Is there Objective Morality?

[food4thought]

Of course not, why would I?

Good. So why would you not be ok with that? You are not inherently valuable, so what's the big deal?

 

[VirOptimus]

Got it. Even though pretty much everyone in all history has thought that people violently attacking them isn't ok, this still does not reach the level of "objective", because people are not objective. Even the vast majority of humans all through history does not constitute objective.

Do you understand what objective morality entails? If so, explain it.

Ok. So according to your position, people are not capable of determining objective morality for themselves? Am I correctly understanding?

As there is no such thing as "objective morality" thats a weird question. Also, if people decide morality it isnt objective.

So, in your worldview, how do humans determine what social structures to live within in community? What laws should be enacted? What goals should be encouraged? Are there any things that our culture SHOULD value, and why? Why should we care? How do we keep people with bad (is there such a thing?) intentions from taking control of everybody? Because, really, it doesn't matter much who controls us, because nothing is objectively better than another thing, so who am I to say that other group with more tanks and guns than us should be resisted? We should just work at whatever those strong enough to control us tells us to do, for as long as the tell us to do it, and, if we have any time left in the day, sit on our couches (if the inevitably totalitarian government deems it worth giving us one), watch the state propaganda on however big a screen they are willing to give us, and let them feed us whatever they see fit to give us, in whatever structures they see fit to allow us to dwell in, for however long they deem convenient to let us live.

We humans have this thing called language that we communicate ideas in, and ideas live and die on their merit. The person with the biggest gun wil always have the power, thats just the way it is.

Hey, would you like to emigrate to North Korea? Sounds like it may be your kind of place... at least you wouldn't have to deal with us darn Christians and our value judgments!

Reported.

 

[o_mlly]

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

We've seen this playbook before. I think this is rule #4. It's often the case that when one gets an answer that's not only not the one they'd hoped for, but also reveals the shallowness of the question asked that the questioner resorts to retreating while loudly blowing his horn claiming victory.

 

[VirOptimus]

Good. So why would you not be ok with that? You are not inherently valuable, so what's the big deal?

You dont understand moral philosophy, your questions and assertions are just strawmen.

 

[stevevw]

No, thats not how values work.

How else can it work. If humans make something matter then it has to have some value attached. Otherwise it would not matter.

 

[stevevw]

Not believing in ”objective morality” is not the same as saying anyone can do whatever they want (which, in itself would be a moral stance).

You should really learn the basics of the different schools in moral philodophy.

Why is it not. Why should I tell the truth, share, preserve life, if there is nothing ultimately that says what I do is wrong by any measure. Peoples opinions, preferences, feelings or lack of moral values don't say anything about an act being right or wrong in any objective way.

No one is saying that people will do this or that they don't know right from wrong. The point is there is no grounding for why they should behave a certain way as opposed to another way.

 

[VirOptimus]

Why is it not. Why should I tell the truth, share, preserve life, if there is nothing ultimately that says what I do is wrong by any measure. Peoples opinions, preferences, feelings or lack of moral values don't say anything about an act being right or wrong in any objective way.

No one is saying that people will do this or that they don't know right from wrong. The point is there is no grounding for why they should behave a certain way as opposed to another way.

We make our own "grounding".

Would you behave like a psycopath of you didnt believe in objective morality?

 

[VirOptimus]

How else can it work. If humans make something matter then it has to have some value attached. Otherwise it would not matter.

Value for whom? How do you meassure it?

 

[stevevw]

We make our own "grounding".

Yes humans give a moral its value when they implicitly use it as a measure how to behave morally.

Would you behave like a psycopath if you didnt believe in objective morality?

Of course not. Like I said no one is saying people don't know right from wrong. Its that there is no measuring stick for behaviour in the first place. To know what behaving like a psycopath is we need to know what the objective basis is for being a psycopath and not being one. So we appeal to objective measures when determining what is better/best behaviour.

 

[stevevw]

Value for whom? How do you meassure it?

Value for the situation in which humans are engaging in. Value for that situation to even happen. Therefore its like an independent value because no human determines its value because their views cannot change the fact that the moral truth/fact is required, necessary for human interaction to happen.

You measure what is the best way to act in that moral situation as opposed to other ways to act that can best make that interaction happen and support whatever the moral value is. We intuitively know what is right and wrong. Its just a case of testing this.

