Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

These studies are based on averages because you never get the same result from child to child. Some children it may be harmful, for others it might be the right thing to do. But with things that are objective, the results are the same with everybody.

Smacking is legal in many countries as a form of discipline but the proviso is "Reasonable force". Which is usually a tap on the backside. So its up to the parents or care giver. So its seen as not morally wrong itself.

But what often happens is its the parent who cannot control themselves that ends up harming a child. So its still a subject that has not been determined completely. What will end up happening is the state will step in and take control and force everyone to follow their determination about whether its right or wrong. So it will end up as an objective law that people have no choice with.

By the way you have the wrong idea of objective morality. Objective morality can change with changing circumstances. Like the killing example. If a crazed gunman has a gun to an innoicent childs head then it s morally OK to kill the crazed gunman if necessary. So though killing is morally wrong sometimes its OK to kill if a greater moral wrong is being done.

So it can accommodate individual circumstances.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snap-
But what often happens is its the parent who cannot control themselves that ends up harming a child. So its still a subject that has not been determined completely. What will end up happening is the state will step in and take control and force everyone to follow their determination about whether its right or wrong. So it will end up as an objective law that people have no choice with.
-snap.

Legal laws are not "objective".

Do you even know what an "objective morality" entails?

 

[Moral Orel]

In this sidebar discussion we're having I'm just contesting your assertion in post #1821 that (if I understand you right) we cannot ever argue to an ought statement from raw facts because whenever you do there's always an unacknowledged ought-statement in the premises.

Okay, so you're still trying to get from the premise "X is the most effective means" to the conclusion "We ought to X". Then just as I demonstrated, you still need an "ought" premise. That we are naturally inclined to do some things does not imply that we "ought" to do what we're naturally inclined to do. Going from "X is the most effective means" to "We ought to X" is a non-sequitur fallacy.

It is logically possible to resist our natural inclinations. So ought we resist and diverge from our natural inclinations, or ought we comply and follow?

As for my larger thoughts about what morals are and how we get them, I think we've been over that enough that you know where I stand. But I can re-state if you want.

You said that "ought" statements are us expressing our emotions, so we agree that there can't be a true "ought" statement, but you think my argument doesn't prove it. I can appreciate the sentiment. I argue with folks I agree with all the time.

 

[Moral Orel]

Or, just offer an argument?

I did finally get around to posting my argument that you were begging for. Its back in post #1821.

 

[Moral Orel]

I was simply reiterating what you said: '...the truth of our judgments, opinions, or beliefs is a proper concern, we should be prepared to argue with those who disagree with us, with the firm hope that our disagreement can be resolved'.

If it is possible to form a sound argument about morality with the conclusion "One ought to..." then morality is objective. That "One ought to..." that you would have demonstrated through sound reasoning would be a moral fact. And moral facts are the cornerstone of objective morality.

If morality is truly subjective, then it is impossible to form a sound argument with a moral statement as the conclusion. Sure, you can argue all you want. But those arguments won't be sound: they'll be fallacious by necessity.

 

[Bradskii]

I did finally get around to posting my argument that you were begging for. Its back in post #1821.

Hi. The devil's advocate here.

You might find that the initial premise would be considered to be axiomatic. That is, not requiring a proof. As in 'the shortest distance between two points in Euclidian geometry is a staight line.' So 'innocent people should not be harmed' is promoted as being a premise which one cannot argue against.

That we can is a problem for those who hold to that supposed axiomatic belief.

So I personally don't agree with the infinite regress argument. The first premise doesn't require a proof. It requires an agreement. And that agreement will be a personal opinion (unless it's nominated as a divine command). Hence it fails because of that.

 

[Moral Orel]

You might find that the initial premise would be considered to be axiomatic.

You can claim whatever you want to be axiomatic, that doesn't make it so.

That we can is a problem for those who hold to that supposed axiomatic belief.

And there's your proof that whatever is claimed to be axiomatic still requires justification in spite of the claim otherwise.

So I personally don't agree with the infinite regress argument. The first premise doesn't require a proof. It requires an agreement. And that agreement will be a personal opinion (unless it's nominated as a divine command). Hence it fails because of that.

And agreement has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something is true. Ergo, all "oughts" are impossible to justify.

 

[Bradskii]

And agreement has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something is true. Ergo, all "oughts" are impossible to justify.

I concur.

 

[stevevw]

Why would we want to supress "the truth"? Where do this "truth" come from?

For example if we have something to hide, make us look better that we really are, there are many reasons.

This is just word salad. Define "the truth".

As far as morality is concerned its a truth or fact or something real that stands indendendent of human subjective thinking.

You still havent supported your assertion.

