Is there Objective Morality?

[Kylie]

? An animal categorized as a mammal cannot be categorized as a non-mammal.

And I never said it could, did I?

An immoral human act cannot be categorized as a moral act

Oh, I don't know about that. There are plenty of things that are considered to be immoral by some people, but perfectly moral by others, such as euthanasia, abortion, using animals for food, sex before marriage, etc...

Your logic is still faulty. The categorical properties necessary for inclusion as mammals need not be equal. For instance, nipples are necessary as a categorical property for a mammalian creature. Dogs on average have 8 nipples, cats only 6, humans only 2. Likewise, in the property of hair or fur, vast differences occur in the extent of the coverage and density within the mammalian creatures.

So what? There's nothing that says that all mammals MUST have the same number of nipples, and that any animal that has more or less than that number is excluded from the mammal club.

There are several criteria that an animal must have in order to be classified as a mammal, including being warm-blooded, hair/fur, mammary glands, a four-chambered heart, and three bones in the middle ear.

Still just an assertion. To demonstrate that there is a category, I do not have to show that within the category that there are measurable inequalities only that there is a common property which all members share equally.

Except rape and name calling DON'T equally share the common property you claim they both have.

And you are going out of your way to avoid answering my question. How do you measure the immorality of an act to conclude that it's immoral? Because if you can't measure it, you can't show that the immorality is there.

 

[stevevw]

Im not the one who need to be informed, its you who really really dont understand the basics of moral philosophy. You constantly make cringeworthy statements that dont reflect the positions of the different schools.

How do I know this is even correct what you say. Isnt this just your opinion.

Also, you seem to belive that not accepting a objective morality somehow makes one have no moral views. That is frankly, just stupid.

I never said people who don't accept there are moral objectives have no morals. I said they have no way of grounding their morals. So they are true for themselves but no true beyond themselves.

 

[o_mlly]

And I never said it could, did I?

Oh, I don't know about that. There are plenty of things that are considered to be immoral by some people, but perfectly moral by others, such as euthanasia, abortion, using animals for food, sex before marriage, etc...

So what? These acts remain objectively either moral or immoral. Man's knowledge of what he needs according to his nature is not automatic, he must learn the values necessary to continue to exist and to flourish, both individually and collectively.

Would Genghis Khan in the 13th century have accepted that rape is immoral? No. Prior to Christianity and more recently the Enlightenment, mankind did not understand that the individual has rights. That mankind did not understand that individuals have rights did not make violating those human rights moral.

There's nothing that says that all mammals MUST have the same number of nipples, and that any animal that has more or less than that number is excluded from the mammal club.

You make my point. Once categorized, the animal and the human act can be further differentiated by species of mammal and species of act.

Except rape and name calling DON'T equally share the common property you claim they both have.

? Rape and murder share the same property of being immoral acts. "Name calling" as a human act would need further definition for categorization.

And you are going out of your way to avoid answering my question. How do you measure the immorality of an act to conclude that it's immoral? Because if you can't measure it, you can't show that the immorality is there.

"Because if you can't measure it, you can't show that the immorality is there." Still waiting for you to argue to the truth of your assertion.

 

[partinobodycular]

I just wanted to point out before the example that the fact that people come to a debate or discussion or even issue like you’re talking about with Trump that its not about whether people have their own truths, absolute truths or lies but that there is a “Truth” a truth that is being sought and that matters.

Otherwise they are not really truths but maybe opinions or something. So it shows that even though these self made truths are in existence...people intuitively know that the "Truth" matters.

I agree that there are objective truths, but you must also agree that much of what people believe is based on their own subjective opinions and outright lies.

So if this intuitive feeling that the "Truth" matters is so powerful then why do people fight so fervently to defend lies and opinions? They fight wars over them for gosh sakes. They ostracize, judge, and kill people over them.

How can that possibly constitute a genuine desire for the truth?

