Where does morality come from?

Ken-1122 · May 15, 2020

stevevw said:
"Similar" and the "same" mean the same thing.

Difference Between Same and Similar | Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms

stevevw said:
But for argument's sake, I will change it to "likes and dislikes" are the same as "rights and wrongs" when it comes to subjective morality.

That’s the same thing you said before! I objected to it then, and I object to it now

stevevw said:
But other posters on this thread have told you that subjective morality is the same as "likes and dislikes" Plus I have posted support for this before IE

Well the other poster was as wrong as you are; I’m sure I let him know it too

stevevw said:

The Metaphysics of the Moral Law: Kant's Deduction of Freedom

Click to expand...

stevevw said:
Universality and necessity are precisely the features that are not attributed to the subjective in our sense; the usual force of ‘subjective’ in our sense is to deny these, especially universality. (Thus, for example, the “likes and dislikes” of taste, for us, are subjective and, in the relevant sense, peculiar to agents.
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._of_the_Moral_Law_Kant's_Deduction_of_Freedom

This makes my point when he says “Universality and necessity are not precisely the features that are not attributed to the subjective. When it comes to moral issues, they are not universality applied.

stevevw said:

Subjectivism (relativism)

Click to expand...

stevevw said:
May clarify what people are arguing about
subjectivism may enable people disagreeing over the rightness or the wrongness of some issue to see that the real dispute is not about objective truth but about their own preferences (likes or dislikes)
BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Subjectivism

The real dispute? Here he seems to think he knows better than we know what is going on inside of our heads. Here he is wrong.

stevevw said:

Objective truths.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:
But moral choices are not subjective, like choosing an ice-cream flavor. Rather moral choices are more like insulin. Insulin, as many of you know, controls diabetes. It doesn’t matter if I think chocolate ice cream will control diabetes because the truth is that it will not. Controlling diabetes correctly requires insulin. Regardless of my personal preference (likes or dislikes) or feeling, the statement “Insulin controls diabetes” is objective Truth. Objective truths, as opposed to subjective preferences (likes or dislikes), are based on the external world. They are related to the world independently of how we think or feel.
https://www.amazon.com/ETHIX-Being-Bold-Whatever-World/dp/0805445196

I’ve been saying all alone that objective is demonstrable/verifiable. The effects Insulin has on diabetes is demonstrable/verifiable. The moral issue concerning abortion, progressive tax structures, or whatever moral issues that come to mind is not demonstratable/verifiable.

Speedwell · May 15, 2020

stevevw said:
Human wellbeing would be a logical by-product of any transient moral lawgiver.

It is a possible by-product but not a necessary one.

BTW, you might do well to contemplate the difference between "transient" and "transcendent."

Anyway, so I did a review of our debate to ensure I was on the right track and did find you said this.
Correct, because "what is really right and wrong" is just another way of describing what you call objective morality, and there is no such thing.

Well caught. I was in error. My position is that the objectivity of morality is an unfalsifiable proposition, so I can never say that there is no such thing.

But I am not sure how you were applying it. Nevertheless, if you say that there are objective morals then what is the problem. We agree there are objective morals.

No, we don't agree. It is possible that morality is objective, but it is up to you to demonstrate that it is true.

OK, that is interesting. So I was interested to know what your belief is and I am not sure. I understand it as some transient being but I am not sure why you don't think this being would not be a moral lawgiver as it makes most sense that if there are "right and wrong" and this needs an independent of humans then a transient lawgiver would be the most logical conclusion.

Yes, if there is shown to be objective morality then a transcendent lawgiver would be a logically possible source

Then I found one post where you said
If you go to the Bible you will find that it tells us that God gave us the ability to contemplate the consequences of our actions and to classify those consequences as desirable or undesirable. In other words, He gave us the ability to construct a workable subjective morality.
I questioned this as the Bible does tell us that there is a moral law that we must follow. That Jesus does tell us that the Law still stands and quoted some verses. But you did not reply.

The Bible tells us that there are laws which we are supposed to follow. Obedient behavior is not necessarily moral behavior.

