Is there Objective Morality?

[Moral Orel]

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

We're talking about my argument on proving things to be true; we aren't talking about how we colloquially speak with one another.

 

[durangodawood]

We're talking about my argument on proving things to be true; we aren't talking about how we colloquially speak with one another.

Well its my contention that many moral statements work exactly like the example Im using. They are fundamentally instrumental statements about how to effectively achieve various goals. The emotional baggage of duty and rightness and wrongness is a useful compliance mechanism to get the not-yet-wise on board.

 

[Kylie]

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.

If you can't answer the question, just say so.

But I assert that you can't show the moon exists without making some sort of measurement.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

The 'should' (or 'ought') refers to whether one should attempt to reach agreement on moral matters. As one should. That one 'should' (or 'ought') do this is not determined by whether the moral act is objective or subjective. It can be either and the requiremnt that one 'ought' to reach agreement still stands. As it applies in both cases it cannot be used to determine the objectivity or subjectivity of the act in question. And so your suggestion is invalid.

As to whether any of us could be wrong about moral matters, some of have admitted that we certainly could be. You were asked if you could be as well. What was the response?

 

[stevevw]

I agree that most people share the same moral truths, but that's not because we are somehow magically sensing some objective nature of the universe.

At least you acknowledge we all share a core of moral truths. Others on this thread won’t even go that far.

It's because we have been raised in a society that uses those moral guidelines as its basis.

The research seems to show its more than that. Sure culture and upbringing influence our views but our knowledge of moral truths is there from a very early age.

The light can be measured objectively in terms of colour, which can be precisely given as a wavelength measured in nanometers. For example, if you measure the wavelength of light to be 700 nanometers, you know it's some shade of red. If you measure 413 nanometers, you know it's more around a bluish violet colour.

The amount of light that is emitted from a light source is measured objectively in lumens, and the light that hits a particular surface is measured objectively in terms of lux.

These are objective measures and can quite handily deal with shades of grey, if you'll pardon the pun. Your argument would seem to have us reduce to saying either, "Yes, there is light," or, "No, there isn't light," and nothing more.

There has to be a light source that emits the light for it to be measured in any level so yes there is either light or there’s not. But we can also measure the level of light with a meter. The light at midday will be stronger than the light at dusk.

That’s not too dissimilar to moral truths. Killing is morally wrong. But we can determine different levels (severity) of killing such as 1st degree and manslaughter.

I take it you're a vegan then?

What’s being vegan got to do with things.

Which is perfectly explained by the societal cause I mentioned earlier.

Also, if you were correct, then we wouldn't have those untouched tribes who kill any intruders. Remember that North Sentinel Island tribe who killed that missionary? Why didn't they intuitively know that it would be wrong to kill him?

Just because we intuitively know that killing is wrong doesn’t mean humans cannot kill. We all know the law and yet humans are constantly breaking the law.

More horrific? And how do you determine that if there is no measure of how horrific manslaughter/killing in self defense is so you can compare it to how horrific genocide is?

The same way and tribunal or the courts do with different criteria for different levels of killing.

Then how is it measured? In what units is it measured in?
Or are you just talking about a subjective gut feeling? I mean, that would explain why different people assign different moral values to the same thing, right? Like abortion?

So are you saying that when they decide if someone has committed 1st degree murder or manslaughter they subjectively decide? They just say in my opinion or view is worse than the other. Are you saying theres no measure they use to determine worse.

Again, this can be explained perfectly with a SUBJECTIVE morality that is shared by most people.

So like I said are you saying that to tell the difference between all these levels of severity we just use subjective opinions and not some objective basis? Couldn’t the defendant say that he is being convicted by an opinion and it’s not correct in his opinion? Lol. Afterall its just one opinion against another.

And I'm not arguing about that. No one is saying that we generally consider murder with intent to be worse than murder that was unintentional.

So how do we decide that. With an opinion or with some objective measure like intent to kill and the facts.

But that doesn't make it objective, it just makes it a shred subjective viewpoint.

Of course it makers it objectively wrong. Its wrong regardless of peoples opinions. Its wrong due to the facts. The facts show how the different levels of severity are determined anmd not opinions. We would be in a hossible situation if we went around accusing and blaiming people based on opinion.

Someones opinion might be that all Black people can't be trusted because of their personal experience. Are we to say that we should trust that opinion.

