can’t find the truth if you question the truths worth.

But the second conclusion your reasonoing is faulty and I think it is a logical fallacy. Just because you reason the world evolved doesnt meran morals also evolved. Thats an unfounded assumption. In fact if there are objective morals then reasoning should logically lead you to a rational and necessary source of morality that is outside anything humans think including evolution.

As did the human need to invoke God. But I see no sense in invoking the supernatural where simply the natural will do.

Once again you using faulty reasoniong and assumptions that evolution explains morality. It may explain how we know morality but it doesnt explain why something is morally wrong.

I think I have also pointed this out several times but you seem to not be acknowledging this. I realize you tried to explain it but as above this was also insufficient support. You are creating an "ëither and or fallacy" as well. If we canniot explain morality then people must use God. But we have another option, logic and reason and that points to morality being based outside humans, and evolution.

As a solipsist I can appreciate the sentiment, but it's wrong to simply assume what the material world is and isn't capable of.

Actually I think it has been verified that abstract ideas like truth, justice etc. are non-physical and real human concepts. They can provoke a physical reaction but they are not a material thing, they are a thought, idea, abstract. But they have no physical form, like colour or Math.

What we refer to as "morality" may be nothing more than a fortuitous genetic adaptation, and our moral predispositions may have a purely physical cause.

Do you realise the implications of this. It would mean people could claim no responsibility for their behaviour as it was inherited genetically like diabeties.

But once again some people feel the need to invoke the supernatural to explain what they think the natural can't.

Like I said I agree that just invoking the supernatural is not enough to explain morality. Thats why there is a logical arguement that logically leads to there needing to be some source for morality beyond humans and evolution (natural processes). Ie morals are between people not natural processes, the basis for how we determine moral right and wrong has to be beyond any chance, arbitrary or random process like humans or evolution.

It absolutely does explain "Why" something is wrong, it's wrong because it leads to a dysfunctional society, and dysfunctional societies don't survive.

But this doesn't explain why something is morally right or wrong. It only explains how we know its wrong. Someone could then say "So why is a functional society or human survival a morally good thing. There is no basis for this either as its all subjective.

So evolution has instilled us with an intuitive sense of right and wrong. Then left it up to us to explain why we feel that way.

Because evolution and humans have no objective basis for accounting for why something is right or wrong it cannot matter or account for morality intuitively. Thats because what we would experience morally would be subjective and too inconsistent/contradictory to be a solid basis for intuition. To be a justified belief about something our intuitive experience needs to have an objective basis and evolution/humans are fallible and irrational.

For argument sake let’s say that morality is merely the product of evolution. The question still remains why we ought to behave in a way that will benefit the survival of our species. Whence does our moral obligation to do what is good for humans come?

Our nature can serve as a proximate foundation for such obligation. Since by nature we are ordered to do good and our nature determined that good for us. But without God as an ultimate source for that nature the dictates of our evolved nature ultimately wouldn’t express the intelligence or will of any rational being superior to humans. If that’s the case, we would have to say that which morally binds us is the by-product of random and chaotic non-rational process.

As Thomas Aquinas explains in his Summa Theologiae
Law is in ordinance of reason for the common good made by him who has care of the community and is imposed on others by way of a rule and measure. But this necessarily presupposes a being of intelligence and volition that can know the rule and impose it. Therefore, if the evolved order of human nature that determines what’s good for us is to be a law that morally binds us there must exist a being superior to humans who has intellect and will and ultimately has care over the human community. So unless someone is willing to say moral obligation doesn’t exist one should reject the idea that evolution is sufficient to explain morality.

Both math and morality are sets of descriptive laws. One set describes the rules by which reality functions, the other set describes the rules by which society functions, and evolution underpins both of them.

How can you say morality is a descriptive law. The fact there are moral duties involved with morality makes it proscriptive. Humans owe a moral duty to another human. Thats an obvious given if you understand ethics and morality.

Actually Math also proscribes a formula for somethung to work. So its also more than descriptive.