Religion is built on the very premise, that "I'm right", and everyone else is wrong. What kind of a search for truth is that? Religion isn't about honestly and sincerely seeking the truth, it's about assuming that one already has it, and then zealously defending their version of it.

All that being said, let's examine your basic premise. Which seems to be, that the "Truth" exists, and people intuitively seek it. And that this intuitive desire not only leads us toward the truth, but leads us toward morality as well. But in my opinion you've simply endowed intuition with a "nobler intention" than it actually deserves. Intuition is simply evolution's way of instilling in humans a tendency toward socially beneficial behavior. That's the only "intent" it has, and it's nothing but a natural consequence of evolution.

We've evolved a natural desire to know how things work. We're curious. We've also evolved a natural tendency toward social interaction. We like debating. And lastly, we've evolved a natural tendency to defend our social group. We're obstinate.

Put those three things together, and you get a human who likes to engage in debates, and in such debates, they can be rather adamant about their being right.

So in the case of debates, we're simply doing what evolution has programmed us to do, and the only transcendent cause involved is evolution.

What I believe, is that you're reading into human behavior some supposed intuitive search for truth. And that this intuitive search for truth requires a "transcendent" cause. What I also believe is that your "transcendent cause" is actually God, but that you're not actually truthful enough, or honest enough, to tell us that.

That doesn't speak very highly of your cherished truth and honesty.

 

[eleos1954]

In the thread on mortal force there was a side-discussion about objective morality (for example, see this post). Is there such a thing as objective morality? If so, what is it? If not, why not?

Anyone who answers the question needs to give their definitions of “objective” and “morality.” Once they have set out their definitions they should go on to explain why they believe there is or is not an objective morality. Some starter definitions of objectivity can be found at Merriam-Webster and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

If you want to critique someone’s position you should begin by telling them 1) Whether their conclusion accords with their definitions, 2) Whether you agree with their definitions, and 3) Why you believe their argument is sound or unsound.

Humans do not have to find out what is moral by reading the Bible such knowledge is available to all people. Romans 2:14-15 says that those without God’s special revelation (Scripture, Jesus Christ) can know right from wrong. They have God’s general revelation of his basic moral law in their conscience, “Gentiles, who do not have the Law [of Moses] do instinctively the things of the Law”. (Rom 2:14, NASB). No wonder they have been made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-7). They’re constituted to function properly when they live according to God’s design. So people (including atheists) whose hearts have not been hardened or self-deceived will have the same sorts of moral instincts as Christians- ie that torturing babies (along with rape or adultery, murder) etc. is wrong, and kindness is good.

 

[Ken-1122]

Its pretty logical you cannot seek the "Truth" without the "Truth". So you have to allow the "TRuth" its full value and status. You cannot deminish it with subjective views that its not needed in your debate. Otherwise you cannot have the debate.

As I said before, debates are not about seeking truth, they are about defending subjective positions. And whether it is truth or THE truth (whatever difference that means) you only have control over what you say, the other person can lie and you likely won't know unless he is bad at it. So complete truth/the truth is completely out of your control during a debate

But you argue like there is an objective right and wrong or thats the conclusion I keep coming to.

No, I argue like there is only subjective right and wrong

You make objective claims like slavery or rape are wrong like you know its the truth not just for yourself but also for myself and everyone.

That's called arguing like those acts are subjectively wrong. Your problem is you think there is a difference when there is not.
I will respond to the rest later

 

[Kylie]

So what? These acts remain objectively either moral or immoral.

You have not shown this. You have not even come close to showing this.

You make my point. Once categorized, the animal and the human act can be further differentiated by species of mammal and species of act.

Yes, that would be MEASURING the morality of the act in question. Something I have repeatedly asked you to explain and which you have consistently avoided doing.

So, now that you yourself are bringing it up, tell us how the moralities are categorized and differentiated.

? Rape and murder share the same property of being immoral acts. "Name calling" as a human act would need further definition for categorization.