Then I noticed you were referring to some natural laws I think that may allow people to formulate objective moral values based on social interaction generally more agreeable. But I am not sure what this means.

It means much the same thing as your assertion that moral law is based on securing human well-being, and is no more a statement of moral objecitivity.

So it seems you support objective morality anyway and it's just a case of us disagreeing how this comes about.

I do not support moral objectivity; I merely accept it an an unnecessary possibility.

Lived moral experience is more than just widely shared morality and internalized. I am talking about how people and secular society as a whole in supporting the idea of morals being subjective actually contradict their own position because they act and react against that position like morals are objective.
In reacting against their own subjectively claimed morals they are exposing their real inner beliefs about morality. Something inside them goes against what they claim and people cannot help but react like morals are objective. We all know that there are certain wrongs that are always wrong despite people claiming morals are only subjective. I gave a number of examples earlier in this post. This is the lived moral experience I am talking about.
It is because this lived moral experience seems to be an inner knowledge that people seem to fight against or don't recognize and that they acknowledge that most people agree that there are moral values that are always right and wrong independent of humans and despite subjective morality that this would point to the need for a transcendent law-giver.

All of which is fully explained by an internalized subjective morality.

stevevw · May 15, 2020

VirOptimus said:
So if a person feels very good when torturing animals thats objectivly good and right?

You obviously don't know psychology. Psychological profiling can show that a person who enjoys torturing animals has some psychological problems. Like I said there are psychological measures for what is regarded as normal and healthy mental wellbeing.

If little Johnny is displaying psychopathic tendencies he is not a very stable person and needs help. In fact, science tells us that he is a good candidate for growing up to be antisocial and have problems with relating to people at best and possibly doing the same to humans as he does to animals at worst.

VirOptimus · May 15, 2020

stevevw said:
You obviously don't know psychology. Psychological profiling can show that a person who enjoys torturing animals has some psychological problems. Like I said there are psychological measures for what is regarded as normal and healthy mental wellbeing.

If little Johnny is displaying psychopathic tendencies he is not a very stable person and needs help. In fact, science tells us that he is a good candidate for growing up to be antisocial and have problems with relating to people at best and possibly doing the same to humans as he does to animals at worst.

Belive me, I know quite bit about personal disorders.

And as you always do, you didnt answer my question.

Ken-1122 · May 15, 2020

Moral Orel said:
Why not?

Think about it; if actions I consider to be moral were based on what I like, why would I be tempted to do things I don’t like AND find immoral?

Moral Orel said:
So what? It's a moral issue, so it's subjective, that's what you said.

The definition of “objective:” provided by the dictionary is objective, and easily demonstrable.

Moral Orel said:
Okay, let's start with your claim that "nobody considers ice cream flavor a moral issue". Prove it. If you can't prove it, then you haven't made a point, you've made an empty assertion, and we can safely discard it.

He was the one who brought up flavors. He said the morality I espoused was as ridicules as the morality of ice cream flavors. The fact that he considers such flavors ridicules is proof to me that he does not consider flavors a moral issue

Moral Orel · May 15, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
Think about it; if actions I consider to be moral were based on what I like, why would I be tempted to do things I don’t like AND find immoral?

People do things they don't like all the time, like I explained. What's with capitalizing "AND" like that? You find it immoral because you dislike it, it's redundant. It isn't as though you listed another factor that would make it even less unlikely.

Ken-1122 said:
The definition of “objective:” provided by the dictionary is objective, and easily demonstrable.

But you said that things that are moral issues are subjective. Is that not true anymore?

Ken-1122 said:
He was the one who brought up flavors. He said the morality I espoused was as ridicules as the morality of ice cream flavors. The fact that he considers such flavors ridicules is proof to me that he does not consider flavors a moral issue

That's not what you claimed. You claimed that "nobody considers ice cream a moral issue". Prove that nobody considers ice cream a moral issue, or admit your "point" failed. You can try a different argument after you address the fact that you were wrong to make the one you did.

Ken-1122 · May 15, 2020

Moral Orel said:
People do things they don't like all the time, like I explained.

