Is there Objective Morality?

[durangodawood]

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

There is no such thing as inherent value.

Value resides as a sentiment in a valuing consciousness, not in the thing being valued.

That said, you can value yourself.

 

[Bradskii]

It's often the case that when one gets an answer that's not only not the one they'd hoped for....

I didn't get an answer. All I got were excuses for not answering. And I'm not 'claiming victory'. If you want to look at it like a competition of some sort then feel free.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yet there are things that, like gravity, just ARE wrong. Regardless of the perspective of the individual performing the act, the objective moral "wrongness" of having sex with a 3 year old just IS wrong. If I must explain in any detailed way why this is wrong, please shut off your computer now, and contact a mental health center immediately. Even if one could make up a possible situation where doing such a thing would be "less wrong" than not doing so (imagine an even more demented version of the movie Saw), the act itself is completely indefensible as being good and right. There are just some things that are absolutely, objectively, wrong in any sane moral sense...

I think you’ve made a very poor argument here. In order for morality to be objective, it isn’t enough for you to call it wrong, and suggest counseling for those who disagree with you; you have to be able to demonstrate providing objective facts that it is wrong; not harmful, not illegal, but wrong. Suppose a person saw nothing wrong with having sex with a 3 year old? Could you provide objective facts demonstrating why such an act is objectively wrong (instead of subjectively wrong)?

 

[food4thought]

There is no such thing as inherent value.

Value resides as a sentiment in a valuing consciousness, not in the thing being valued.

That said, you can value yourself.

I see your position more clearly now, thank you. So, value is a "sentiment" held within a certain kind of consciousness... could we accurately call such a consciousness "sentient"?

 

[food4thought]

I think you’ve made a very poor argument here. In order for morality to be objective, it isn’t enough for you to call it wrong, and suggest counseling for those who disagree with you; you have to be able to demonstrate providing objective facts that it is wrong; not harmful, not illegal, but wrong. Suppose a person saw nothing wrong with having sex with a 3 year old? Could you provide objective facts demonstrating why such an act is objectively wrong (instead of subjectively wrong)?

If one does not hold anything as objectively valuable, then in all honesty I do not know how I would go about explaining in any meaningful way to such a person that it was objectively wrong. The "fact" is that doing something like that would scar a young child, both psychologically and physically, due, in part, to the fact that the child could neither reasonably give consent nor defend itself against such an act, and that this act would cause temporal pain, and possibly, long term sexual disfunction (both mentally and physically). But, if the worldview of the person does not give any value to the other person, why would they care, other than the fact that it was illegal to do such an act, and society would punish such an act both by imprisonment and by social stigma.

The problem, then, as I see it, is that if we cannot establish any objective moral foundation for valuing others, then there can be no real foundation for laws and stigma's against such activity other than public sentiment. Such a situation, my friends, is terrifying to contemplate. Those in power could engineer propaganda campaigns to change public sentiment and stigmas into any form they wish. Indeed, this is being tried all over the world, with varying levels of success. If no objective moral standard is truly the situation, then it is not mostly military might that wins the day, but who best controls the value structure of societies that will win in the end. Orwell and Huxley both saw this very clearly, as do I.

What I don't understand, is why, Why, WHY would anyone ever hold such a view, defend it, and seek to spread it!?! Even if you think philosophically that such is the situation, doesn't the whole thing chew away at the heart of your psyche?

 

[Bradskii]

The question, really, is not whether there actually IS objective morality, but rather who get's to define the boundaries? Who could possibly be qualified to determine such things? Such a person, themselves, would have to be completely sane. Having complete knowledge of how actions, beliefs, and motives affect the course of lives and human history would also be necessary, wouldn't it? Right and wrong are not always apparent until long after the act, belief, or motive is actuated, are they? So being able to see how things play out all through history would be quite helpful wouldn't it? I wonder Who could possibly be qualified? A name keeps coming to my mind, but, of course, there are many who think He either did not ever exist, or that our knowledge of Him is inaccurate and flawed. Oh well, I'm sure that the consequences for choosing our own way and rejecting the only Being qualified to determine objective morality won't be too horrible, right?

You're in the wrong thread. You want the one discussing consequentialism.

 

[food4thought]

You're in the wrong thread. You want the one discussing consequentialism.