Excuses, excuses. Is name calling immoral or is it moral?

"Because if you can't measure it, you can't show that the immorality is there."

Still waiting for you to argue to the truth of your assertion.

Without providing a measurement of what you are talking about, you are can't show that what you are talking about isn't zero.

If you can't measure the light, you can't show that the light is there. If you can't measure the mass, you can't show that the mass is there. If you can't measure the distance between two points, you can't show that the two points are actually separate. Do you disagree with any of these? The amount of light is objective. Two people measuring it independently will reach the same conclusion as to the brightness of the light source. The amount of mass being measured is also objective. Two people measuring it independently will reach the same conclusion as to the mass of the object being measured. Distance is also objective. Two people measuring it independently will reach the same conclusion as to the distance between the two points.

Now, you claim that morality is objective. Show us that agreement in measurement applies to morality as well.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You have not shown this. You have not even come close to showing this.



Yes, that would be MEASURING the morality of the act in question. Something I have repeatedly asked you to explain and which you have consistently avoided doing.

So, now that you yourself are bringing it up, tell us how the moralities are categorized and differentiated.



Excuses, excuses. Is name calling immoral or is it moral?



Without providing a measurement of what you are talking about, you are can't show that what you are talking about isn't zero.

If you can't measure the light, you can't show that the light is there. If you can't measure the mass, you can't show that the mass is there. If you can't measure the distance between two points, you can't show that the two points are actually separate. Do you disagree with any of these? The amount of light is objective. Two people measuring it independently will reach the same conclusion as to the brightness of the light source. The amount of mass being measured is also objective. Two people measuring it independently will reach the same conclusion as to the mass of the object being measured. Distance is also objective. Two people measuring it independently will reach the same conclusion as to the distance between the two points.

Now, you claim that morality is objective. Show us that agreement in measurement applies to morality as well.

Not to argue against your point as to his argument, but, is the existence of God subjective?

 

[James_Lai]

In the thread on mortal force there was a side-discussion about objective morality (for example, see this post). Is there such a thing as objective morality? If so, what is it? If not, why not?

Anyone who answers the question needs to give their definitions of “objective” and “morality.” Once they have set out their definitions they should go on to explain why they believe there is or is not an objective morality. Some starter definitions of objectivity can be found at Merriam-Webster and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

If you want to critique someone’s position you should begin by telling them 1) Whether their conclusion accords with their definitions, 2) Whether you agree with their definitions, and 3) Why you believe their argument is sound or unsound.

Society changes, so does morality.

 

[Ken-1122]

In any debate when people disagree over a moral value only one can be correct.

Correct according to what measure?

Its counter intuitive to say we can never say that rape of child abuse is objectively wrong. Its a strange thing to say and goes against our intuitions that its wrong.

Rape and child abuse is not objectively wrong, it’s subjectively wrong.

Why would he reject "Honesty" if he thought it was an objective then valuing "Honesty" would make the debate go lot easier.

You keep saying that, but it doesn’t make it true; honest does not make things easier. He might reject honesty for the same reason he might if he thought it was subjective.

Yes it does as "Truth" and "Honesty" become like laws when objective. No subjective view can change that.

You are wrong. To recognize morality is subjective does not prevent anyone from recognizing when they are being lied to.

Yes and say it was your personal subjective view that you don't need "Truth" and "Honesty" in a debate seeking the truth. How do you find the truth if "Truth" and "Honesty" are no longer necessary.

Logic and reason; the same way you find truth and honesty if you do find it necessary.

There is always a real moral truth in any moral situation but that doesn't stop people having subjective views about morality.

No; at first you said
“We have to look at each situation and determine if the morals are objective or not as I have done in the debate scenario.”
That means (according to you) sometimes morality is not objective.

We work out what is the best moral action for that situation.

How do we objectively determine which moral action is best?