Of course this does not mean that people cannot have subjective views or defy moral truths. But we should be able to find a better/best way to act morally if we are capable of finding that.

 

[VirOptimus]

Value for the situation in which humans are engaging in. Value for that situation to even happen. Therefore its like an independent value because no human determines its value because their views cannot change the fact that the moral truth/fact is required, necessary for human interaction to happen.

You measure what is the best way to act in that moral situation as opposed to other ways to act that can best make that interaction happen and support whatever the moral value is. We intuitively know what is right and wrong. Its just a case of testing this.

Of course this does not mean that people cannot have subjective views or defy moral truths. But we should be able to find a better/best way to act morally if we are capable of finding that.

If we "We intuitively know what is right and wrong." then why is morals so different through cultures and time?

And why is this "intuitivity" objective?

 

[food4thought]

You dont understand moral philosophy, your questions and assertions are just strawmen.

Sorry if I have offended you, that was not my intent... and if my post falls flat, and I demonstrate a lack of understanding of the details of you worldview... please forgive me my ignorance. My goal was to help you see that if humans are unable to determine, objectively, that one moral action is better than another one, the end result will inevitably be a very ugly existence, much like that which exists for the poor souls who live in North Korea. The result of moral relativism is might makes right, and since it has become apparent that Alexander Tyler is going to be proven right eventually, the might that is most likely to prevail in the future is not a western democracy. Please, show me a reason to think I'm wrong here.

See, my point is that, ultimately, from a purely human perspective, you are correct. We, as humans, have proven, over and over again throughout history, that we absolutely cannot consistently make morally good choices, and we certainly can't always agree on what morally good even is! Yet, deep down, we all have this longing for justice... for things to be made "right". Despite our differences, cultures around the world have astoundingly (not always exactly) similar ideas about what constitutes right and wrong morality. No individual person can always determine exactly what the "moral" thing to do is, but we are all aware of a DESIRE for things to be good and right, and almost all humans desire to do what they see as "right", even when they have to admit that they have done things knowing they were wrong when they did them. Humans, fundamentally, are flawed. We desperately need help. No philosophy, no code of laws, no religious text (even the Bible!), can give us right guidance on every decision we make in every circumstances we face. Philosophies, at their best, help us understand ourselves and the world around us better. Religious texts, at their best, can give us a worldview (not very different from a philosophy), and guidelines to follow that are trustworthy, but sometimes these guidelines conflict. Do I tell the truth, and allow this evil person to find the child sex slave I rescued, and am hiding in my basement from being recaptured? Or do I lie, and send this evil person away empty handed, and save this child from a horrible fate? Do I pick up this gun, and stop a person bent on doing unspeakable evil unless I stop him immediately? But killing is not good...

Ultimately, we need a good Counselor to be with us always, who knows exactly what the right thing to do is, in every situation. We need to be forgiven, over and over again, for not doing what is right, and for doing what we know to be wrong. All too often, we need to be told that what we have done, or are about to do, IS wrong. We need to be told that such a Counselor even exists, and we need to know enough about His character so we can recognize His voice when He speaks. We need to know, above all, that caring genuinely about the good of others, just as much as we care about the good for ourselves, is absolutely the most important thing in our relationships with others. We need a hope that ultimately, things will be made right. I NEED THIS! WE...ALL... NEED... THIS! Even if you don't believe He exists, at least acknowledge that some part of you WISHES He did, even while you are appalled at some of the things you see in this world, and some of the things you read in His word. Ask yourself: if there is no objective moral truth, and ultimately yours is no better than anyone else's, WHY, then, are you appalled at what you see and read? What if those things you're horrified eyes see are, as the Bible says, the consequences of God's judgment on an evil, cursed world, or the actions of a person doing something terribly wrong? What if those passages in the Bible that you are appalled at are copyist errors, or interpolations from self serving copyists/editors (not saying they are, just asking a pointed question)? What if the core of what the Bible teaches actually IS reality?

Why are we so desperately in need of exactly what the Bible tells us God has created us for? Indeed, why are there millions of people, from all kinds of backgrounds, who claim to have experienced exactly what the Bible promises? Why is there anything at all, and how did it come to be? And, seriously, if we're all just independent moral agents, and no morality is inherently superior to another, why does your posts indicate that you are here, not to better understand us, but really trying to convince us that your viewpoint is superior, and ours is just wishful thinking and delusion?

