Is there Objective Morality?

[Moral Orel]

Neither has any evidence been provided for those who support some objective morality. The principle of parsimony suggests the subjectivists are in the right. We know we have opinions. We do not seem to have any access to some objective code of morals, and the requests to provide such a thing are met with smoke bombs or falsehoods.

We can do better than that. Moral "facts" can only be demonstrated using reason, ergo arguments. So consider:

We ought not do X.

This cannot be demonstrated in any other way than through argumentation. So we have to form a valid argument to prove any statement of the form "We ought not do X". In order to make that argument valid, we must have an "ought" statement in the premises to link them together. Example:

We ought not harm innocents.
Murder harms innocents.
We ought not murder.

That's valid, but in order for it to be sound we have to prove all of our premises, yes? So we also need to prove that "We ought not harm innocents" is true. And the only way to prove an "ought" statement is through argumentation with an "ought" statement in the premises, and so on. No "ought" statement, and therefore no moral fact, can ever actually be justified. Thanks PSR!

If anyone thinks that the "ought" statement isn't a necessary premise, put it into the argument flipped (positive claim to negative claim or vice versa) and watch how the argument flips too.

In conclusion, it is logically absurd to consider any "ought" statement to be true.

 

[o_mlly]

And you continue to miss the point.

No it is you that miss the main point of this thread. Where is your argument (not just assertion) that objectivity requires "measurabiltiy". And where is the example of an immoral human act that by measurement becomes moral? You have some 'splaining to do, Lucy!"

 

[Bradskii]

And where is the example of an immoral human act that by measurement becomes moral? You have some 'splaining to do, Lucy!"

Tough one. Let me see. How about we use the measurement of time. So if you kept someone in a room for a year it woul be immoral and if you did it for an hour it would be ok.

 

[Kylie]

No it is you that miss the main point of this thread.

No, I have not missed the point of the thread. The thread asks if morality is objective. You have said it is, and I am asking you to support that claim.

Where is your argument (not just assertion) that objectivity requires "measurabiltiy".

If something is objective, it exists as part of the real world. That is it is outside the minds of those who hold it to be true. If it exists in the real world, it can be measured. If you disagree with this claim, then please show me an example of something which we both agree is objectively true and CAN'T be measured.

And where is the example of an immoral human act that by measurement becomes moral? You have some 'splaining to do, Lucy!"

What in the world are you going on about?

My whole point is that morality CAN'T be measured because it is NOT objective! Your claim here is a strawman (since it presents my view in a way that is completely contradictory with what I have repeatedly stated it to be) and it is a non sequitur.

 

[Kylie]

Tough one. Let me see. How about we use the measurement of time. So if you kept someone in a room for a year it woul be immoral and if you did it for an hour it would be ok.

Don't even bother about answering, since his question is a misrepresentation of my position. I have never claimed that such a thing is required.

 

[Bradskii]

Don't even bother about answering, since his question is a misrepresentation of my position. I have never claimed that such a thing is required.

Indeed. I appreciate your point that morality can't be measured. If it could be then as we moved from something we'd all agree is entirely acceptable to something we'd all agree is not then there'd be a point where it specifically changed from one to the other. One cannot have something that's 'a little bit more' objectively bad, or 'a lttle bit less' objectively bad. It either is or it isn't. So where is that point in the example given?

There won't be one given. Because the point is somewhere in that grey area where people start to think that it's maybe a little too long. Or perhaps a shade too punitive. And everyone will have a different view on what is and what is not appropriate. In other words, give their subjective opinion on the matter.

 

[Kylie]

Indeed. I appreciate your point that morality can't be measured. If it could be then as we moved from something we'd all agree is entirely acceptable to something we'd all agree is not then there'd be a point where it specifically changed from one to the other. One cannot have something that's 'a little bit more' objectively bad, or 'a lttle bit less' objectively bad. It either is or it isn't. So where is that point in the example given?

There won't be one given. Because the point is somewhere in that grey area where people start to think that it's maybe a little too long. Or perhaps a shade too punitive. And everyone will have a different view on what is and what is not appropriate. In other words, give their subjective opinion on the matter.

Well, even with the ability to measure, we can't say there's a single point where it changes. If I pour water into a glass, at what point does the glass stop being empty and become full? Or, when does it stop being day and become night?