 

[Kylie]

Not to argue against your point as to his argument, but, is the existence of God subjective?

The issue of whether anything exists is objective.

By that, I don't mean that God objectively exists, nor do I mean that he objectively DOESN'T exist.

What I mean is that if he exists, then it's an objective fact that he exists. If he does not, then it's an objective fact that he does not exist. If God exists in reality (as in, external to any person's mind) for one person, then he exists in reality for all people. The same can be applied to the existence of anything else.

 

[o_mlly]

You have not shown this. You have not even come close to showing this.

If you have a "good" rape case then you would be correct. You don't, so you are wrong.

Yes, that would be MEASURING the morality of the act in question. Something I have repeatedly asked you to explain and which you have consistently avoided doing.

Measuring the morality of acts, as I have consistently responded, is merely a deflection on your part to avoid my repeated requests for you to refute the arguments I've given that address this thread's topic, ie., "Is Morality Objective?" Your posts are very much like the "flat-earther's" silly attempts to avoid responding to the evidence that the earth is not flat, eg., "Yeah, well just how spherical is it, then?"

Excuses, excuses. Is name calling immoral or is it moral?

I wrote that that the act needs further definition. The mere physicality of an act does not describe a human act. Having the faculty of reason gives us insight to know that an act naturally tends toward some proximate end(s) in view. Is the act a child calling out "Mommy" in order to be saved from an oncoming car? Is the name calling an award as in "He's a Nobel Prize Laureate"? You get the point.

If you can't measure the light, you can't show that the light is there. If you can't measure the mass, you can't show that the mass is there. If you can't measure the distance between two points, you can't show that the two points are actually separate. Do you disagree with any of these? The amount of light is objective. Two people measuring it independently will reach the same conclusion as to the brightness of the light source. The amount of mass being measured is also objective. Two people measuring it independently will reach the same conclusion as to the mass of the object being measured. Distance is also objective. Two people measuring it independently will reach the same conclusion as to the distance between the two points.

Now, you claim that morality is objective. Show us that agreement in measurement applies to morality as well.

Nonsense. If I have no instruments with which to measure I can still by naked eye observation tell you that there is or is not light, or by sense of touch that there is or is not mass, or that there are or are not two points. The categorization of moral and immoral human acts can be determined by observing/examining the object of the act and the circumstances surrounding the act. No need to blow smoke in this thread. It is that simple.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The issue of whether anything exists is objective.

By that, I don't mean that God objectively exists, nor do I mean that he objectively DOESN'T exist.

What I mean is that if he exists, then it's an objective fact that he exists. If he does not, then it's an objective fact that he does not exist. If God exists in reality (as in, external to any person's mind) for one person, then he exists in reality for all people. The same can be applied to the existence of anything else.

Exactly so. Thus, then, how is it that morality is (or is not) objective? Morality (to some) is what one ought to do, as measured against opinion. To others it is what one ought to do, as is measured against God. If the latter are right, it is objective. Opinion changes no fact.

 

[stevevw]

Correct according to what measure?

According to the disgreement must have one right answer and one wrong answer. Therefore the one right answer will be the moral truth. Morality is about behaviour. So there will be a right and wrong way to behave in any moral situation. If we cannot find that answer at the time this doesnt mean that one right answer cannot be found at some time. Thats why we engage to find the truth of a matter.

Rape and child abuse is not objectively wrong, it’s subjectively wrong.

So are you saying that we cannot say that rape and child abuse are really wrong outside peoples heads (subjective views).

You keep saying that, but it doesn’t make it true; honest does not make things easier. He might reject honesty for the same reason he might if he thought it was subjective.

So lets say he feels "Honesty" is an unnecessary moral and chooses to not respect it in the debate. So how can the other person tell he is lying or not. Because he doesnt uphold "Honesty" as a rule/guide he can twist things and misrepresent the other persons arguement.

You are wrong. To recognize morality is subjective does not prevent anyone from recognizing when they are being lied to.