Not really... part of the argument FOR objective morality is the undeniable fact the moral values have consequences. Why are we in a universe where sentience exists at all, and why do sentient beings have moral values? In our human experience, morals exist for sentient beings (for lack of a better term). How we define "objective", "true", and "moral" can be parsed into a million hair slices, our human experience can be examined under an electron microscope, and in the end we won't have any greater understanding of these things than we did when we started... humans KNOW some things are just wrong, and some things are just good. We may disagree on some details, but deep down in our beings, a real sense of right and wrong exists.

I think that, apart from God, there is NO FOUNDATION for objectivity in moral situations, because humans are morally flawed, individually and corporately (whether by sin and fall, or by millions of years of tooth and nail, bloody evolution). If our moral consciousness is flawed (and it is, whether by sin and fall or by atoms smashing together randomly in our physical brains), then the only way to determine right and wrong, or anything, really, is to appeal to a morally perfect consciousness. If the Theistic God, the perfect ground of all being, does not exist, then we're stuck with our subjective moral ambiguity, and are doomed (IMO, because all other forms of deity that I am aware of are either impersonal or do not even claim to be perfect). We can debate semantics and philosophical reasonings with our flawed consciousness, or we can acknowledge that it is largely our presuppositions that determine our position here. Are we in a Theistic universe, or a Materialistic universe? THAT is THE question... how we answer that will inevitably lead us to different answers on objective morality.

Am I wrong in this assessment?

So, then, even though these things are not the main point in this thread, they are valid topics to discuss in conjunction with the existence of objective morality. I don't want to get into a detailed debate on Theism vs. Materialism, but do think mentioning the backdrop of this debate is relevant.

 

[Bradskii]

I think that, apart from God, there is NO FOUNDATION for objectivity in moral situations...

Be sure to let me know when you find out who has the direct link to God so we'll know the answer to all moral problems. In the meantime, we'll keep making the decisions ourselves. Subjectively.

 

[Kylie]

Yes they do all the time. What about the Flat Earth Society, consciousness, QM. What about "Trumps" election as it was pointed out to me where some believed he won the election even though it was objectively clear he din't in reality. These have objective determinations but still people see them differently based on their opinion, views, feelings.

And there is also clear objective evidence that any rational person will accept. Those that don't accept it have to rely on conspiracy theories that involve guesswork whereas the truth has objective fact.

You seem incapable of presenting any of the objective facts that would support objective morality. I've asked you to show the objective difference between the morality of two different things and you responded with excuses. Honestly, it's you that's sounding like a flat-earther here, since you refuse to answer even the most basic questions your "objective morality" idea presents.

 

[Kylie]

I though I did. Lets stick with one of each a political one and a social moral. The moral objective for moral matters relating to capital punishment is "Life". Therefore it is objectively wrong to kill an innocent person. The same as abortion. It is objectively wrong to take an innocent life.

Okay then, here's a question for you.

On September 11, if you had the chance to shoot down those airliners before they could have hit the World Trade Center, would you have done it?

(And before you start trying to make this complicated, assume that if you did, the only deaths would have been the people on the planes. There would have been no people killed on the ground, etc.)

 

[stevevw]

No! You tell yourself if you're being a schmuck or not. Based on your own personal code of conduct.

See you have just once again assumed an objective. You cannot tell yourself you are a Schmuck based on your own personal opinion or feeling as that holds no weight as to whether you really are a Schmuck. Now that would be dellussional because you have no way to tell. People often rationalize they havnt done anything wrong. They may have biases and selfish motives to conseal the truth. Its just an opinion.

'Oh, I'd feel bad if I just took that wallet and didn't try to return it.'

Feelings don't pass the test either. Some people may feel good that they have found a wallet full of money and will go and party. You need some independent measure of whether stealing money from a wallet is morally wrong.

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

Trump is a salesman.

[/quote] Yes we can determine the "TRuth"about polititians not from their own subjective views of themselves but from the facts out there.

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

But you just said we don't call others schmucks but only ourselves. Once again you are assuming an objective to measure what a schmuck is and isn't. Even laws make measuring what is wrong objective especially if there are moral values underpinning them. But evenso all the social morals that are not illegal. People are calling others schmucks all the time for their bad social behaviour.

What is their objective measure to do this. They surely could not be making such a protest based on personal opinion as that means nothing. Its just a waste of breath. Surely people want to know that their protests and condemnations means something beyond them and speak a truth about others and into the world.

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.

BUt what your not understanding is that just because you need a person to have morality doesnt automatically make morals subjective. People can reason and use logic just like they do with science to determine facts.