I said things I don’t like AND find immoral.

Moral Orel said:
What's with capitalizing "AND" like that?

I annunciated the word “and” because I was afraid you would do what you did; leave out the remainder of what I said. (kinda like I knew the trick you was gonna play before you even played it)

Moral Orel said:
You find it immoral because you dislike it, it's redundant. It isn't as though you listed another factor that would make it even less unlikely.

What proof do you have to support this claim?

Moral Orel said:
But you said that things that are moral issues are subjective. Is that not true anymore?

Moral issues are subjective; and that has nothing to do with what I said.

Moral Orel said:
That's not what you claimed. You claimed that "nobody considers ice cream a moral issue". Prove that nobody considers ice cream a moral issue, or admit your "point" failed. You can try a different argument after you address the fact that you were wrong to make the one you did.

To whose satisfaction am I supposed to prove this; Yours? I wasn’t even talking to you. The person I was talking to was satisfied with my claim, so why should I provide further evidence beyond my satisfaction and his?
Is that the best "gotcha" you can muster? Either I'm really good, or you need to up your game Bruh!

Moral Orel · May 15, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
I said things I don’t like AND find immoral.

So?

Ken-1122 said:
I annunciated the word “and” because I was afraid you would do what you did; leave out the remainder of what I said. (kinda like I knew the trick you was gonna play before you even played it)

I didn't leave it out, I addressed it by pointing out it was redundant.

Ken-1122 said:
What proof do you have to support this claim?

The justification that you provided for why you deemed murder immoral. We already established that you can't justify how you judge things to be moral or immoral with anything other than likes, dislikes, and preferences.

Ken-1122 said:
Moral issues are subjective; and that has nothing to do with what I said.

If the very nature of morality isn't a "moral issue" then what is? It's on the subject of morality. It's an issue we're discussing. How is it not a "moral issue"? Is the phrase "moral issue" something you just made up so that you can commit special pleading for what you want to call "right" or "wrong"? I think so.

Ken-1122 said:
To whose satisfaction am I supposed to prove this; Yours? I wasn’t even talking to you. The person I was talking to was satisfied with my claim, so why should I provide further evidence beyond my satisfaction and his?
Is that the best "gotcha" you can muster? Either I'm really good, or you need to up your game Bruh!

You don't have any evidence for your claim so you're dodging. I didn't read Steve's response to it, but if he was tricked, that doesn't make it a solid point. I responded to it because you said the same exact thing to me before when you were trying to draw a distinction between deciding that some action is "wrong" and some flavor is good.

So you made a nonsense argument and made it past Steve. Congratulations! We both know it was a bad point which you're demonstrating by not simply explaining how it was good, so I'm satisfied.

Kylie · May 15, 2020

stevevw said:
There is a difference here though. That is the qualification that the act is still wrong despite subjective morality. Despite subjective opinion means that it is always going to be wrong and no individual opinion can change that. In other words, a subjective opinion claiming it is wrong can be considered objectively wrong as well.

And we've also established that you need to do more than just make the claim if you want us to believe it.

Yet again, the claim is all we get.

Ken-1122 · May 15, 2020

Moral Orel said:
So?

I didn't leave it out, I addressed it by pointing out it was redundant.

So point to a time when I was tempted to do something I don’t like and find immoral

Moral Orel said:
The justification that you provided for why you deemed murder immoral. We already established that you can't justify how you judge things to be moral or immoral with anything other than likes, dislikes, and preferences.

No, I’ve said many times it goes against my moral code. I’ve also pointed out my moral code often goes against what I like, dislike, or prefer.

Moral Orel said:
If the very nature of morality isn't a "moral issue" then what is?

The dictionary definition of morality has little to do with moral acts.

Moral Orel said:
You don't have any evidence for your claim so you're dodging. I didn't read Steve's response to it, but if he was tricked, that doesn't make it a solid point. I responded to it because you said the same exact thing to me before when you were trying to draw a distinction between deciding that some action is "wrong" and some flavor is good.

So you made a nonsense argument and made it past Steve. Congratulations! We both know it was a bad point which you're demonstrating by not simply explaining how it was good, so I'm satisfied.