But how do you know your being lied to if "Truth" and "Honesty" are no longer necessary moral values. How do you know that your subjective view of recognizing lies is not because you implicitly value "Truth" and "Honesty" as moral truths. This is a common intuitive position most people including philosophers take.

Logic and reason; the same way you find truth and honesty if you do find it necessary.

Ok I think we are getting somewhere. I agree logic and reason are important as morality is a rational process. But the point is for me is that using these tools to find "Truth" and "Honesty" implies there is something to find, a truth or fact.

No; at first you said
“We have to look at each situation and determine if the morals are objective or not as I have done in the debate scenario.”
That means (according to you) sometimes morality is not objective.

Ok sorry I didnt mean it to be that way. I didnt mean there was no objective moral but rather we have to use reasoning and logic to find the objective moral way to act in each situation. There will always be an objective, but sometimes its hard to find or it may not be found.

People will come to a moral situations with their views and opinions on what morally right and wrong. So I am not saying people dont have subjective views on morality. But when we come together in a moral scenario we may disagree but we both can't be right. So that points to there being a right or fact that can be known. We act like it matters and we want to find the truth and best way to act in that situation.

How do we objectively determine which moral action is best?

You said it earlier. By logic and rationality. We can determine the best action to take which will be the most good. Our intuition can guide us as to what is morally right or wrong. We usually react/respond to moral situations like theres something wrong and it matters morally. So we investigate that situation to see if there is a morally right way to act.

As mentioned before about if seen a women being robbed on the street we intuitive know something is wrong even when we don't know the details or context of why it happened. Thats our starting point and then we can see if there is a morally right way to act.

For example on reasoning about say abortion. People disagree about whether abortion is morally right or wrong. This is usually about prolife (the fetus is a life) and pro choice where people believe that its the right of the person to decide. And under secular law this is fine as the government cannot encroach on siding with any religion, or any view for that matter.

But I think that a fair degree of the pro choice supporters don't really think the fetus is a life. The real issue is whether abortion takes a life or not. Because I really think that any pro choice advocate really thought that there was another life in them I think they would find it hard to then have an abortion and thats is what has been happening in recent times. As technology allows us to understand the Fetus better we are beginning to see it as life more. For example we now know that the fetus can feel pain.

The point is we intuitive know life is precious so we can use reasoning to follow that through and try to find the truth of the matter. Its all about whether the fetus is life. I think if we all thought the fetus was life we would all be in agreement morally. So we may not be quite there in establishing the truth if abortion is morally wrong but that doesn't mean a truth cannot be found. As time goes on we wll better understand the matter and this will help us determine if our intuitions are correct.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So are you saying that we cannot say that rape and child abuse are really wrong outside peoples heads (subjective views).

This question kind of reminds me of that 'tree falling in the wilderness with nobody there to hear it', thing. The notion that we are the purveyors of definition and, (hinted as an implication), purveyors of fact, is ludicrous.

 

[partinobodycular]

According to the disgreement must have one right answer and one wrong answer.

That's a false dichotomy. Subjective statements don't have a right or wrong answer. But I'm pretty sure you know that.

So lets say he feels "Honesty" is an unnecessary moral and chooses to not respect it in the debate. So how can the other person tell he is lying or not.

The same way anybody does, by comparing the statement to the evidence and judging accordingly. A mistruth honestly held, is still a mistruth.

But how do you know your being lied to if "Truth" and "Honesty" are no longer necessary moral values.

See above.

This is a common intuitive position most people including philosophers take.

No, most people judge a statement according to the evidence, their experience, and the credibility/objectivity of the presenter. Which in the case of theists, and other passionately held beliefs, can be questionable.

But the point is for me is that using these tools to find "Truth" and "Honesty" implies there is something to find, a truth or fact.

