Is there Objective Morality?

[o_mlly]

OK. So the person him or herself decides on whether the action is morally acceptable or immoral. Or do you decide? That's a bit vague. But I guess it's one or the other. Can you confirm?

Of course, the actor decides to act or not. However, the act itself can be judged as moral or immoral, not only by the actor, but others as well. We cannot judge the actor but we can judge the act.

A human act employs the faculties unique to humans, ie., reason and free will. Reason gives us the insight to be aware of the proximate end(s) or effect(s) that will be caused by the act. The "end-in-view" is the moral object of the act. The act itself (not the actor) defines the moral object of the act for all reasonable actors will see the same moral object in the same act. The moral act must have a good moral object.

If the act has only one proximate end-in-view then the intention of the actor who acts is identical to that end-in-view. If the act has more than one end-in-view then the intention of the actor may be one or more of those ends-in-view. The moral act must have a good intention.

The circumstances are the things that surround but do not change the species of the act, as the "who", "where", "when", "how" kinds of things. The moral act must have circumstances that are good.

 

[o_mlly]

If anything is objective, then it must be able to be precisely stated.

What could be more precise than a "yes" or "no"? Yes, the act is immoral" or "No, the act is not immoral".

If what is claimed to be objective is an amount (such as the amount of morality), then the amount of morality must be precisely stated, and in order to precisely state the amount, it must be measured. Without measurement, the precise amount is not know.

No, again you continue to beg the question by assuming true what you have not yet evidenced.

You really have to learn to not just automatically try to fit everything into your preconceived ideas.

Said the pot to the kettle.

What you are asking is like me saying, "You think Star Wars is the best sci fi franchise? How does that work with the objective fact that Star Trek is the best franchise?"

No, determining the morality of a human act is not "like" asking about a matter of taste. Is there a "good rape" episode in that series that you'd care to share?

 

[durangodawood]

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.

I disagree because the initial premise doesnt have to be a "we ought". It could also be stated as a "we value", which in certain cases could be an objectively verifiable factual claim about the human species. In those cases justification is possible.

 

[Moral Orel]

I disagree because the initial premise doesnt have to be a "we ought". It could also be stated as a "we value", which in certain cases could be an objectively verifiable factual claim about the human species. In those cases justification is possible.

No, "we ought" does not follow from "we value". Here's what you're thinking:

We value Y.
X promotes Y.
We ought to X.

That's basically it, ya? That argument isn't valid. You must have another premise, and that premise must contain an "ought".

We value Y.
We ought to seek what we value.
X promotes Y.
We ought to X.

Don't think you need that premise? Remember, I told you how to test for it. Put in it's opposite:

We value Y.
We ought not seek what we value.
X promotes Y.
We ought to X.

That clearly isn't valid. Those premises would lead to the conclusion "we ought not do X". Since "we ought not seek what we value" can not be true, then "we ought to seek what we value" must be true and now you need to prove that.

 

[durangodawood]

No, "we ought" does not follow from "we value". Here's what you're thinking:

We value Y.
X promotes Y.
We ought to X.

That's basically it, ya? That argument isn't valid. You must have another premise, and that premise must contain an "ought".

We value Y.
We ought to seek what we value.
X promotes Y.
We ought to X.

Don't think you need that premise? Remember, I told you how to test for it. Put in it's opposite:

We value Y.
We ought not seek what we value.
X promotes Y.
We ought to X.

That clearly isn't valid. Those premises would lead to the conclusion "we ought not do X". Since "we ought not seek what we value" can not be true, then "we ought to seek what we value" must be true and now you need to prove that.

I dont think seeking what we value is requires "ought". Its a human impulse that naturally follows from "we value".

 

[Moral Orel]

I dont think seeking what we value is requires "ought". Its a human impulse that naturally follows from "we value".

Then you aren't trying to prove an "ought" statement in the conclusion. And that's fine. You're saying, "We do" you aren't saying "We ought to do".

ETA Oh, and if you aren't saying "we ought" then you aren't making a moral statement anymore.

 

[durangodawood]

Then you aren't trying to prove an "ought" statement in the conclusion. And that's fine. You're saying, "We do" you aren't saying "We ought to do".