 

[stevevw]

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

So are scientific theories. Just because its written by humans doesnt mean its not indepednent of humans. To determine 1st degree murder for example is about facts of internt, planning ect. That is an objective destinction as opposed to say manslaughter which can be objectively determined by non-intent, accidental.

This is getting embarrasing (for you).

Thats your opinion which doesnt count for anything in our debate. Facts are whats imnportant.

Where there morals before humans existed?

Morality is like Maths and both are facts even if there are no humans.

 

[VirOptimus]

So are scientific theories. Just because its written by humans doesnt mean its not indepednent of humans. To determine 1st degree murder for example is about facts of internt, planning ect. That is an objective destinction as opposed to say manslaughter which can be objectively determined by non-intent, accidental.

Scientific theories is nothing like legal laws, scientific theories explain physical reality. Legal laws prescribe how society (should) work.

Thats your opinion which doesnt count for anything in our debate. Facts are whats imnportant.

Oh, the irony.

And its not just my opinion, do you seriously think that legal laws are objective?

Morality is like Maths and both are facts even if there are no humans.

So how did morals exist without humans? Explain, and also explain why they existed, how and how you know.

And maths is not exactly facts, math is an axiomatic logical system.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well its my contention that many moral statements work exactly like the example Im using. They are fundamentally instrumental statements about how to effectively achieve various goals. The emotional baggage of duty and rightness and wrongness is a useful compliance mechanism to get the not-yet-wise on board.

"Ought" statements are not statements about how to achieve a goal, they are a prescription to do the thing that achieves your goal.

 

[stevevw]

Scientific theories is nothing like legal laws, scientific theories explain physical reality. Legal laws prescribe how society (should) work.

Actually laws are to keep law and order. You said
For something to be "objective" it has to be independent of humans. Legal laws are written by humans.

I was pointing out that just because someone writes a law doesnt mean it isnt an objective law. If you applied this logic to science then we would have to say that science cannot verify objectives because the physical laws are written by humans.

For example the law of gravity cannot be subjectively denied or changed. If you subjectively think gravity is not a law and walk off a building the law of gravity stands. The same for the law of stealing. You may subjectively think the law is not true but you will end up being prosecuted so the law of no stealing stands. They are both above subjective human determination.

Oh, the irony.

And its not just my opinion, do you seriously think that legal laws are objective?

They are a form of objectivity just like any extremist group will impose some objective law system on others. Its objective because it is determined as the only correct way to view something. Subjectivity allows for different viewss and no single view is ultimately correct.

So how did morals exist without humans? Explain, and also explain why they existed, how and how you know.

Morality is a human enterprise. It can only happen between humans. So thats an irrelevant question.

And maths is not exactly facts, math is an axiomatic logical system.

So gravity and relativity are not facts then.

 

[stevevw]

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.

So therefore they have determined a measure of what is OK and whats not OK when it comes to smacking. They can only do that if there is an objective basis for measuring smacking. They draw the line at closed hand smacking.

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

Yes in your country. But other countries may have different laws. Its wrong to say that we can be confident that we know everything there is to know about this matter.

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

So your agreeing that the law about smacking is a sort of objective rule. Its forced onto everyone regardless whether they subjectively think smacking for example with a belt is morally OK.

How do you determine if a greater moral harm is being done if you can’t measure the harm?

You can measure the harm. For example under the moral value that "Human Life" is valuable accidental killing is wrong. But we can then say "1st degree murder" is a greater moral wrong because it wasnt an accident and was intentional. Or that genocide is the greatest wrong as its intentional and involved many "Human Lives". If human life is valuable then taking more than one is a greater wrong.

If you have to make exceptions concerning the circumstances, that is not objective; it’s subjective.

The circumstances don't change that there is an objective truth. It just means the circumstances need to be taken into consideration to get to the truth of what happened. Remember I mentioned that objective morality can accommodate changing circumstances. For every moral situation there will be a moral truth/objective that can be determined.

objective truth needs to be determined 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?

So if there is no objectively right or wrong way to behave if a child has a gun to their head the with that logic if it was a subjective determination then a person could choose to sit their and just let the crazed gunman kill the innocent child. There would be nothing morally wrong with that under a subjective system.

 

[o_mlly]

But I assert that you can't show the moon exists without making some sort of measurement.

? Just more assertions w/o arguments.

Having defeated your claim with examples from biology/zoology, why would you think astrology/cosmology would be any different?

Ecce luna!