I never claimed what I said was based on fact or empirical evidence; I was speaking my opinion, the person I was talking to understood it as such, so I have no reason to explain further. The fact that you are trying to make an issue out of this non-issue indicates to me that you are “scrapping the bottom of the barrel” looking for complaints in what I say. C’mon I’ve discussed with you before; you’re better than this!

Moral Orel · May 15, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
So point to a time when I was tempted to do something I don’t like and find immoral

You said before that you've thought about doing things you find immoral because they're advantageous to you. So I imagine you've thought about stealing something before, yes?

Ken-1122 said:
No, I’ve said many times it goes against my moral code.

And your moral code is built on likes, dislikes, and preferences.

Ken-1122 said:
I’ve also pointed out my moral code often goes against what I like, dislike, or prefer.

So what? I didn't say your moral code will be identical to your likes/dislikes list. Some things you like/dislike you won't declare as a moral because you would feel silly, and you don't like feeling silly. Some things you'll declare moral/immoral that you couldn't care less about because you like fitting in. That isn't a personal dig, we all want to fit into society to some extent.

Ken-1122 said:
The dictionary definition of morality has little to do with moral acts.

So what?

Ken-1122 said:
I never claimed what I said was based on fact or empirical evidence; I was speaking my opinion, the person I was talking to understood it as such, so I have no reason to explain further.

You don't make points in an argument by stating your personal opinion. Now that we've established you were just stating your opinion, we can put to rest the idea that you ever made a point.

Ken-1122 said:
The fact that you are trying to make an issue out of this non-issue indicates to me that you are “scrapping the bottom of the barrel” looking for complaints in what I say. C’mon I’ve discussed with you before; you’re better than this!

You're trying to show that judging murder as "wrong" and ice cream as good are done differently. Your idea that nobody treats chocolate ice cream as a moral issue failed in that regard. Got anything else? Is there any reason to think these things are different?

Ken-1122 · May 15, 2020

Moral Orel said:
You said before that you've thought about doing things you find immoral because they're advantageous to you. So I imagine you've thought about stealing something before, yes?

If I thought about stealing, it would be because that was something I would have liked to do.

Moral Orel said:
And your moral code is built on likes, dislikes, and preferences.

If you are under the impression my moral code is limited to my likes, dislikes, and preferences, you’ve got the wrong impression

Moral Orel said:
So what? I didn't say your moral code will be identical to your likes/dislikes list.

No, you said it has been established that my moral code is limited to my likes, dislikes and preferences. I’m telling you it’s more than that.

Moral Orel said:
You don't make points in an argument by stating your personal opinion.

Yes I do! I’ve done it many times.

Moral Orel said:
Now that we've established you were just stating your opinion, we can put to rest the idea that you ever made a point.

I did make a point; it just was not directed at you.

Moral Orel said:
You're trying to show that judging murder as "wrong" and ice cream as good are done differently.

Yes the difference is any reasonable person will judge the issue concerning murder as more important than ice cream flavor, IMO any reasonable person will not judge ice cream flavor as a moral issue but they will judge murder as a moral issue

Moral Orel · May 15, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
If I thought about stealing, it would be because that was something I would have liked to do.

So you're saying you like stealing?

Ken-1122 said:
If you are under the impression my moral code is limited to my likes, dislikes, and preferences, you’ve got the wrong impression

I'm not, and I said as much.

Ken-1122 said:
No, you said it has been established that my moral code is limited to my likes, dislikes and preferences. I’m telling you it’s more than that.

I didn't say that.

Ken-1122 said:
Yes I do! I’ve done it many times.

No, you don't. Premises need to be true to make an argument. If your premises aren't true then your argument isn't even valid, let alone sound.

Ken-1122 said:
I did make a point; it just was not directed at you.

Nope. You just let us know know your opinion.

Ken-1122 said:
Yes the difference is any reasonable person will judge the issue concerning murder as more important than ice cream flavor, IMO any reasonable person will not judge ice cream flavor as a moral issue but they will judge murder as a moral issue

Okay, what is the reason that murder is more "important" than ice cream? How do you measure "importance"? What is the unit of measurement? Unless of course what you meant is that people feel that murder is more important... In which case, what does being reasonable have to do with emotions?