And I also disagree that we have something that's 'a little bit more' objectively bad, or 'a little bit less' objectively bad if morality was indeed objective. After all, you can have "a little more" or "a little less" of some objective measure. You can have something that is a little hotter or a little colder, after all, and temperature is easily measured in an objective sense.

 

[Bradskii]

You can have something that is a little hotter or a little colder, after all, and temperature is easily measured in an objective sense.

Of course. But from a moral perspective? It's not possible.

 

[stevevw]

Neither has any evidence been provided for those who support some objective morality. The principle of parsimony suggests the subjectivists are in the right. We know we have opinions. We do not seem to have any access to some objective code of morals, and the requests to provide such a thing are met with smoke bombs or falsehoods.

The ironic thing is the support used to show there are moral truths is the same support you used to make your claim. That these matters are not up for subjective opinions but do require a true ir false answer to them. Thats the way we treat morality like either the moral is a truth/fact or its not.

Moral statements are of the form "X is immoral."

Proponents of objective morality assert
A: Moral statements have an objective truth value. There are moral facts.

Yes facts/truths beyond the human (subject).

Proponents of subjective morality assert
B: Moral statements do not have an objective truth value. There are no moral facts.

Neither A nor B are moral statements.

Yes I agree. There is no truth claims to their moral objections, condenations and arguements. But people do act and live like morals are objective and they have some truth or fact to them in the way they matter more than opinions.

In particular, proponents of subjective morality can assert B without being inconsistent.

So yes, I am asserting B as an objective fact. This is not some kind of self-pwn.

Your position is not an objective one beyond yourself. There is no independent measure of the subjectivists claim. So proponents of subjective morlaity cannot really assert B in any situation beyond themselves with others because it cannot be applied to others as that is taking it beyond self.

Part of the support for the objective moral arguement is that people act like morals are objective. We speak and express morality as a right or wrong and not an opinion.

 

[stevevw]

Well, even with the ability to measure, we can't say there's a single point where it changes. If I pour water into a glass, at what point does the glass stop being empty and become full? Or, when does it stop being day and become night?

I think this doesn’t follow. Saying we cannot find a specific point doesn't mean there is no objective measure. Having any stopping point, variation, degree, measure of something moving along a sliding scale from one point to another needs an objective anchor. Otherwise none of it makes sense speaking about variations and stopping points along some scale.

So though we can’t find some stopping points doesn’t mean there is no truth about what is right and wrong behaviour morally. We may find that point or truth later. But up until then we can determine the better/best we can based on our ability to reason.

And I also disagree that we have something that's 'a little bit more' objectively bad, or 'a little bit less' objectively bad if morality was indeed objective. After all, you can have "a little more" or "a little less" of some objective measure. You can have something that is a little hotter or a little colder, after all, and temperature is easily measured in an objective sense.

Then what about "Killing" which we can say is also assault (damaging the body) and risking death. They are along the same scale.

So we could have any variation of the moral not to kill from for example "pushing someone" to "Genocide" and everything in between like mass murder, serial killings, 1st degree and 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, killing in self defence, Punitive killing, killing in war and killing to save an innocent person.

These are all different argued objective truths about the same moral wrong "Killing". None of these variations are subjectively determined. So each and every circumstance has a moral truth even though they are about the same moral.

 

[stevevw]

I guess as we can generally agree what is right or wrong then it doesn't really matter a whole hill of beans. You never know, I might meet my maker at some point and He'll say 'by the way, Steve was right you know'. Or He'll tell you that I was. And it won't have made any real difference.

I think it comes down to worldviews. People just have different assumptions about how things work. It can be a surprise and shock sometimes when we realize that someone can see something the exact opposite of yourself. But that is why it is interesting I think.

 

[VirOptimus]

I think this doesn’t follow. Saying we cannot find a specific point doesn't mean there is no objective measure. Having any stopping point, variation, degree, measure of something moving along a sliding scale from one point to another needs an objective anchor. Otherwise none of it makes sense speaking about variations and stopping points along some scale.

So though we can’t find some stopping points doesn’t mean there is no truth about what is right and wrong behaviour morally. We may find that point or truth later. But up until then we can determine the better/best we can based on our ability to reason.

