Is there Objective Morality?

[partinobodycular]

That you would ask me this question tells me you haven't read my exchange with @durangodawood back to it's beginning.

You're absolutely right. I started out trying to follow this thread, but eventually it got away from me. So bear with me if I miss the broader context from time to time.

Consider:

X + 2 = 4

That X is equal to 2 is contingent on the other numbers being what they are, so X isn't objectively equal to 2, it's relative or subjective. That's silly.

Yes, in the case of:

X + 2 = 4 it can be determined that X is indeed equal to 2. But outside of that equation "X" has no specific value at all. Therefore the numeric value of "X" is relative to the context.

If all we have is X + Y = Z then assigning a value to "X" is impossible. In fact independent of the other variables it has no numeric value at all.

That's the same way it is with morality. If one argues, as o_mlly just did, that good and bad are dependent upon their correlation with "human flourishing", then good and bad become "relative" to that metric.

Just as "X" has no intrinsic value of its own, human acts have no intrinsic value either.

The fact that one has to add a metric to human acts in order to determine their value, means that the value isn't intrinsic to the act itself.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok lets go there.
Fact: "a thing that is known or proved to be true." (dictionary)

Now this is definitely leading me away from pure opinion and toward something grounded in at least an attempt to comport with the real world. Here's the trail: Ought > Correct > truth/fact > known/proven.

An "ought" statement is claimed to be a fact.
It's a fact if it's proven.
My argument demonstrates that it is impossible to prove an "ought" through argumentation.

Now "correct" requires two things to be compared. Such as "your claim" and "the truth": your claim is correct if it's in accordance with the truth. Or "what you did" and "what you ought to have done": what you chose to do was correct if it's in accordance with what you ought to have done.

If "what you ought to have done" can't be demonstrated as a fact, then "what you actually did" has nothing to compare itself to in order to determine if it was the correct choice.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes, in the case of:

X + 2 = 4 it can be determined that X is indeed equal to 2. But outside of that equation "X" has no specific value at all. Therefore the numeric value of "X" is relative to the context.

Then X is objectively equal to 2 relative to the numbers in the equation. "Objective" and "relative" aren't mutually exclusive, just ask Einstein.

If all we have is X + Y = Z then assigning a value to "X" is impossible. In fact independent of the other variables it has no numeric value at all.

That's the same way it is with morality. If one argues, as o_mlly just did, that good and bad are dependent upon their correlation with "human flourishing", then good and bad become "relative" to that metric.

Just as "X" has no intrinsic value of its own, human acts have no intrinsic value either.

The fact that one has to add a metric to human acts in order to determine their value, means that the value isn't intrinsic to the act itself.

I suggest you go all the way back to post #1821 to see what D-Wood and I are discussing. I proffered an argument that it is impossible to form a sound argument for any moral statement.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think one ought (*cough*) to distinguish between a logical ought (an ought that follows from a set of premises) and a moral ought.

If:
P1: You desire to have X
P2: Getting X requires Y
C: You ought/should/must/(are required to) do Y.

Now, if "you" don't do Y then we must conclude that either P1 or P2 is false. This is an ought but it has nothing to do with "moral" values, per se. One might use this sort of logic for a "moral" X (a thing that one desires).

'C' follows from the logic, but not because X is a "moral" thing.

X may or may not be moral, but it's beside the point.

Too, the ought in the logic precedes action (whether or not X is moral). The judgement of a "moral" act follows the act.

Following an act, one might conclude that one ought to have done Y if X required it and you wanted it. "You didn't get it 'cuz you didn't do Y which you ought to have done if you wanted X."

What we can't do is decide whether wanting X is moral in the first place. The wanting is the subjective part.

 

[partinobodycular]

Then X is objectively equal to 2 relative to the numbers in the equation. "Objective" and "relative" aren't mutually exclusive, just ask Einstein.

Yup, that's my contention exactly.

Once you have a metric against which to measure something, it's value becomes "objective", "relative" to that metric.

This means however that no act is ever objectively immoral in and of itself, and that's the difference between "objective" morality and "relative" morality.

In objective morality acts are intrinsically good or bad, but in relative morality they're not.

In objective morality, murder and rape are intrinsically bad. In relative morality they're not.

 

[Tinker Grey]

In objective morality, murder and rape are intrinsically bad. In relative morality they're not.

I agree with you, but as has been stated earlier we have loaded terms. If murder is defined as a killing that is bad, then by definition murder is bad. So, just quibbling, I'd say "In objective morality, killing and sex intrinsically bad and in relative morality they're not."

Thus the position that morality is "objective" is exposed as fallacious. Once the objective morality position is required to define what makes a killing bad and that different people might see a fuzzy circumstance differently they *should* be able to see why morality is actually subjective.

Of course, on the basis of this thread, I'm pessimistic that this'd happen.

 

[o_mlly]

There are desires inherent in our human nature, the most basic of which is to live. The desire to live is a natural desire, a desire with which we are innately endowed. Because it is inherent in human nature, as all truly specific properties are, it is present in all normal human beings, just as human facial characteristics, human skeletal structure, or human blood types are.

Since our desire to live is natural and necessary to achieve all other possible desires, life is a real good, not merely an apparent good, that we ought to desire. The is to ought gap has been, therefore, bridged.

If one rejects this common sense argument then your extreme skepticism precludes any fruitful further discussion.

 

[partinobodycular]

If murder is defined as a killing that is bad, then by definition murder is bad.

That's what I refer to as linguistic sleight of hand. Wherein the premise covertly presupposes the conclusion.

Thus the position that morality is "objective" is exposed as fallacious. Once the objective morality position is required to define what makes a killing bad and that different people might see a fuzzy circumstance differently they *should* be able to see why morality is actually subjective.