Ken-1122 · May 15, 2020

Moral Orel said:
So you're saying you like stealing?

Depends on the circumstances

Moral Orel said:
I didn't say that.

You said:
you can't justify how you judge things to be moral or immoral with anything other than likes, dislikes, and preferences.

Those were your exact words, and you are wrong. How I judge things to be moral or immoral is not limited to my likes, dislikes, and preferences.

Moral Orel said:
No, you don't. Premises need to be true to make an argument. If your premises aren't true then your argument isn't even valid, let alone sound.

If the argument is not directed at you, you have no say so in whether it is a valid argument or not.

Moral Orel said:
Nope. You just let us know know your opinion.

Which is one of the ways I make my points.

Moral Orel said:
Okay, what is the reason that murder is more "important" than ice cream? How do you measure "importance"? What is the unit of measurement? Unless of course what you meant is that people feel that murder is more important... In which case, what does being reasonable have to do with emotions?

Murder has more of an effect on society, so I deem it more important

[serious] · May 16, 2020

I'm late to the party here, but the idea of morality stemming from God gets rather squirrely for me. I used to be fully on board with "morality is defined by God," but as I thought more about it and played around with different hypotheticals, I just couldn't resolve God dictated morality.

The central difficulty is the concept of might makes right. Does God dictate morality simply as a result of being powerful? If so, does this stem from the ability to punish, or the ability to define fundamental rules?

If it's the ability to punish, let's imagine that somehow Satan became more powerful than God (not saying it can happen, just a hypothetical) and says that he will punish those who worship God, but reward those who don't. Does it then become moral to worship Satan?

More hypothetical to follow

Moral Orel · May 16, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
You said:
you can't justify how you judge things to be moral or immoral with anything other than likes, dislikes, and preferences.

Those were your exact words, and you are wrong. How I judge things to be moral or immoral is not limited to my likes, dislikes, and preferences.

And that's very different from saying that your moral code is limited to likes and dislikes. Likes, dislikes, and preferences are the only things you have to justify your judgements. They're the only tools you have at your disposal in that regard. That doesn't mean that you'll decide like=moral and dislike=immoral. For every decision you make you have to weigh a whole lot of likes and dislikes against each other.

When I asked you to justify "murder is wrong" you eventually answered that you preferred society to be that way. I gave you ample opportunity to give me some other reasoning besides likes, dislikes, and preferences. Heck, I gave away the ending and told you days in advance what you were going to use to justify your judgement, and then you said exactly what I predicted. But go ahead, try again. Give me some other reason to think murder is wrong that doesn't boil down to likes, dislikes, and preferences. You won't because you can't.

Ken-1122 said:
If the argument is not directed at you, you have no say so in whether it is a valid argument or not.

Sure I do. An argument's validity doesn't rest on who it's directed at any more than who presented it. You just don't like that I spotted and exposed your trick that you thought you got away with.

Ken-1122 said:
Which is one of the ways I make my points.

You're not making a point when you state an opinion. You didn't say anything more meaningful to the discussion than, "Ice cream is tasty". You can plug yours ears and yell, "Yes-huh!" all you want, you're wrong.

Ken-1122 said:
Murder has more of an effect on society, so I deem it more important

Why? Why does "more effect" = "more important"? If someone commits fraud they can steal millions of dollars from a corporation. But if my wife gets mugged and her purse stolen the thieves aren't going to get anywhere near that much. The effect on the corporation is measurably greater than the effect on my finances, but I don't find that to be as important. Why am I incorrect?

stevevw · May 16, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
Morality is not defined as "in accordance with human well-being". IOW just because it causes harm to humans does not make it wrong.