If your talking about how there are moral truths/facts and how we know then intuitively I think I have. Refer to previous posts.

this still doenst support that "life" is an objective value.

Why If humans treat life as important, precious and valuable then that is no better evidence for showing that life is valuable. Humans become witnesses for the offencive that life is morally valuable. We see this with conformations of lifes value with the US declaration, UN Human rights, many nations conventions and laws.

And this is determined how? By what authority?

It is determined by rational thinking and logic. If we can determine laws, conventions and rights by reasoning that it is the right thing to do to value "Life" then we can for other moral values like Justice, Kindness, Fairness ect. By using rationality and logic we are determining the truth independently and not relying of humans subjectivity.

How can you measure something by rationality andl logic? Please, give us the metric.

Well its not like measuring physical stuff in mills or testing it in a test tube. Its about espistemology. We can reason a better way to behave than other ways to behave in any situation. Its not rocket science actually thats not a good quip lol.

Then you can surely show me this research and that its seperate from culture and upbringing.

Well first is the recognition from most philosophers that we all share a core of moral truths

The reality is that there is a core set of moral norms that almost all humans accept. We couldn’t live together otherwise. For humans to live together in peace and prosper, we need to follow norms such as do not kill, do not steal, do not inflict pain gratuitously, tell the truth, keep your commitments, reciprocate acts of kindness, and so forth. The number of core norms is small, but they govern most of the transactions we have with other humans.
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God | Free Inquiry

and that we can be justified to believe our intuition is a real representation of how morality works.
Its just a coincidence that people from the same culture and upbringing have similar moral values then?

For example, we do not assume skepticism for our experience of the physical world unless we are given reason to. It is possible you are a butterfly dreaming you are human but there’s no good evidence to suggest that.
So why accept a skeptical attack on intuition if there is no evidence to support it.
Possibility is not probability likewise we do not doubt the intuitive trust of our 5 senses unless we have a good reason to think that one of them has failed us.
So why should we doubt intuitive sense of moral facts unless we are given good reason by moral non-realist to do so. The burden is on the skeptic who wants to argue moral realism is false.
Moral Realism: A Defence - Oxford Scholarship

No, thats not how "intuitution" works.

please refer above

 

[stevevw]

Legal laws are not "objective".

They are in that they are forced onto people whether they like it or not, like their subjective opinion doesnt count. So either the law is the product of a dictator or there is some truth in the law beyond human opinion that allows humans to force others to follow.

Do you even know what an "objective morality" entails?

Basically mind independent facts, truths.

 

[VirOptimus]

For example if we have something to hide, make us look better that we really are, there are many reasons.

That just sounds like excuses. The more easy explanation is that there are no "truth".

As far as morality is concerned its a truth or fact or something real that stands indendendent of human subjective thinking.

Then prove that such moral facts exist, and no "intuituition" is not something that supports it.

If your talking about how there are moral truths/facts and how we know then intuitively I think I have. Refer to previous posts.

What you think "intuitively" is of no consequence. You have not supported this.

Why If humans treat life as important, precious and valuable then that is no better evidence for showing that life is valuable. Humans become witnesses for the offencive that life is morally valuable. We see this with conformations of lifes value with the US declaration, UN Human rights, many nations conventions and laws.

Yes, many people think so, that does not make it objective. It got to be independent of human minds.

It is determined by rational thinking and logic. If we can determine laws, conventions and rights by reasoning that it is the right thing to do to value "Life" then we can for other moral values like Justice, Kindness, Fairness ect. By using rationality and logic we are determining the truth independently and not relying of humans subjectivity.

No, thats not how it works. Its got to be independent from humans thoughts. Its my view that no moral values can be independent of moral agenst, its this you have to support. You dont seem to really understand the key problem.

Well its not like measuring physical stuff in mills or testing it in a test tube. Its about espistemology. We can reason a better way to behave than other ways to behave in any situation. Its not rocket science actually thats not a good quip lol.

If it exists, it should be measurable.

Well first is the recognition from most philosophers that we all share a core of moral truths

The reality is that there is a core set of moral norms that almost all humans accept. We couldn’t live together otherwise. For humans to live together in peace and prosper, we need to follow norms such as do not kill, do not steal, do not inflict pain gratuitously, tell the truth, keep your commitments, reciprocate acts of kindness, and so forth. The number of core norms is small, but they govern most of the transactions we have with other humans.
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God | Free Inquiry

and that we can be justified to believe our intuition is a real representation of how morality works.
Its just a coincidence that people from the same culture and upbringing have similar moral values then?