The 'should' (or 'ought') refers to whether one should attempt to reach agreement on moral matters. As one should. That one 'should' (or 'ought') do this is not determined by whether the moral act is objective or subjective. It can be either and the requiremnt that one 'ought' to reach agreement still stands. As it applies in both cases it cannot be used to determine the objectivity or subjectivity of the act in question. And so your suggestion is invalid.

As to whether any of us could be wrong about moral matters, some of have admitted that we certainly could be. You were asked if you could be as well. What was the response?

After reading your post, I could not decide whether to douse it with Thousand Island or Ranch Salad dressing. Maybe an emulsion type of dressing is the better choice as you have two contradictory claims which you claim are (illogically) both true.

 

[VirOptimus]

Actually laws are to keep law and order. You said
For something to be "objective" it has to be independent of humans. Legal laws are written by humans.

I was pointing out that just because someone writes a law doesnt mean it isnt an objective law. If you applied this logic to science then we would have to say that science cannot verify objectives because the physical laws are written by humans.

If someone wriites a legal law its by definition not a "objective" law. You may think its a codification of an objective truth but then that has to be supported.

The view you are saying now is that all legal laws are objective, from Sharia laws, to the laws of North Korea to western laws etc. This is a very strange view.

For example the law of gravity cannot be subjectively denied or changed. If you subjectively think gravity is not a law and walk off a building the law of gravity stands. The same for the law of stealing. You may subjectively think the law is not true but you will end up being prosecuted so the law of no stealing stands. They are both above subjective human determination.
They are a form of objectivity just like any extremist group will impose some objective law system on others. Its objective because it is determined as the only correct way to view something. Subjectivity allows for different viewss and no single view is ultimately correct.

Gravity is not a law, its a physical phenomena. Do you not understand the diference between scientific "laws" and legal ones?

Morality is a human enterprise. It can only happen between humans. So thats an irrelevant question.

No, its not. You said it existed before humanity, so support your point. Answer the questions.

So gravity and relativity are not facts then.

Gravity and relativity is observed physical phenomena, its not math. Do you not understand the difference?

 

[Ken-1122]

So therefore they have determined a measure of what is OK and whats not OK when it comes to smacking. They can only do that if there is an objective basis for measuring smacking. They draw the line at closed hand smacking.

Yes in your country. But other countries may have different laws. Its wrong to say that we can be confident that we know everything there is to know about this matter.

So your agreeing that the law about smacking is a sort of objective rule. Its forced onto everyone regardless whether they subjectively think smacking for example with a belt is morally OK.

My claim was that morality was not objective; not laws.

You can measure the harm. For example under the moral value that "Human Life" is valuable accidental killing is wrong. But we can then say "1st degree murder" is a greater moral wrong because it wasnt an accident and was intentional. Or that genocide is the greatest wrong as its intentional and involved many "Human Lives". If human life is valuable then taking more than one is a greater wrong.

The question was about smacking vs not smacking; not variations of the same action. So how do you objectively measure the harm of smacking vs the harm of not smacking?

The circumstances don't change that there is an objective truth.

Actually it does. If you have to use subjective means (like opinions, or beliefs} to determine if it is right or not, it is not objective.

It just means the circumstances need to be taken into consideration to get to the truth of what happened. Remember I mentioned that objective morality can accommodate changing circumstances.

And you were wrong to say that. Name something else objective that can accommodate changing circumstances based on human thought, beliefs, or opinions; go ahead I'll wait.....

For every moral situation there will be a moral truth/objective that can be determined. So if there is no objectively right or wrong way to behave if a child has a gun to their head the with that logic if it was a subjective determination then a person could choose to sit their and just let the crazed gunman kill the innocent child. There would be nothing morally wrong with that under a subjective system.

Remember; as far as the individual is concerned, objective and subjective morality are the same; because it's based on thought. The difference is objective is based outside of human thought. The same thing (freewill of the gunman) that allows the crazed person to kill the child would not change if morality were objective.

 

[stevevw]

If someone wriites a legal law its by definition not a "objective" law. You may think its a codification of an objective truth but then that has to be supported.

The view you are saying now is that all legal laws are objective, from Sharia laws, to the laws of North Korea to western laws etc. This is a very strange view.

No I'm not saying that. I am saying that this is how these groups and states act like they are objective.

Gravity is not a law, its a physical phenomena.

But it has been formulated Mathmatically by Newton and is especialy good at explaining the effects of gravity like "What goes up must come down" so acts like a law. In fact it is called a law Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia.