Well there's a lot of room for debate about whats the most effective way to achieve our values. So there's room for an "ought" there... tho strictly speaking its a misuse of the term as I'll explain:

I think the real reason why we express moral rules in terms of "ought" is that the word has emotional value and often the implied weight of social sanction behind it. And many of us, especially children, arent moral philosophers, nor wise observers, so society wants to express the findings of the wise in terms that carry some emotional heft, like "right" and "wrong".

Right, wrong, ought. I think those are moral-emotional terms. And to mix them into instrumental formulations of moral-reasoning just muddies the waters.

 

[Bradskii]

...the act itself can be judged as moral or immoral, not only by the actor, but others as well. We cannot judge the actor but we can judge the act.

We can? Whatever the act is, neither I nor the actor thinks it immoral. You do. Who is right? Or maybe we both think it's immoral and the actor doesn't. Or he does and we don't. Please let me know how we decide.

 

[Kylie]

What could be more precise than a "yes" or "no"? Yes, the act is immoral" or "No, the act is not immoral".

Except morality is not a simple binary, is it? Or are you saying that ALL things that are morally wrong are equally wrong? Stealing a chocolate bar is equally as bad as murder? Of course not. Most people would say that murder has more moral wrongness than stealing the chocolate bar.

So it's not like a light switch that's on or off, it's like a flagpole that can be any height. And if I asked you how tall the flagpole is, a "yes" or a "no" is not precise at all.

No, again you continue to beg the question by assuming true what you have not yet evidenced.

Now you're just being difficult.

It's obvious that objective things have a specific value and a specific value requires measurement to determine that value.

No, determining the morality of a human act is not "like" asking about a matter of taste. Is there a "good rape" episode in that series that you'd care to share?

So the fact that I think morality is subjective means I MUST think that rape can be good in some cases?

Are you serious? Because your argument here is really sounding like a joke.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well there's a lot of room for debate about whats the most effective way to achieve our values. So there's room for an "ought" there...

Even then you need the premise "We ought to do things the most effective way". And that needs an "ought" premise to prove it true and so on. See, a conclusion can't introduce a new element, it only combines the elements you have in your premises. This isn't a valid argument:

p1 X
p2 if Y then X
c Z

You must have 'Z' in the premises to make the argument valid. If you have an element in the conclusion that isn't in the premises, you have a hidden premise that needs to be identified. It works just like math, and just like math we like to take shortcuts when showing our work will help us spot errors. As an example, remember I said that:

The premise "We ought not seek what we value" must not be true.
The premise "We ought not seek what we value" must not be true. <--negative signs cancel each other.
The premise "We ought to seek what we value" must be true.

When you work it all out, errors in logic are easier to spot.

I think the real reason why we express moral rules in terms of "ought" is that the word has emotional value and often the implied weight of social sanction behind it. And many of us, especially children, arent moral philosophers, nor wise observers, so society wants to express the findings of the wise in terms that carry some emotional heft, like "right" and "wrong".

Right, wrong, ought. I think those are moral-emotional terms. And to mix them into instrumental formulations of moral-reasoning just muddies the waters.

I don't disagree with this, generally. However, folks who argue for an objective morality really believe, and are really claiming, that "right" and "wrong" are essentially synonymous with "correct" and "incorrect". For example, to choose to murder is to choose an incorrect act. To say that "One ought not murder" is a true fact in exactly the same way that "2+2=4" is a true fact.

So if you're like me, and you believe saying "We ought to [insert human act] is a true fact" is nonsense, then my argument isn't pointed at you. But the conclusion of a sound logical argument is a true fact. So if you think you can form a sound argument with "We ought to [insert human act]" as the conclusion, then my argument is pointed at you.

 

[o_mlly]

We can? Whatever the act is, neither I nor the actor thinks it immoral. You do. Who is right? Or maybe we both think it's immoral and the actor doesn't. Or he does and we don't. Please let me know how we decide.

So, you think those "flat-earthers" could be right. The "flat-earthers" explain the difficulty in evidencing their case is that people who fall off the edge are never heard from again. Kinda like your "good rape" logic, don't you think?

 

[o_mlly]

Except morality is not a simple binary, is it? Or are you saying that ALL things that are morally wrong are equally wrong? Stealing a chocolate bar is equally as bad as murder? Of course not. Most people would say that murder has more moral wrongness than stealing the chocolate bar.

So it's not like a light switch that's on or off, it's like a flagpole that can be any height. And if I asked you how tall the flagpole is, a "yes" or a "no" is not precise at all.

