Is there Objective Morality?

[VirOptimus]

We can determine a better/best way to behave morally by using rationality and logic. We can reason why some behaviours are better than others. Our intuitions tell us that certain actions are wrong or that there are moral truths (like laws) that stand independent of humans.

So for example take "Truth" as a moral value. In finding the truth of a matter the moral "Truth" becomes necessary and independent of peoples subjective views, preferences feelings because we cannot engage as humans in that situation if we disregard the "TRuth". So its self-evident. Its objectiveness is by its own authority, because its status as an independent necessary value is made by humans whether they know it or not.

Again, better for whom? By what authority?

 

[IWalkAlone]

I have not attacked you.

Learn what the terms mean.

Sorry, what i meant was refute my argument, not me personally.

 

[VirOptimus]

Sorry, what i meant was refute my argument, not me personally.

I did. Do you know what a ”objective agent” means?

 

[IWalkAlone]

I did. Do you know what a ”objective agent” means?

I assumed you meant i was not an objective person or poster when you said i wasn't an objective agent. If that's wrong please give me the definition. From what i know so far you have refuted my person not my argument. Anyway, this is really going no where. Its been fun but i gotta run.

 

[VirOptimus]

I assumed you meant i was not an objective person or poster when you said i wasn't an objective agent. If that's wrong please give me the definition. From what i know so far you have refuted my person not my argument. Anyway, this is really going no where. Its been fun but i gotta run.

Read some moral philosophy.

 

[Ken-1122]

If you kill all the healthcare workers who would take care of you? If you steal you will go to prison. You can objectively decide that its immoral to kill your doctors and steal.

What you just described is not about morality, it's about recognizing what behaviors is/is not in your best interest act upon.

Likewise if God exists you can objectively decide that its just as morally wrong to disobey him because its he who gives you life and can take it away.

For that which is objective, it is regardless of the views of any sentient being. Since God is described as a sentient being, God’s views cannot be labeled objective any more than mine, yours, or any other sentient being. Example; if God said I were a biological female, God would be as wrong. If God said 2+2=5, he would be as wrong as you or I saying it. IOW In order for morality to be objective, it cannot be based on whatever God says, any more than it can be based on what I or anyone else says. Assuming God made us and could kill us does not make him objectively morally right.

 

[Ken-1122]

The same applies to some other laws as well, not just stealing or killing.

Your example only applies to legislation; not morality.

 

[Bradskii]

You implied that morality and law are not the same, as if morality cannot be legislated but it is. You wont agree because your reasoning is subjective i suspect.

I said that you don't want to confuse the two. Some things that are illegal are not immoral and some things that are immoral are not illegal. We have some on this thread who won't agree that value is subjective so I'm not heading down a path which is overgrown with leagalise. You're on your own.

 

[Bradskii]

It was a four act play and it's over. Remember in Act II where you reported that the girl was "fed and watered, for 10 years". A human act is immoral if there is a defect in any of the three sources of judging. No need to go to the circumstances or even the moral object of the act if the actor wills a bad intention.

Moral judgements are made on principles. Prudential judgements are that which a reasonable, ie., rational actor, would hold. Next?

It's ok. I knew it was unanswerable as far as you were concerned.

I find that quite often a refusal to answer says more about a person's position than an actual answer ever would. I just wanted to let everyone know that that was the case here. So there is no next.

 

[stevevw]

Again, better for whom? By what authority?

Its better for humans and there is no authority as the moral value becomes like a law. Do physical laws need an authority.

 

[Kylie]

@stevevw you seem to have missed this post.

Any two acts that have different morality.

For example, which is morally worse, stealing a chocolate bar, or hitting a child? If you claim that morality is objective, you should be able to clearly define which is worse and by how much (for example, is the worse act twice as bad as the other? Three times?).

 

[stevevw]

It may seem that way to you, but only because of your dogged insistence that morals must have an objective grounding, unsullied by mere human judgments.

I am not saying there are no morals. I'm trying to explain what kind of a thing morals are. They are judgments by human judgers. Like matters of aesthetics or taste.



I don't know this. However, what is your objective way of determining right from wrong? Many of us have been desperate to hear of this thing.



We use analogies to compare things that are similar in some way.
Things that are identical are identical in all respects.

I could make the analogy that 'a spinster is like a bachelor'.

If someone responded "But a bachelor is defined as an unmarried man! It's absurd to say a spinster is a man." she would be missing the point of the analogy and insisting on some kind of identity between the two things.

Similarly, you are misinterpreting my analogy if you insist I have to slap the Brussels sprouts off other people's forks. (Or that I must allow rapists to enjoy their rape.)

But isn't subjective morality about "Likes and Dislikes", opinions, feelings. If so how does saying "I don't like rape" or "in my opinion rape is OK" inconsistent with subjective morality.

 

[stevevw]

Any two acts that have different morality.

For example, which is morally worse, stealing a chocolate bar, or hitting a child? If you claim that morality is objective, you should be able to clearly define which is worse and by how much (for example, is the worse act twice as bad as the other? Three times?).

But this is not objective morality or what is also known as moral realism. Each scenario has an objective moral truth so each has to be determined. Intuitively we would act as if stealing a chocolate bar or hitting a child as something wrong. In each case we can reason an objective.

Assaulting a child is strange behaviour towards another person. So we could reason a better way to behave. It doesnt matter at this point if there is an objective truth or not. We should be able to investigate if there is a better way to behave towards a child.

The same with stealing a chocolate bar. If we seen this we would wonder what to do. We know its wrong. Is there a better way to behave in that moral situation.

 

[Bradskii]

If i choose not to steal your money because you need it to live, how is this subjective?

If you choose? If it's you doing the choosing? If it's your choice? And you want to know if it's subjective?

I can't get my head around some of these posts.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But isn't subjective morality about "Likes and Dislikes", opinions, feelings. If so how does saying "I don't like rape" or "in my opinion rape is OK" inconsistent with subjective morality.

They are not inconsistent, but neither is "I don't like rape, and I don't like other people raping, and I will stop other people raping if I see them raping."

Quoting my question again: what is your objective way of determining right from wrong? Many of us have been desperate to hear of this thing.

 

[VirOptimus]

Its better for humans and there is no authority as the moral value becomes like a law. Do physical laws need an authority.

Which humans? Who gets to chose?

How can you have morality without authority?

 

[Bradskii]

Quoting my question again: what is your objective way of determining right from wrong? Many of us have been desperate to hear of this thing.

Seconded.

 

[Ken-1122]

Assaulting a child is strange behaviour towards another person. So we could reason a better way to behave. It doesnt matter at this point if there is an objective truth or not. We should be able to investigate if there is a better way to behave towards a child.

Of course there is a better way to behave; but that is not the question! The question is which behavior is worse? Why can't you just answer the question?

 

[Kylie]

But this is not objective morality or what is also known as moral realism. Each scenario has an objective moral truth so each has to be determined. Intuitively we would act as if stealing a chocolate bar or hitting a child as something wrong. In each case we can reason an objective.

Assaulting a child is strange behaviour towards another person. So we could reason a better way to behave. It doesnt matter at this point if there is an objective truth or not. We should be able to investigate if there is a better way to behave towards a child.

The same with stealing a chocolate bar. If we seen this we would wonder what to do. We know its wrong. Is there a better way to behave in that moral situation.

Excuses, excuses.

No one ever has to say, "It depends on the details," when it comes to measuring the diameter of the moon, the density of a block of metal, or any number of other objective things.

 

[stevevw]

Again, better for whom? By what authority?

We can't really say whose authority as the morals stand on their own authority as humans make them.