Do you not understand the diference between scientific "laws" and legal ones?

Yes I understand the difference. I am saying that the thinking that goes into making them laws are similar. The are not just someones personal opinion, preference or view but based on substanciate facts and justified beliefs that have been reasoned.

No, its not. You said it existed before humanity, so support your point. Answer the questions.

Well being like a law or truth similar to Math facts then it doesnt act in time and space like physical things. It cannot be there and not be there. It is "Just There" and always will be. Like 2+2=4 is a truth or fact and is still a fact even if there are no humans.

Gravity and relativity is observed physical phenomena, its not math. Do you not understand the difference?

But there is a mathmatical formula that these theories are based on. Like
The equation for universal gravitation thus takes the form:
Gravity Equation - Universe Today
These are laws and a fact that can be used to ccalculate gravities effects in areas like sky diving, structural engineering and NASA.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There has to be a light source that emits the light for it to be measured in any level so yes there is either light or there’s not. But we can also measure the level of light with a meter. The light at midday will be stronger than the light at dusk.

Why should the measurement of light be stronger or weaker at any particular time of day. A good laser should be able to produce a very consistent beam of light, both in intensity and in wavelength perhaps for days upon days.

This was from a long sequence of examples of scientific obective measurement that somehow demonstrates that morality can be measured objectively, or something. I don't know; most of the "pro-objective" arguments (and some of the counters) in this thread made little sense.

I recently voted "no" after a long time monitoring this thread. I hesitated, because I do think there are some underlying moral basics that could be called a "objective moral foundation" found throughout humanity, but no one on the "yes" side was *anywhere* near that sort of definition, so I've sided with the "no" crowd for now.

 

[VirOptimus]

No I'm not saying that. I am saying that this is how these groups and states act like they are objective.

No, they are not acting "like they are objective", if they where they could never change the laws.

But it has been formulated Mathmatically by Newton and is especialy good at explaining the effects of gravity like "What goes up must come down" so acts like a law. In fact it is called a law Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia. Yes I understand the difference. I am saying that the thinking that goes into making them laws are similar. The are not just someones personal opinion, preference or view but based on substanciate facts and justified beliefs that have been reasoned.

Do you even understand how a legal law is made?

Well being like a law or truth similar to Math facts then it doesnt act in time and space like physical things. It cannot be there and not be there. It is "Just There" and always will be. Like 2+2=4 is a truth or fact and is still a fact even if there are no humans.

Thats not how math works, math works because its axiomatic logic. Its not really an existing thing.

Also, its quite complicated to prove that 2+2=4 in math. (google it).

But there is a mathmatical formula that these theories are based on. Like
The equation for universal gravitation thus takes the form:

A mathematical formula is just a tool to describe physical reality, not physical reality in itself A bit like a map is not the territory.

These are laws and a fact that can be used to ccalculate gravities effects in areas like sky diving, structural engineering and NASA.

Yes, engineeering exist. What does that have to do with morality?

 

[stevevw]

My claim was that morality was not objective; not laws.

But I think we can say that some of our laws are underpinned by morals/ethics. We certainly treat them that way. A subjective moral system allows for those with the most power and position to dictate how we should behave. They have their reasons, they may be factual and maybe self interest. But they apply those laws and codes like they are the "Truth" in how we should behave. It creates a power vacumn for whoever has the most money, influence can promote their truth.

The question was about smacking vs not smacking; not variations of the same action. So how do you objectively measure the harm of smacking vs the harm of not smacking?

By reasoning out the situation. Getting evidence as to whether smacking is harmful or not. Obviously each country has evidence and thinks their right. But both can't be right so the truth has to be established. JUst because we cannont establish what is the right way to behave at the time doesn't mean we can't determine whats better/best in the future.

Actually it does. If you have to use subjective means (like opinions, or beliefs} to determine if it is right or not, it is not objective.

Taking the circumstances into consideration is about looking at the differences between for example different Killing scenarios where it may be accidental, self defence, intentional.

Each circumstance will have actions, motives, which make a difference to how it is wrong, how severe it is ect. These things cannot be determined by personal opinion. Rather they are determined by forensics and people who use objective measures to establish the facts/truth of the matter. We can do that with morality. We can observe behavior, measure severity, catorgorize moral wrongs based on the value of Human "Life".