I do not desire to insult, but to challenge you to consider these things from a different perspective than what you have been, just as your posts have done for us, even when I sometimes felt insulted by what I read... I really SHOULD desire to understand how you see things. In the end, really trying to see things from another's perspective, as challenging as it may be, is really quite rewarding, and may actually help us make the world a better place to be. And maybe, just maybe, we might come to see things in a way that we never have before, and be better for it. Hope this helps...

 

[o_mlly]

If they are abstracts pointing to real things like math then they would model things that exist and can be measured in the real world. I have yet to see evidence of such for morality.

Uhhh ... math is not a real thing. Math is a construct of the human mind; it is not discovered but invented. If there were no human beings then there would be no math.

Morality is similar to math in that it also is a construct of the rational mind. If there were no human being then there would be no morality. The rational mind holds as self-evident that to exist is good and to not exist is bad. The rational mind perceives that humans are born with few instincts and must learn how to survive and flourish in community. Human acts which preserve human existence and allow humans to flourish are good. Act that impede either are bad.

Rape is an act that impedes the victim to fluourish. Although this is not the science forum, some wish to impose the scientific method on the issue of objectivity in morality. Science has made progress in measuring the deleterious effects of rape on rape victims. The studies may be embryonic but instructive, ie.,:

Emerging issues in the measurement of rape victimization - PubMed
Sexual assault: key issues

 

[stevevw]

If we "We intuitively know what is right and wrong." then why is morals so different through cultures and time?

But are morals so different through culture and time. I think all cultures share some moral truths. "Life" as a moral value is one and from that most other morals stem. In their own way each culture respects life and makes it an ultimate Value. I think the difference are more about different understandings about the facts around the moral value that the moral itself.

Look at Slavery. People use to think owning people as slaves was morally OK. But it wasnt as if people think like we do today. They actually thought certain humans were 2nd class humans. Not as superior and more animal like. It was also about colonialism but thats another story. So the slavery was not seen as morally bad as we understand today with hindsight.

But people came to understand all people were equal and slavery was wrong. But here is one difficulty with relativism or subjectivism. You can't really say that a moral has prgressed. That we are more moral than in the past or that morals in the past were different. Because that implies there is a measure we are moving away from or towards that determines moral progress.

So technically subjective/relative morality is not an improvement or a better way to behave. Its just a different way. In fact Wilberforce would have been seen as some radical not a reformist protesting how all people are equal and slavery is wrong.

And why is this "intuitivity" objective?

Because we are justified to believe that our intuition of morality is correct until we can be shown that our intuition is totally wrong.

We use out intuition to know that what we experience of the physical world through our senses is real and not some simulation of the real thing. There is no way we can step outside ourselves to check if we are in a simulation or not. So we intutive trust that the world is just as we experience it. Until some can defeat our intuition we are justified to go with it.

Its the same for our intuition of morality. What we experience of morality with our senses we can be justified to believe is a pretty good indicator of thats how morality is until a defeater comes along that shows we are completely wrong about our moral intuitions.

 

[stevevw]

But you havent showed any support for morals existing independently from moral agents.

As far as I think I have. Lets use a legal law. Its a sort of objective rule that people live by. They know that "Stealing" for example is objectively wrong by law. No persons personal opinion about that law is going to change that laws status as an important rule, guide and standard of behaviour.

It is the same with moral laws. Except even without the legal law morals can be argued to have status regardless of peoples opinions of them. They stand outside peoples subjective views. As I have mentioned the moral value of "Truth" stands as a law for people seeking the truth of a matter.

The moral value of "Justice" stands independent of anyones opinions as to its value. Because otherwise humans cannot have these interactions without making these morals valuable despite peoples opinions of them. The thing is if you never stopped to make it a point people would not even realize that they implicitly make morals objective everyday by the way they make them gods.

 

[Ken-1122]

Of course not. Its no more subjective then reasoning that its silly to walk off that building because Gravity will cause you to fall.

The idea that it is “silly” to step off a tall building is completely subjective not objective because silly is a subjective label

You keep saying this but its not beyond all peoples thoughts. Only their subjective thoughts. Their preferences and opinions. The rest of the brain is capable to then doing Math,

There is no math when it comes to morality

making arguements, using logic to deetermine facts and truths.