So when you say someone is outraged morally they have to get outraged about something. They have to know what is the measurement of when someone should be outraged. Otherwise people would be going around outraged that someone has eaten peas or spilt their coffee or likes the colour red ect.

You keep speaking like morals are objective and thats my point that we cannot help but do that because there needs to be a right or wrong when it comes to morality no an opinion. Morality doesnt work that way.

 

[stevevw]

And there is also clear objective evidence that any rational person will accept. Those that don't accept it have to rely on conspiracy theories that involve guesswork whereas the truth has objective fact.

I disagree as some may think for example in science that an alternative theory explains what is happening just as well. Its just a case of different starting assumptions. BUt nevertheless it doesnt matter what the people use as their reason for thinking alternative facts.

The point is they genuinely believe that those alternative views are right. They believe there was some unjust practcies during the elections and this denied Trump. Their personal biases may influence their position but that is what subjectiveness is about. So people still have subjective views about objective reality.

You seem incapable of presenting any of the objective facts that would support objective morality. I've asked you to show the objective difference between the morality of two different things and you responded with excuses. Honestly, it's you that's sounding like a flat-earther here, since you refuse to answer even the most basic questions your "objective morality" idea presents.

No I replied with the only reasonable answer there can be. Objective morality is about there being an objectove wrong for any moral situation. So stealing chocolate is objectively wrong. Assaulting a child is objectively wrong. Simple as that.

How does saying that these two moral situations cannot be compared as to which one is worse refutes that each is objectively wrong. It still supports moral objectivity. Your acting like the evidence for objective morality hinges on this one answer. Well thats a logical fallacy.

What part of saying you cannot compare two different moral situations as to which one is worse don't you understand. Or are you saying because I did not answer this in the way you thought it should be answered must mean I am hiding from the truth. If so then give some arguement rather than say excuses, excuses. Otherwise thats another logical fallacy as far as I can see.

 

[Bradskii]

You keep speaking like morals are objective and thats my point that we cannot help but do that because there needs to be a right or wrong when it comes to morality...

Then you can answer the question posed earlier. At what point does keeping a child in her room as punishment become immoral? If there needs to be a right or a wrong then it's either morally acceptable or immoral. When does it become immoral?

 

[stevevw]

Okay then, here's a question for you.

On September 11, if you had the chance to shoot down those airliners before they could have hit the World Trade Center, would you have done it?

(And before you start trying to make this complicated, assume that if you did, the only deaths would have been the people on the planes. There would have been no people killed on the ground, etc.)

How is any of this relevant to objective morality. Listen to the logic. If I say that we shouldnt shoot down the plane then morals must be subjective. Thats just a big fallacy. If I shoot down the plane then you are contradicting your own objective morality. Thats another fallacy. So wheich logical fallacy are you going with.

In any situation the best action is to save as many lives as possible. But thats a hard one as hindsight is 20/20 vision. You may think there are 200 people on the plane and only 50 on the floors where the plane will hit the tower. But how do you really know. But basically the aim would be to save as many people as possible as life is recognised objectively as imposrtant.

 

[stevevw]

Then you can answer the question posed earlier. At what point does keeping a child in her room as punishment become immoral? If there needs to be a right or a wrong then it's either morally acceptable or immoral. When does it become immoral?

The level of punishment doesnt change the fact that the kid did something wrong that needed punishing. I am not sure what you point is. Its like if you can catch me saying that we cannot determine what the level of punishment should be then morals must be subjective. But thats a logical fallacy.

The fact is a wrong was done and needs punishing not the level of punishment. That may be justifiably different in each case. A child may have been bad for the first time and only needs to small ampunt of punishment. Another child may be a repeat offender so the punishment may need to be harder. Some parents may find certain types of punishment work better for they kid.

Any situation will become immoral when someone abuses the child.

 

[essentialsaltes]

See you have just once again assumed an objective.

False.

You cannot tell yourself you are a Schmuck based on your own personal opinion or feeling

Oh yes I can. At 3 am, I relive that thing from 15 years ago that I regret that nobody else even knows about. Are you trying to tell me that people don't have consciences? Nonsense!

Some people may feel good that they have found a wallet full of money and will go and party.

Yes, that's the point! Once again you evade its import! Different people have different consciences!

But you just said we don't call others schmucks but only ourselves.

I have never said such a thing. Indeed, I called Trump a schmuck. A putz, even.