Then what about "Killing" which we can say is also assault (damaging the body) and risking death. They are along the same scale.

So we could have any variation of the moral not to kill from for example "pushing someone" to "Genocide" and everything in between like mass murder, serial killings, 1st degree and 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, killing in self defence, Punitive killing, killing in war and killing to save an innocent person.

These are all different argued objective truths about the same moral wrong "Killing". None of these variations are subjectively determined. So each and every circumstance has a moral truth even though they are about the same moral.

But why would a "objective morality" matter?

Lets take spanking children, that is perfectly acceptable in lots of cultures/countries, but here in Sweden its illegal. One has to be right and one has to be wrong, but what happens to those in the wrong? Why will "right" matter?

 

[o_mlly]

Tough one. Let me see. How about we use the measurement of time. So if you kept someone in a room for a year it woul be immoral and if you did it for an hour it would be ok.

The good news is that medical science is advancing in the treatments for Alzheimer's. I'll remind you again that morality is about principles. The principle of morality that your imagined father imposes upon his imagined daughter becomes immoral at the moment the onerousness of the punishment exceeds the socially valuable end (hopefully) intended by the imagined father. Even an atheist utilitarian can see that. Now, imagine for us how slow or fast a learner your imagined daughter might be. "Get real, dad!"

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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.

Objective Morality, sounds like an idol.

 

[o_mlly]

If something is objective, it exists as part of the real world.

OK.

That is it is outside the minds of those who hold it to be true.

OK.

If it exists in the real world, it can be measured.

Not OK. Still a mere assertion.

If you disagree with this claim, then please show me an example of something which we both agree is objectively true and CAN'T be measured.

The burden to argue the truth of a claim is on the one who makes the claim. That would be you.

My whole point is that morality CAN'T be measured because it is NOT objective! Your claim here is a strawman (since it presents my view in a way that is completely contradictory with what I have repeatedly stated it to be) and it is a non sequitur.

No, the fallacy you continue to push begs the very question of this thread. You assume (with no evidence or rational argument) that measurement is essential (and not accidental) to categorizing moral and immoral acts objectively and then leap to a conclusion that morality is subjective. Tell us, how do you measure the harm in a date rape? Is a gang rape measurably more harmful?

 

[Bradskii]

The principle of morality that your imagined father imposes upon his imagined daughter becomes immoral at the moment the onerousness of the punishment exceeds the socially valuable end (hopefully) intended by the imagined father.

So how do we hypothetically determine this? Who decides when that point has been reached? How do we tell? When do we say to the father that the punishment has now become immoral?

To put all that another way, if I ask a dozen people when the length of time becomes immoral, I will get a dozen different answers. Your position is that only one of them can be right. So how do we tell who has the right answer?

 

[o_mlly]

So how do we hypothetically determine this?

Do you remember the condition of "in the concrete"? There is no hypothetical in the concrete.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

What is considered moral changes from generation to generation. Quite often the previous generation takes an opposite stance as the previous as part of their "creating a personal identity" stage of personal development.

So if consensus morality were an Object, it would be constantly in flux, never taking the same form.

 

[Bradskii]

Do you remember the condition of "in the concrete"? There is no hypothetical in the concrete.

It's not a real situation. It's a hypothetical one. And you have said, in regard to this hypothetical scenario that the morality of the act will become immoral at some point. So how do we hypothetically determine it?

It's a question that has no answer (I hope you don't think I'm asking in order to get one). Just as Kylie is asking you to nominate something objectively true that can't be measured. It's not credible that you say the onus is on the person making the claim to prove it. The proof is that it's not possible to nominate anything that can't be measured. Just one example would disprove it. And again, it's a question that has no answer.

All that's happening is that you are being shown that you have no answer. That's why the questions are being asked.

 

[o_mlly]

And you have said, in regard to this hypothetical scenario that the morality of the act will become immoral at some point.

Not quite. I wrote that a condition, not a point, renders the act immoral.

It's not credible that you say the onus is on the person making the claim to prove it. The proof is that it's not possible to nominate anything that can't be measured. Just one example would disprove it

No, the claim that is not self-evident must be argued with evidence and reason to be true by the claimant. That's the way it works in logic. For instance, I claim that there is human life other than in the Milky Way galaxy -- prove me wrong.