But the "truth or fact" that you find may not be that one of the answers is right and the other one is wrong, rather it may simply be that in this particular case there is no right or wrong answer, only opinions. So there's still a right answer, it's just that that right answer, is that there is no right answer.

You said it earlier. By logic and rationality. We can determine the best action to take which will be the most good. Our intuition can guide us as to what is morally right or wrong.

But this means that morality is subjective, because it's based upon what's the most good, and "good" is a subjective term. Therefore any system of categorization that's based upon what's "good" is subjective by default.

 

[partinobodycular]

So lets say he feels "Honesty" is an unnecessary moral and chooses to not respect it in the debate.

Unfortunately for you this entire debate has been an exercise in dishonesty, which pretty much destroys the credibility of your claim that "Truth and Honesty" are necessary features of a debate.

Specifically, you have repeatedly refused to refer to your "transcendent cause" as God, although we all know that that's what you're arguing for. At least Aquinas had the intellectual integrity to admit at the end of each and every one of his Five Ways, that what he was arguing for was that which men know as God.

So you can claim that truth and honesty are necessary in a debate, but your actions clearly say otherwise.

 

[stevevw]

Unfortunately for you this entire debate has been an exercise in dishonesty, which pretty much destroys the credibility of your claim that "Truth and Honesty" are necessary features of a debate.

Specifically, you have repeatedly refused to refer to your "transcendent cause" as God, although we all know that that's what you're arguing for. At least Aquinas had the intellectual integrity to admit at the end of each and every one of his Five Ways, that what he was arguing for was that which men know as God.

So you can claim that truth and honesty are necessary in a debate, but your actions clearly say otherwise.

Ok lets go along with your non sequitur logical fallacy for a moment. What difference will it make to the arguement that there are objective morals by identifying my God as the source of moral objectives.

 

[stevevw]

This question kind of reminds me of that 'tree falling in the wilderness with nobody there to hear it', thing. The notion that we are the purveyors of definition

when it comes to social and cultural meaning we are the purveyors of definition. Theres no question about that from the sciences. We come togther and make meaning through language and the meaning we place on what we see and experience.

and, (hinted as an implication), purveyors of fact, is ludicrous.

I am not sure what you mean by facts. This is a bit ambigious as to whether you mean physical facts as I have not said that.

But if you are talking about another type of fact or truth regarding morality I have never said that humans create this either. Quite the opposite. Like Math we discover morality. They are discovered through rationality.

 

[Ken-1122]

According to the disgreement must have one right answer and one wrong answer. Therefore the one right answer will be the moral truth. Morality is about behaviour. So there will be a right and wrong way to behave in any moral situation.

So which is morally right; justice? or forgiveness.

So are you saying that we cannot say that rape and child abuse are really wrong outside peoples heads (subjective views).

Correct. If humans did not exist, there would be no morality. If a male lion approaches a female lioness, kills her cubs, and has sex against her will forcing her to bear his cubs, is that evil abuse and rape? Or nature.

Ok I think we are getting somewhere. I agree logic and reason are important as morality is a rational process. But the point is for me is that using these tools to find "Truth" and "Honesty" implies there is something to find, a truth or fact.

But that still doesn’t mean you have to try to be honest in order to be able to tell when someone else is lying.

Ok sorry I didnt mean it to be that way. I didnt mean there was no objective moral but rather we have to use reasoning and logic to find the objective moral way to act in each situation.

Again; if this objective moral is outside of human thought, how do you verify it correct?

You said it earlier. By logic and rationality. We can determine the best action to take which will be the most good.

Good by which standard? Often the same action that is good for one group is tragic for another. If I am selling my house, a drop in housing prices is tragic for me, but if I am buying a house, that same action is good for me.

Our intuition can guide us as to what is morally right or wrong. We usually react/respond to moral situations like theres something wrong and it matters morally. So we investigate that situation to see if there is a morally right way to act.

No, you said objective morality is outside human thought. Intuition is based on human thought. Try again?