Do you not see how illogical your thinking is? To extend your metaphor, this thread asks, "Is that a flagpole?" And your retort is, "I need to measure the height if that flagpole before I can answer." Implicit in your attempt at deflection is the acknowledgment that that thing is indeed a flagpole.

Now you're just being difficult.

No, I'm being logical. You are deflecting.

It's obvious that objective things have a specific value and a specific value requires measurement to determine that value.

No, it is not obvious as has been pointed out to you many times in this thread. But you have no argument to support your erroneous assertion so you just keep on asserting. Remember poor Aristotle? "Hey, Ari, how do you know objectively that that thing is a moon until you can tell us how it's measurably different than other moons?"

So the fact that I think morality is subjective means I MUST think that rape can be good in some cases?

Oh, I hope not. But then you are the defeater of the illogical. Another of your "subjectivist moralists" thinks rape can be good. Can you help him out?

Are you serious? Because your argument here is really sounding like a joke.

And you have no argument to offer at all. Your posts are sounding like nothing more than noisy gongs or clanging cymbals.

 

[Bradskii]

So, you think those "flat-earthers" could be right. The "flat-earthers" explain the difficulty in evidencing their case is that people who fall off the edge are never heard from again. Kinda like your "good rape" logic, don't you think?

Here's the question again:

Whatever the act is, neither I nor the actor thinks it immoral. You do. Who is right? Or maybe we both think it's immoral and the actor doesn't. Or he does and we don't. Please let me know how we decide.

We aren't talking about objective facts. We're discussing morality. I've lost count of the number of times you have avoided simple questions. Answer the one I just asked if you could. Which was: Who is right?

 

[o_mlly]

Here's the question again:

Whatever the act is, neither I nor the actor thinks it immoral. You do. Who is right? Or maybe we both think it's immoral and the actor doesn't. Or he does and we don't. Please let me know how we decide. ... I've lost count of the number of times you have avoided simple questions. Answer the one I just asked if you could. Which was: Who is right?

Your questions have been answered. But it seems you fail to read them or are unable/unwilling to comprehend.

Truth is knowledge that conforms to reality. Reality is singular and independent of the thinking mind. Now, you have claimed that rape is not objectively immoral. If rape is merely subjectively immoral then you believe rape can be rationally determined as a good human act in some circumstances and have offered us a bizarre and totally unbelievable example of the "good rape". So, "Answer the one I just asked if you could. Which was: Who is right? Do you stand by your irrational and incredible claim of a "good rape" or not?

We aren't talking about objective facts. We're discussing morality.

And now (in desperation?) you have joined with another of the "subjective moralists" to simply beg the question rather than argue the case.

 

[Bradskii]

Your questions have been answered.

No they haven't. You've never answered any question at all. But I'll ask it again in a moment.

...the act itself can be judged as moral or immoral, not only by the actor, but others as well. We cannot judge the actor but we can judge the act.

Whatever the act is, neither I nor the actor thinks it immoral. You do. Who is right? Or maybe we both think it's immoral and the actor doesn't. Or he does and we don't. Please let me know how we decide.

You keep saying 'we' can judge the act. I'm sure 'we' can. But who is right when 'we' disagree? How do 'you' tell?

 

[o_mlly]

You keep saying 'we' can judge the act. I'm sure 'we' can. But who is right when 'we' disagree? How do 'you' tell? ... Whatever the act is ...

"Whatever the act is?" OK, does the rapist think his rape is a good act? Is he right?

 

[Bradskii]

Does the rapist think his rape is a good act? Is he right?

As I keep saying, I never expect an answer. But we can go one more I think.

You keep saying 'we' can judge the morality of an act. This is the claim you want to make. But when 'we' disagree, how do we know who is right?

It's an eminently reasonable question. We need you to tell us what happens when people disagree. As they invariably do.

 

[o_mlly]

It's an eminently reasonable question. We need you to tell us what happens when people disagree. As they invariably do.

Why do you continue to wander in the ether of an unspecified act. Of course, no one can judge an unspecified act as moral or immoral. As to disagreement on the morality of a specific act, say rape, what say you? Does the rapist have an acceptable rationale that his act is moral?

 

[Kylie]

Do you not see how illogical your thinking is? To extend your metaphor, this thread asks, "Is that a flagpole?" And your retort is, "I need to measure the height if that flagpole before I can answer." Implicit in your attempt at deflection is the acknowledgment that that thing is indeed a flagpole.