If you have to use logic to determine facts and truth, what you are calling facts and truth are subjective as well.

By testing your subjective views against what can be reasoned as best or better

To reason something as best or better is subjective

we can see that there are better ways to behave beyond our subjective veiws by the simple fact we have used rationality and logic rather than our own subjective thinking to reach the fact or truth.

That which is rational and logical is subjective as well. You keep using subjective actions to justify your objective claims.

But you have to reason and judge what it is beyond human subjective thinking. It doesnt just magically appear and happen.

That which is reasonable is completely subjective. So you are saying you have to use subjective reasoning to judge what is beyond subjective thinking? That makes no sense IMO

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why should I tell the truth, share, preserve life, if there is nothing ultimately that says what I do is wrong by any measure.

Because you're not a schmuck? Because you have your own personal code of behavior?

Obviously plenty of people are greedy lying killers.


---

Why should you avoid Brussels sprouts, if there is nothing ultimately objective about how they taste independent of people tasting them?

Because you have your own personal sense of taste. And our personal inclinations help determine our behavior.

 

[stevevw]

Because you're not a schmuck?

But even that supposes an objective measure of what a Schmuck is.

Because you have your own personal code of behavior?
Obviously plenty of people are greedy lying killers.

No this doesnt make sense or stand. Having my own personal code of behaviour doesnt help as this doesnt say what is acceptable behaviour outside ourselves. When we have to apply this to other people.

We can't say our personal code of behaviour is right for other people. So everybodies personal code of behaviour will be different. So this doesnt help us.
---

Why should you avoid Brussels sprouts, if there is nothing ultimately objective about how they taste independent of people tasting them?

Exactly. The same logic applied for morality. If morality is like tastes then why is rape, stealing child abuse wrong if there is nothing ultimately objectively about how they ae wrong independent of people opinionating or preferring them?

Because you have your own personal sense of taste. And our personal inclinations help determine our behavior.

once again this seems counter intuitive. I don't think we can say moral matters are determined by my own tastes, opinions, feelings. It seems wrong to say that my sense of morality determines what is really right or wrong. I would think that some independent measure determines what is right and wrong as some peoples tatstes and opinions about what is the morally right thing to do are off this planet. Totally strange and could not possible be allowed. Otherwise we would be living in an alternative universes lol.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But even that supposes an objective measure of what a Schmuck is.

No! You tell yourself if you're being a schmuck or not. Based on your own personal code of conduct. 'Oh, I'd feel bad if I just took that wallet and didn't try to return it.'

Trump doesn't think he's a schmuck. He acts accordingly.

Having my own personal code of behaviour doesnt help as this doesnt say what is acceptable behaviour outside ourselves. When we have to apply this to other people.

That's why we have societies and laws. Because some people are schmucks (in our collective view, as enacted in laws).

Exactly.

I think you need to think on this for a while. You see it, but you won't allow yourself to see it, because you keep insisting:

why is rape, stealing child abuse wrong if there is nothing ultimately objectively [wrong]

Because thing are only wrong subjectively. Things only taste subjectively. Without a taster, there is no taste, just a list of molecules. Without someone to get outraged by some 'moral wrong', there is no wrongness, just actions.

 

[o_mlly]

Because thing are only wrong subjectively. Things only taste subjectively. Without a taster, there is no taste, just a list of molecules.

1. Is 2 + 2 = 5 wrong? (Base 10)
   
2. Is the above subjectively wrong?
   
3. Is it wrong objectively, ie., wrong whether one believes it to be wrong or not?
4. Is math subjective, ie., a product of the human mind?
5. Can an objective conclusion be drawn from subjective premises?
6. Are the experimental sciences reliant for their objectivity on a subjective premise, ie., mathematics?
7. Are the experimental sciences therefore subjective?

1. Is rape wrong?
2. Is the above subjectively wrong?
3. Is it wrong objectively, ie., wrong whether one believes it to be wrong or not?
4. Is morality subjective, ie., a product of the human mind?
5. Can an objective conclusion be drawn from subjective premises?
6. Are moral claims reliant for their objectivity on a subjective premises, ie., rationality?
7. Are moral claims therefore subjective?

If your answers for 1 - 6 are "Yes" and for 7 "No" for the first argument then your answers for the second argument must be the same.