 

[stevevw]

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

Ok then use another word "dangerous". I use the word silly with an objective to qualify it. We know what the word silly means
having or showing a lack of common sense or judgement; absurd and foolish.
So this is an apt meaning for walking off a cliff. Nevertheless the point is people just don't do counter intuitive things like that. People would think there was something wrong with the person who walked off a building. So we can reason out better ways to act than other ways to act. Walking off a building is not the best way to act. It is better to stay within the guard rails and bot pout yourself at risk of falling off a building.

The same with morality. Killing someone for money nis not the best way to act. We can get a job and earn money and this is a better way to act morally.

There is no math when it comes to morality

No one has said that. Math is often used as a comparison for morality because Maths have facts which are not physical facts. Morality has facts which are not physical.

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

No they cannot be subjective because they are reasoned out. Like I just mentioned. The reasoning would be "walking off a building to get to the ground is not the best way to act". So we can reason that we will get hurt or die walking off a building to get to the ground. So we reason that taking the lift or stairs is a better way to act.

To reason something as best or better is subjective

its impossible because best or better point to some measure outside people of what is best or better. If you say to a person thats the best car money can get. You would hope that you had some evidence for this. Maybe a car award or an independent review of cars. But to just say that you subjectively think its the best car money can buy based on an opinion says nothing about whether it really is the best car.

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

We can rationally and logically work out why something is objective. Like the car example above. Logically unless you can show some independent evdience that the car is really the best car money can by then its not the best car money can buy. Rationally you would be taking a risk buying that car without independnet evidence.

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

Surely your just making this up. Have you even looked up the definition.

For example reasoning means
the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
the reasons, arguments, proofs, etc., resulting from this process.
So reasoning uses arguements which use facts, proofs. Facts and proof are objective.
Logic means
1 : a proper or reasonable way of thinking about something : sound reasoning. 2 : a science that deals with the rules and processes used in sound thinking and reasoning.
So logic is a science which is objective. Sound reasoning means beyond the subjective because it has a sound basis.

 

[food4thought]

Be sure to let me know when you find out who has the direct link to God so we'll know the answer to all moral problems. In the meantime, we'll keep making the decisions ourselves. Subjectively.

Funny you should mention that... I was just thinking about Scripture, and more specifically the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament (found in Exodus 20). Within a Theistic universe framework, these commandments make perfect sense.

1) No other gods. If God is truly God, and other so-called gods are not, then serving another so-called god will lead to moral error, which we know leads to conflict between humans, and ultimately leads to things like war, killing, and exploitation of the weak (all common in the religions/societies of the ancient middle east, and today). Also, importantly, whatever humans worship, they become more like.

2) No images/idols. Again, if God is truly God, then making an image from one's imagination and serving it is an insult to God, who has no material shape... it cheapens our understanding of who He is. Second, serving an image of our imagination would eventually lead one to also begin forming our own moral beliefs from our imaginations, which would bring us back to why the first commandment makes sense.

3) Don't make false oaths in His name/lie in His name. Contrary to popular belief, this commandment is not about using the name of God as a swear word (although that's not a good thing either). It is about representing who He is by not speaking falsely and attaching His character to it. Lying is morally wrong in general (with rare exceptions), being false or deceptive in His name is doubly wrong. Again, it misrepresents who God is and cheapens our understanding of Him. Again, whatever humans worship, they will become more like.

4) Keep the Sabbath. Up until this point, the main objective of the commandments was to regulate our relationship to God. This commandment has that aspect, but is also regulating our relationship to each other. Since God "rested" after the work of creation (meaning he was no longer creating), it is also right for humans to take a day off from work and devote it to their relationship to God, and also one another as they rested in their homes. Hard to argue against a day off from work, and using that time to build one's relationship to God and family is a much better thing than watching the games, taking in vacuous entertainment, etc.

5) Honor your parents. The focus is now squarely upon how individuals relate to one another, in the context of a right relationship with God. How a society treats it's elderly says a lot about it. In a context where everyone is following God, treating each other with value and respect, it would only be right for children to honor their parents while young by listening to them and being obedient to their wise counsel. And also when the child becomes an adult, and their parents lose their ability to provide for themselves, honoring them by caring for and providing for them is definitely a good thing. The only way this could be viewed in a bad light is if the parents themselves were not following God, and were abusive and mean to their families... this commandment (as many others do) assumes that the individuals involved were following God faithfully overall.

6) Do not murder. Obviously, the idea here is that in the context of the law, taking a life unjustly, with premeditation (it is clearly framed this way elsewhere), is wrong and should not be allowed in any kind of good society.