For example, we do not assume skepticism for our experience of the physical world unless we are given reason to. It is possible you are a butterfly dreaming you are human but there’s no good evidence to suggest that.
So why accept a skeptical attack on intuition if there is no evidence to support it.
Possibility is not probability likewise we do not doubt the intuitive trust of our 5 senses unless we have a good reason to think that one of them has failed us.
So why should we doubt intuitive sense of moral facts unless we are given good reason by moral non-realist to do so. The burden is on the skeptic who wants to argue moral realism is false.
Moral Realism: A Defence - Oxford Scholarship
please refer above

This is again just random links I wont read. Learn to debate.

Do you ever consider that you, as you have no accademic background and certainly no education in moral philosophy may be a victim of Dunning-Kruger?

 

[VirOptimus]

They are in that they are forced onto people whether they like it or not, like their subjective opinion doesnt count. So either the law is the product of a dictator or there is some truth in the law beyond human opinion that allows humans to force others to follow.

No, that not how it works. For something to be "objective" it has to be independent of humans. Legal laws are written by humans.

This is getting embarrasing (for you).

Basically mind independent facts, truths.

Where there morals before humans existed?

 

[o_mlly]

... you should debate the matter so that a decision might be made as to who is correct.

Do you see that implicit in your comment is an admission that morality is objective? I could not agree more.

On matters of taste (subjective) there is no dispute. On matters of truth (objective) there is an obligation to dispute.

 

[o_mlly]

I've stated that very clearly quite a few times now.

Correction: “I've stated asserted that very clearly quite a few times now.” Yes, I agree you’ve clearly asserted many times your opinion but you have not argued the truth of your opinion.

I can just as clearly assert my opinion that measurement is not essential to objectively categorizing human acts. The difference between us is that I also offer an argument in support, ie., the objective existence of the earth’s moon does not require a specification of the measurable differences in earth’s moon to other moons.

 

[o_mlly]

I did finally get around to posting my argument that you were begging for. Its back in post #1821.

"Begs the question", not the argument.

Your argument erroneously assumes that humans are supernatural. But, since we exist in nature, we can study ourselves and intersubjectively arrive at objective truths about ourselves.

 

[Ken-1122]

Smacking is legal in many countries as a form of discipline but the proviso is "Reasonable force". Which is usually a tap on the backside. So its up to the parents or care giver. So its seen as not morally wrong itself.

In my State smacking a child is considered reasonable force; as long as you use an open hand rather than a closed fist

RCW 9A.16.100: Use of force on children—Policy—Actions presumed unreasonable.

But what often happens is its the parent who cannot control themselves that ends up harming a child. So its still a subject that has not been determined completely.

There are laws concerning this issue; so it has been determined completely.

What will end up happening is the state will step in and take control and force everyone to follow their determination about whether its right or wrong. So it will end up as an objective law that people have no choice with.

Again; This has already happened hence the laws enforced concerning these issues.

By the way you have the wrong idea of objective morality. Objective morality can change with changing circumstances. Like the killing example. If a crazed gunman has a gun to an innoicent childs head then it s morally OK to kill the crazed gunman if necessary. So though killing is morally wrong sometimes its OK to kill if a greater moral wrong is being done.

How do you determine if a greater moral harm is being done if you can’t measure the harm? If you have to make exceptions concerning the circumstances, that is not objective; it’s subjective. Killing a crazed gunman is not an objective issue, but a subjective moral issue. All you’re doing here is describing subjective morality and calling it objective morality.

"Subjective" vs. "Objective": What's The Difference?

 

[durangodawood]

...It is logically possible to resist our natural inclinations. So ought we resist and diverge from our natural inclinations, or ought we comply and follow?...

Basically, its like a person comes to you naturally wanting to satisfy their thirst and you tell them they ought to go west to the well rather than east to the desert.

 

[Moral Orel]

Basically, its like a person comes to you naturally wanting to satisfy their thirst and you tell them they ought to go west to the well rather than east to the desert.

Still a non-sequitur. Are you logically capable of doing something you don't naturally want to do? Then ought you do what you naturally want, or ought you resist doing what you naturally want.

If you have an ought in your conclusion and you do not have an ought in your premises your argument is invalid. That is a fact about how logic works. It isn't up for debate, I'm sorry.

 

[Moral Orel]

Your argument erroneously assumes that humans are supernatural.

What a bizarre claim.

But, since we exist in nature, we can study ourselves and intersubjectively arrive at objective truths about ourselves.

And?

 

[durangodawood]

Still a non-sequitur. Are you logically capable of doing something you don't naturally want to do? Then ought you do what you naturally want, or ought you resist doing what you naturally want.

If you have an ought in your conclusion and you do not have an ought in your premises your argument is invalid. That is a fact about how logic works. It isn't up for debate, I'm sorry.

You dont have to convince a person they should achieve a goal when they already want to achieve the goal. Thats already settled before you meet.