Those who support human wellbeing for what is right and wrong say that wellbeing can be measured by science for what makes a human happy and healthy physically and mentally. So that scientific measure is the objective standard. Any act that damages a human's physical and mental state is regarded as wrong. We can measure wellbeing through medical and psychological tests.

stevevw · May 16, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
Santa Clause exists under epistemology, but not ontologically. Just because you might know about something does not make it real

Yes that is true because basing evidence on whether something exists through knowing it exists can never be ultimately proven. Someone can say how do you know you know that Santa exists and that can keep going on and on. But using ontology doesn't deal with (knowledge) how we know something but rather whether something exists or not. Then we can say Santa exists then go about providing support showing Santa exists. We only have to do that once to support our proposition.

stevevw · May 16, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
You didn't say “similar” to likes and dislikes, you said the same as likes and dislikes.

Ok all I am saying is that under subjective morality moral values are used like personal opinions about what someone "likes or dislikes". "prefers" similar to how they "like or dislike" certain foods. It cannot determine whether a moral action is objectively right or wrong but only says that a person prefers that moral act rather than another.

I don’t make the assumption that likes and dislikes don’t motivate people to do right; I just disagreed that subjective morals are the same as likes and dislikes as you claimed.

Then how do you explain that even people who like you support subjective morality and all the links I posted say that subjective morals are the same as "likes and dislikes".

Morality is either subjective or objective; it’s not something that you choose.

Then why do some people sometimes do the opposite of each other for a specific moral act. One chooses to steal and another chooses not to steal. If there was no choice in the matter then there would be no determination about whether something is good or bad. It would be all over the place, people acting morally arbitrarily.

stevevw · May 16, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
I didn’t say “good”, I said the right thing to do.

OK so if someone came up with a reason why sexually abusing a child for fun can you really say that it is the right thing to do.

I disagree. Though most do have a conscience, there is no consensus on what is right or wrong due to our intuition of it. What we deem right vs wrong is in a constant state of change.

There is a difference between the perception of something and our intuition about something. Our perception can be influenced by a number of things (personal life experience, personal biases, etc) and that can change according to who we are and our changing experiences. But our conscience is like a separate thing in us that will tell us when we are doing something wrong.

We all have this and intuitively know that certain things are wrong (like sexually abusing a child) and some things are right (loving and caring for a child). It is this knowing that certain things are right and wrong that I am saying is our lived moral experience. It is this that is used to support objective morality with the logical argument.

You are definitely overthinking this. You seem to act like there is this thing called objective morality, and another thing called subjective morality. It doesn’t work that way. There are some things that are objective; like physical things, systems like math, or measurements, then there are things that are subjective; like things that exist in our heads such as beauty, funny, etc. I believe morality fits under the category of subjective because as listed in the definitions I provided, in order for something to be objective it has to be verifiable. Subjective does not have to be verifiable (like beauty and funny) Do you believe beauty and funny are objective too? Is there some type of transit lawgiver that defines what is beautiful or not? Funny or not? And if there is, what makes him a lawgiver if nobody listens to him? If I stand on a soapbox and proclaim myself the moral lawgiver, but nobody listens to me, am I really a moral lawgiver?

There are non-material things that can be determined as an objective. We live like this every day with lots of things that we cannot measure the same way as material/physical objectives to determine if they are objective. There are also different ways to measure things in our material world without seeing them directly.

I agree to an extent that something like beauty is subjective as in beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But there is a science that can determine what can be a beautiful face for example. They have research what makes a face beautiful to people and they have found that certain properties like symmetry. Faces that we deem attractive tend to be symmetrical.
What makes a pretty face? | Science News for Students

We also know certain things like love are real even though love is not a material thing we can pick up and measure directly. But we can see and measure how love is experienced and actioned. Otherwise, we could never say that love is a real thing and be confident that we are loved.

If for example everyone in the world was deaf and could not hear sounds that don't mean that there is no sound. So it is with morality. Though we cannot pick them up they still have values and we can see how people act and react in the way they live and this can be measured to determine morality.

Where does morality come from?

Newbie

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

A nihilist who cares.

Newbie

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Newbie

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Defeater of Illogic

Newbie

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Newbie

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Newbie

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Proud Citizen of Moralton

inquisitive

inquisitive

inquisitive

inquisitive

Similar threads