 

[Bradskii]

PS remember we are assuming objective morals exist to argue the necessity of a transcendent source.

So if objective morality exists then there is therefore a trancendent source. And if that transcendent source exists then morality must be objective.

Good grief. Could the radius on that circular argument be any smaller? I'm afraid that this is waste of everyone's time, Steve. Yours included.

 

[Bradskii]

Someone could then say "So why is a functional society or human survival a morally good thing. There is no basis for this either. Because evolution and humans have no objective basis for accounting for why something is right or wrong it cannot matter or account for morality intuitively. Thats because what we would experience morally would be subjective and too inconsistent/contradictory to be a solid basis for intuition. To be a justified belief about something our intuitive experience needs to have an objective basis and evolution/humans are fallible and irrational.

I've lost count of the times that I've explained that survival from an evolutionary perspective is not 'a morally good thing'. It is not even 'a good thing'. I think I used the term 'good' almost at the beginning of this thread but it was misconstrued in the way that you have just done. So I reworded it as 'preferential'. But it's an inbuilt preference in the way that a tree would prefer to grow in fertile ground. In the same way as a worm would prefer not to lay about under a hot sun.

But if you saw two worms and one burrowed underground away from the heat and the other just lay there and slowly dessicated, it is not unreasonable to say that the first one did the right thing and the second did not. That heading underground is good. And laying in the sun is bad. That's the way in which good and bad should be used when discussing survival from an evolutionary perspective. Good leads to a preferred outcome, evolutionary speaking.

So your chum on the video (and you) have completely the wrong idea about why evolution and morality are linked. And I have to admit, I really can't be bothered explaining it any more. I've honestly lost count of the times I have done it up to this point.

So we're done.

 

[stevevw]

So if objective morality exists then there is therefore a trancendent source. And if that transcendent source exists then morality must be objective.

Good grief. Could the radius on that circular argument be any smaller? I'm afraid that this is waste of everyone's time, Steve. Yours included.

No one uses the second premise "if a transcendent source exists then morality must be objective" for the moral arguement and they don't need to.

Only the fist part is required to show that objective morality needs a transcendent being to ground them. So therefore as the arguement goes if objective morals exist there must be some objective source that is humanlike, perfectly good, rational and necessary but outside humans. That logically makes this some sort of transcendent being but not necessarily God. Only something like God as this is what humans have attributed God or gods to be like.

 

[VirOptimus]

No one uses the second premise "if a transcendent source exists then morality must be objective" for the moral arguement and they don't need to.

Only the fist part is required to show that objective morality needs a transcendent being to ground them. So therefore as the arguement goes if objective morals exist there must be some objective source that is humanlike, perfectly good, rational and necessary but outside humans. That logically makes this some sort of transcendent being but not necessarily God. Only something like God as this is what humans have attributed God or gods to be like.

Its a circular argument.

And you cant show that morality is objective.

 

[stevevw]

I've lost count of the times that I've explained that survival from an evolutionary perspective is not 'a morally good thing'. It is not even 'a good thing'. I think I used the term 'good' almost at the beginning of this thread but it was misconstrued in the way that you have just done. So I reworded it as 'preferential'.

Yeah I got that when you pointed this out. But what keeps throwing me is that you speak like evolution and survival is like morally right and wrong when you say its something good. Like it matters morally. I remeber you ealier said humans have made anything that helps with survival as being morally good. That this was how we account for such a thing as morality.

I am saying that this cannot be the case as morality and what helps us survive are two completely different things and you are creating a logical fallacy when you do equate them even if you want to say morality is subjective. Because the way people behave morally they treat the morals like they are real and truthful beyond themselves and people don't do that with preferences or opinions.

But it's an inbuilt preference in the way that a tree would prefer to grow in fertile ground. In the same way as a worm would prefer not to lay about under a hot sun.

But I am pretty sure a tree and a worm cannot prefer anything. Your conflating a natural process that has no agency for trees with morality that requires agency (free will, moral choices). A tree through a natural process ends up with what they have by evolution a purposeless natural process as you said. If they survive then thats a case of natural selection. Otherwise they die.