7) No adultery. To betray the one who is supposed to be your closest ally in life in this way is just plain wrong, assuming that both parties are living within the boundaries of a larger relation to God. And even if they were not, there were ways for both parties to end a marriage (it was admittedly more difficult for a woman, and the standard for dissolving a marriage was rightly very high), and to disrespect yourself, your spouse, the other person involved (as either a meaningless fling, a tool to punish your spouse, or a head start on a new relationship before dealing with the current one), and God by being unfaithful to your vows before Him and each other by adultery is extremely difficult to justify.

8) Do not steal. Duh. Again, in the context of the society that God established being followed, where the poor could always find food and shelter, and everyone had a way to regain sold property through jubilee years or extended family, stealing is really hard to justify.

9) False testimony. Lying under oath in order to bring punishment to an innocent party in legal proceedings. In the context of the society God established following God and His laws, it's just obvious that this would be wrong. If the party was guilty, but there was not enough evidence to convict, trusting that God would make things right eventually is perfectly reasonable.

10) Do not covet what is not yours. What we wrongly desire inside is the launching pad for every kind of wrong act. It's not wrong to desire to have the kind of relationship that your married friends have, but it IS wrong to desire to have that particular person as your own. Desiring a better home, or better farm animals, is not wrong, but to desire the very home or animals your neighbor has for your own is wrong. Not really that complicated. It betrays a lack of trust in God to provide what you need, and it also leads to all kinds of actions that would demean, abuse, or harm others.

All of this is placed in it's full context in the New Testament. Every single law given by God hangs on the framework of two overarching laws presented elsewhere in the Old Testament. 1) Love God above all, and 2) love your neighbor as yourself. It was clear that the teachers of Jesus' time understood this as well (Luke 10:25-28), and it is likely that was not a new development considering the weight that 1st century Hebrew teachers placed upon tradition.

Now, I will not pretend to understand every single law of the Old Testament, as quite often these laws were given as an explicit correction of the religious practices of ancient Egypt, and those of the people groups that Israel drove out of the land, and we really don't have detailed knowledge of all of those practices. But for those laws that I do understand, I find a clear moral framework for worshipping a God who is worthy of it, treating others with care and value, and taking care of the world that we live in. It is quite possible to find things to object to individually in the Law, even in those things we understand fully, but in the whole context of a faithful people following the God presented in the Bible, it really makes a lot of sense.

As I said before, the Scripture is unable to guide me in every singe possible scenario I face in this world, but it does give me a moral framework to work within, and more importantly, it helps me understand the character and nature of the God who has promised to dwell within the faithful believer, and guide them into all truth.

Still, there is a constant tension between knowing His guidance, and resisting my tendency to be self serving, lazy, or mean. Sometimes, I go days (or even longer), out of laziness, business, and doubt, where I am not meaningfully connected to His Spirit, and I'm not hearing Him. But when I slow down, push out the noise of our world, deny my own selfish tendencies, and just listen for Him and faithfully follow His guidance... I am constantly amazed, and reassured of my faith, as I see Him work in and through me.

Don't even think about following me, or any other Christian, though... we'll fail you. I'll misunderstand. I'll do something selfish or stupid. I'll go through long periods of time where I'm just not really connected to Him. But I can tell you, He's there. He's real. He's faithful to give us what He promises. Life. Love. Hope. Truth. Fellowship.

Look first at yourself. Your need. Your failings. Your desire for something, Someone, better. Then look at Jesus, as He is revealed in the New Testament. He will not disappoint. Ever.

 

[Bradskii]

The level of punishment doesnt change the fact that the kid did something wrong that needed punishing. I am not sure what you point is. Its like if you can catch me saying that we cannot determine what the level of punishment should be then morals must be subjective. But thats a logical fallacy.

That's exactly what I'm asking you. What length of punishment would you consider to be immoral? You said 'there needs to be a right or a wrong'. Black and white. No grey areas. This is your exact claim. So the punishment is either morally acceptable or immoral. An hour is fine. A month is not. So when does it change from one to the other?

If it's one or the other then there must be an answer.

 

[Bradskii]

Funny you should mention that...

Just what I didn't want. A list of the ten commandments. Maybe someone will read that post so it won't have been a waste of your time writing it. What I did want from you is where we can find the person who has the inside knowledge of what God wants. I want to know who knows what God has decided is objectively immoral.

If you don't know then please say so. And we'll carry on making decisions on morality ourselves.