Except when you ask two people if it is a flagpole, they will both give you the same answer. That doesn't always happen with moral issues. You ask two people if euthanasia is morally good or morally bad, and one could say yes and the other could say no. Same thing with abortion, or execution as a punishment.

And YOU are deflecting because I was clearly talking about two different moral issues that you believed were not equal, when I said, "Except morality is not a simple binary, is it? Or are you saying that ALL things that are morally wrong are equally wrong? Stealing a chocolate bar is equally as bad as murder? Of course not. Most people would say that murder has more moral wrongness than stealing the chocolate bar." You completely ignored that part of my response, didn't you?

No, I'm being logical. You are deflecting.

No I'm not.

Like I said, you ignored an important part of my post.

No, it is not obvious as has been pointed out to you many times in this thread. But you have no argument to support your erroneous assertion so you just keep on asserting. Remember poor Aristotle? "Hey, Ari, how do you know objectively that that thing is a moon until you can tell us how it's measurably different than other moons?"

Okay, tell me, how do we determine if something is objective then? You say it can be done without using measurements, let's see you do it. You describe the process, and we'll see if it works.

Oh, I hope not. But then you are the defeater of the illogical. Another of your "subjectivist moralists" thinks rape can be good. Can you help him out?

Your strawman is becoming tiresome. I have never said that I think rape is good, and I have never said that under some particular circumstance it could be good. I have always said that rape is wrong. You just can't accept that I freely admit my "Rape is wrong" stance is something I present as my subjective opinion.

And you have no argument to offer at all. Your posts are sounding like nothing more than noisy gongs or clanging cymbals.

I do have an argument, you just chose to ignore it, as I have pointed out.

 

[o_mlly]

Except when you ask two people if it is a flagpole, they will both give you the same answer.

Would not two rational people tell you the same answer when asked if rape is immoral?

You ask two people if euthanasia is morally good or morally bad, and one could say yes and the other could say no. Same thing with abortion, or execution as a punishment.

And one would be correct and the other incorrect. You could ask one who would euthanize his mother whether the act is really for his sake (and not hers). You could ask the one who aborts her child if the child is a human being. You could ask those who favor capital punishment if the convicted murderer's right to life is absolute. You could ask an 18th century plantation farmer in the southern U.S if slaves were more than merely property. If the son, the abortionist, the executioner, and the farmer all replied, "No" then does that make those acts moral? No. Objectively, the acts are moral or immoral. Note that those who think it moral to abuse another human being must often first deny that other person's humanity. Today, though not always, rape is recognized internationally as an intrinsically immoral act by rational people, ie., objectively immoral.

And YOU are deflecting because I was clearly talking about two different moral issues that you believed were not equal, when I said, "Except morality is not a simple binary, is it? Or are you saying that ALL things that are morally wrong are equally wrong? Stealing a chocolate bar is equally as bad as murder? Of course not. Most people would say that murder has more moral wrongness than stealing the chocolate bar." You completely ignored that part of my response, didn't you?

I did not ignore your response. I did dismiss it as irrelevant to this thread. Are stealing and murder both objectively immoral acts? Yes. End of the discussion. No need in this thread to differentiate the degrees of immortality in the acts just as Aristotle did not need to demonstrate measurable differences in moons to objectively know that that celestial body circling the earth is a moon.

Okay, tell me, how do we determine if something is objective then? You say it can be done without using measurements, let's see you do it. You describe the process, and we'll see if it works.

Well, the objective existence of earth's moon (for the fourth of fifth time) quite handily meets your request. Works pretty good, wouldn't you say?

I have never said that I think rape is good, and I have never said that under some particular circumstance it could be good. I have always said that rape is wrong. You just can't accept that I freely admit my "Rape is wrong" stance is something I present as my subjective opinion.

? No one wrote that you ever claimed rape is good. (Again, please help your fellow atheist out on his error.) Now, is it your subjective opinion that the big shiny thing in the night sky is earth's moon? Is the existence of the earth's moon, therefore, merely subjective? If not, why not?

I do have an argument, you just chose to ignore it, as I have pointed out.

In what post(s) are your arguments offered? Your argument from "precision" is the only one I've seen. And I refuted that attempt by demonstrating the objective existence of the moon as not dependent on comparative measurements to other moons. Kindly point out any other posts that you believe have argument and not mere assertion.