Agree

 

[Tinker Grey]

That's what I refer to as linguistic sleight of hand. Wherein the premise covertly presupposes the conclusion.

Exactly.

 

[partinobodycular]

Since our desire to live is natural and necessary to achieve all other possible desires, life is a real good, not merely an apparent good, that we ought to desire.

And thus man became the sole metric by which all things moral are measured.

That which leads to our continued existence is good, and that which doesn't is bad.

And we call this metric...evolution.

 

[o_mlly]

And thus man became the sole metric by which all things moral are measured.

That which leads to our continued existence is good, and that which doesn't is bad.

And we call this metric...evolution.

If the creature cannot choose to do otherwise then the creature is not a moral agent.

? Man is not a metric but he is the only creature that can choose to do otherwise.

We need not agree or disagree whether the desire to live evolved only that it is innate. Although, I don't think we would see much, if any at all, of evolution in living creatures if the need to exist was not "built-in" to the very first living creature.

 

[o_mlly]

That's what I refer to as linguistic sleight of hand. Wherein the premise covertly presupposes the conclusion.

No, a human act is never the mere physicality of the act. An irrational animal can kill. The human act must specify the end-in-view to which that act naturally inclines regardless of any particular actor or that actor's intention.

 

[partinobodycular]

? Man is not a metric but he is the only creature that can choose to do otherwise.

I didn't specify the metric...you did.

As to the morality of human acts, acts which promote human existence and human flourishing are good; act that impede either are not good.

That sure sounds like a metric to me.

 

[o_mlly]

I didn't specify the metric...you did.

Nope. That's your assertion.

And thus man became the sole metric ...

That sure sounds like a metric to me.

You might lookup the definition of "metric".

 

[Kylie]

That's not how you or I see things. Our photon detectors don't "count" the photons detected. Those little rods and cones just get excited all on their own and share their excitement via electrical signals to my brain via the ganglion cells through the optic nervous system. The brain interprets those electrical signals into an image based on our memory and prior experiences.

Irrelevant. We still need to detect them and measure that they are actually there.

Now let's get back to categorizing moral acts objectively.

Reason allows us the insight to categorize creatures based on the creatures' species specific and unique properties. We call this rational process abstraction. That is, we strip the particulars of time and place from the particular things and focus only on commonalities, the essential properties that all those kinds of creatures possess in all times and all places. Stripping time and place (space) means stripping all measurements and all other material properties that individuate so as to see the essences of the species.

As to mammals, we need only observe the species specific properties that identify a mammal, eg., mammary glands. No need to count them; it is sufficient to observe them. As to the celestial bodies we call moons, it is sufficient to observe that the body orbits a planet and reflects light from some other object. No need to measure anything. Ecce luna.

As to the morality of human acts, acts which promote human existence and human flourishing are good; act that impede either are not good. Now, if you argue that humans do not need to exist or flourish then I invite you to also stop eating and drinking or jump off a roof high enough to disrupt your bodily integrity and let us know how that worked out for you. We could add your input to the others, more data is always better than less.

Oh goody, we're back to the same old "morality is binary" nonsense I've already addressed.

 

[partinobodycular]

You might lookup the definition of "metric".

Okay...let's do that. I assume that Merriam-Webster is acceptable to you.

metric noun​

2 : a standard of measurement
​

Now that we have a definition. Let's see if your statement qualifies as one.

As to the morality of human acts, acts which promote human existence and human flourishing are good; act that impede either are not good.

"As to the morality of human acts,"
​

This tells us what we're measuring...the morality of human acts.

And what are the standards by which you propose that we measure this morality?

"acts which promote human existence and human flourishing are good"
​

That's one.

"act that impede either are not good."
​

That's two.

Yup, that's a metric alright, a standard by which we can measure whether an act is morally good or bad.

Now if you would like to retract that statement, be my guest. But I have a feeling that you're going to obfuscate instead.​

 

[Bradskii]

But I have an advantage over you and the other non-believers: I believe in God and His truths as revealed to us, none of which are contrary to right reason.

So are you saying that you must be right all the time? As there are a few others on the forum with the same 'advanatage' and if you are in disagreement with any of them then some of us would like to know how we tell who is right. So is it you every time?

 

[o_mlly]

Irrelevant. We still need to detect them and measure that they are actually there.
Oh goody, we're back to the same old "morality is binary" nonsense I've already addressed.

Now if you would like to retract that statement, be my guest. But I have a feeling that you're going to obfuscate instead.

A problem with internet forum exchanges is that anyone can post regardless of their depth of knowledge on the subject. We can only hope that they do not swim in birdbaths for given their depth the likelihood of drowning is quite substantial.

So are you saying that you must be right all the time? As there are a few others on the forum with the same 'advanatage' and if you are in disagreement with any of them then some of us would like to know how we tell who is right. So is it you every time?

No, only when the source is God's revealed truth. What's your source? Oh, yeah the guys down at the pub.

 

[Kylie]

A problem with internet forum exchanges is that anyone can post regardless of their depth of knowledge on the subject. We can only hope that they do not swim in birdbaths for given their depth the likelihood of drowning is quite substantial.

I'll ignore the childish insults, but I'll suggest you don't do it again, or I'll report it.

And I note that you STILL can't tell me how we objectively measure morality.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Morality is both subjective and objective. It's objective due to the influences of the surrounding environment, our biology, and the experiences we undertake, but it is subjective because the environment, biology and experiences are fluid... See the butterfly effect.
Butterfly effect - Wikipedia

...With that being said, it's okay for one to argue that God has initiated the butterfly effect, and that our current, common morality is based in His wisdom from the beginning.

...One could also argue that it's based in nature.

We can respect both POV's.