Morality is a rational enterprise so that includes logic. It would be logically justified to say that saving the innocent child was a moral duty if Human "Life has objective value. It is our moral duty to protect "Life". So objective morality accommodates this circumstance and it is right to kill a crazed gunman about to shoot an innocent child.

This determination does not and cannot apply to any other moral situation. The reasoning will be different to determine the truth. It doesnt make killing subjective because each moral circumstance is reasoned to the truth taking the circumstances into consideration.

Moral realism doesn’t necessarily imply moral universalism. Moral universalism or absolute morality means some action is always wrong according to a general principle.
Is it always wrong to kill?

But circumstances can be seen to play a role for the moral realist (objective moralist) in interpreting moral actions.
Just because I am a moral realist doesn’t mean it will always be wrong to kill.
Just like in mathematics
5x + 10 = 2
10y
Each part of the equation determines the right solution. Each circumstance will play a role, like part of an equation, in determining the morality right thing to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk88sZw4YhM

And you were wrong to say that. Name something else objective that can accommodate changing circumstances based on human thought, beliefs, or opinions; go ahead I'll wait.....

I am not quite sure what you mean by that. But if you mean as in the physical things it happens all the time. How you see and measure say a planet will depend on changing circumstances. If your looking for what is causing some activity on a planet then the changing weather circumstances may influence what is really going on or causing the activity or behaviour. It really doesnt matter.

Remember; as far as the individual is concerned, objective and subjective morality are the same; because it's based on thought.

But surely with that same "Cognition" we can also thing logically andrationally. So we can reason why some behaviours are better than other behaviours. In the situation with the crazed gunman the rational and locial thing to do was save the kid. You can go through the reasoning but it will stand up as its objective.

The difference is objective is based outside of human thought.

Yes has to be grounded in some objective fact or truth outside the human. But that doesnt mean humans can't use their cognition to work whats a fact or truth.

The same thing (freewill of the gunman) that allows the crazed person to kill the child would not change if morality were objective.

No it won't but an objective determination that allows us to say killing innocent children is objectively wrong. The gunman may have had all sorts of issues or mental problems even.

But this doesn't stop us acknowleding that some things are objectively wrong to do and no ones subjective personal opinion will change that. This makes it outside humans as it is not subject to human opinion but rather held up by facts that Human "Life" is valuable.

 

[essentialsaltes]

For example the law of gravity cannot be subjectively denied or changed.

Sure it can. In fact it already has, at least a couple times. Aristotelian ideas were overthrown by Galileo and Newton. Newton's 'law of gravity' was overthrown by Einstein. Even now, we strongly suspect our theory of gravity is incomplete, since it cannot accommodate quantum mechanics (or vice versa).

Of course we can change theories of gravity. They are in fact made up by people.

It is gravity itself that is the objective fact.

If you subjectively think gravity is not a law and walk off a building the law of gravity stands. The same for the law of stealing.

If I walk off a building, I will objectively fall.
If I steal something, what objectively occurs?

Morality is a human enterprise. It can only happen between humans.

That's why it's inherently subjective.

So gravity and relativity are not facts then.

The theory of gravity is not a fact.
The theory of relativity is not a fact.

However, we know that theories are human explanations of groups of related facts. Gravity itself is a fact.

What are the facts that moral theories are supposed to explain?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ecce luna!

Beholding is a measurement.

 

[stevevw]

Why should the measurement of light be stronger or weaker at any particular time of day. A good laser should be able to produce a very consistent beam of light, both in intensity and in wavelength perhaps for days upon days.

I wound imagine there would be a measurement for that as well that shows the constancy of light compare to daylight for example.

This was from a long sequence of examples of scientific obective measurement that somehow demonstrates that morality can be measured objectively, or something. I don't know; most of the "pro-objective" arguments (and some of the counters) in this thread made little sense.

One thing people seem to get stuck on is that they think morals should be measured like physical stuff with instruments or test tubes. Pro objectivists usually say morality can be understood like science but isn't science. Its just the analogies help explain things.

A moral truth stands independent of humans in value. This is evidenced by the way humans intuitively know certain things are wrong and how they act like morality is objective regardless of claims of beinga subjectivists. HUmans are witnesses for the prosecution that there are objective morals.

I recently voted "no" after a long time monitoring this thread. I hesitated, because I do think there are some underlying moral basics that could be called a "objective moral foundation" found throughout humanity, but no one on the "yes" side was *anywhere* near that sort of definition, so I've sided with the "no" crowd for now.

What is the definition you are talking about, I am not sure what you mean.