A tree or worm do not prefer anything. They biological makeup is either suitable or unsuitable for an environment. So unless a random mutation comes along and causes the organism to change

But if you saw two worms and one burrowed underground away from the heat and the other just lay there and slowly dessicated, it is not unreasonable to say that the first one did the right thing and the second did not. That heading underground is good. And laying in the sun is bad. That's the way in which good and bad should be used when discussing survival from an evolutionary perspective. Good leads to a preferred outcome, evolutionary speaking.

OK I can appreciate that morality hasn't hijacked the words "Good and Bad". But it still makes things confusing when you don't cl,arify what "Good"means. Is it Good objectively or just some subjective determination of what "Good"is.

The way you are using the meaning of "Good" in this situation about evolution/survival is not in a moral sense because "Its not morally right to survive, or have a functioning society". So please don't confuse the two. By not clarifying what you mean by "Good" you leave things open making "Good" anything.

I keep suspecting that you are trying to sneak the moral meaning of good in somehow as you did say ealrier that "this is what people think morality is".

As with your worm example you cannot be seriously suggesting that one worm was being morally good by seeking the moist shade and the other was morally bad for being in the sun. That's how strange it sounds and it should hit home how survival has nothing to do with morality.

Evolution is about natural selection. There is no moral purpose. Environments dictate what happens and environments have no ability to do anything moral or with agency. If a creature ends up surviving its because of natural selection and not because they were morally good.

So that being the case if people act like there are moral objectives and its not explained by evolution or any subjective idea like human functioning then how do we explain morality outside human views. Why do people act like something matters morally and then treat morals like their objective (true/real outside themselves).

So we're done.

OK you seem pretty confident that yo know the truth of the matter to say where done.

 

[stevevw]

Its a circular argument.

Its not circular as I explained to Bradskii you only need the first part of that arguement "If there are objective morals" then there needs to be some basis for measuring morals that is rational and necessary outside humans as humans are subjective and irrational beings.

The second part is a different arguement for proving God which is unnecessary for arguing that there needs to be some measuring point for morals outside humans. IE
The moral argument
Premise 1: Morality is a rational enterprise
Premise 2: Moral realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist
Premise 3: The moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality.
Premise 4: Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source (from 1, 2, and 3)
Premise 5: this source is some sort of transcendent being beyond humans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp9Nl6OUEJ0&ab_channel=InspiringPhilosophy

PS by the way I acknowledge that the arguement above assumes that there are objective morals. But as Bradskii and I were debating this point it was assumed for the sake of the debate.

So the arguement logiclally follows that if there are objective morals then it there needs to be a a transcendent source.

And you cant show that morality is objective.

So you have just made an objective claim. How do you know we cannot show that there are objective morals.

 

[VirOptimus]

Its not circular as I explained to Bradskii you only need the first part of that arguement "If there are objective morals" then there needs to be some basis for measuring morals that is rational and necessary outside humans as humans are subjective and irrational beings.

The second part is a different arguement for proving God which is unnecessary for arguing that there needs to be some measuring point for morals outside humans. IE
The moral argument
Premise 1: Morality is a rational enterprise
Premise 2: Moral realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist
Premise 3: The moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality.
Premise 4: Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source (from 1, 2, and 3)
Premise 5: this source is some sort of transcendent being beyond humans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp9Nl6OUEJ0&ab_channel=InspiringPhilosophy

PS by the way I acknowledge that the arguement above assumes that there are objective morals. But as Bradskii and I were debating this point it was assumed for the sake of the debate.

So the arguement logiclally follows that if there are objective morals then it there needs to be a a transcendent source.
So you have just made an objective claim. How do you know we cannot show that there are objective morals.

As I have stated, I think objective/subjective is meaningless as "objective" pre-supposes a objective agent, i.e. god(s).

If it was possible to show that there was a "objective" true morality it would already have been done. You should try to read some real books on the subject.