Where does morality come from?

Speedwell · May 16, 2020

Kaon said:
How can any morality be objective if it is self-verified?

Morality frames human ideology in a way that promotes humanity - for the same of humanity. But, what makes your idea of what is right...right? A consensus? Feelings?

What about morality is objective?

That's what we're trying to find out. Be patient--we're only 1960 posts into it. But keep in mind that demonstrating moral objectivity is only the first step; we're really working on a proof for the existence of God: if morality is objective then (insert logical discourse here) a transcendent moral law-giver is required and if a transcendent lawgiver exists it will be (insert more logical discourse here) the God of the Bible.
QED.

stevevw · May 16, 2020

Speedwell said:
That there are universally acknowledged moral precepts is not the same as objective morality.

You are not understanding what I said. I am not making an argument based on popularity. I am saying that people who take a subjective position on morality contradict their own position. They say that some wrongs can never be subjective and that they are always wrong regardless of other people's subjective moral views.

It is not about many people do it, therefore it must be true. It is about being a hostile witness against their own claimed moral position. When many people do it then a case can be made that there is something going on that is causing people to be like this that is beyond their personal views.

The position that morals are a matter of personal opinion is not the same as subjective morality.

Why is that? Isn't that what subjective morality is personal opinion, views, and preferences.

Good points of subjectivism
it reflects the close relationship between morality and people's feelings and opinions - indeed it can cope with the contradictory moral views we often find ourselves wrestling with.
BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Subjectivism

Given our evolutionary past, in a highly social and cooperative ecological niche, we will inevitably have been programmed with moral feelings, feelings about how we act towards each other. Thus morals are rooted in human values and in what we like and dislike. That makes morals, at root, subjective, since the term “subjective” means “based on or influenced by personal feelings, values and opinions”.

Whether an act is regarded as “morally good” or “morally bad” must, in the end, be a statement about how humans feel about the matter. No viable alternative has ever been proposed.
There is nothing wrong with morality being subjective!

stevevw · May 16, 2020

Speedwell said:
That's what we're trying to find out. Be patient--we're only 1960 posts into it. But keep in mind that demonstrating moral objectivity is only the first step; we're really working on a proof for the existence of God: if morality is objective then (insert logical discourse here) a transcendent moral law-giver is required and if a transcendent lawgiver exists it will be (insert more logical discourse here) the God of the Bible.
QED.

That's why I don't like making that connection as it can become a turn-off or even a resistance for debating things neutrally.

Kaon · May 16, 2020

Speedwell said:
That's what we're trying to find out. Be patient--we're only 1960 posts into it. But keep in mind that demonstrating moral objectivity is only the first step; we're really working on a proof for the existence of God: if morality is objective then (insert logical discourse here) a transcendent moral law-giver is required and if a transcendent lawgiver exists it will be (insert more logical discourse here) the God of the Bible.
QED.

I get it, but how can we make the leap from clearly subjective philosophy to allegedly objective moral codes that are as axiomatic as 1+1=2?

Because, even axioms are not proof of anyth5inf; we just accept the idea of 1, the idea of 2 and the operator + for what they are - without proof.

God would have to be proven to exist, and be superior to humans before we attribute any silliness we come up with as objective morality in the slightest - and it still may only be axiomatic.

Moral Orel · May 16, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
What about empathy?

That's a way to know what you are going to like or dislike or prefer.

Ken-1122 said:
Murder isn’t the only moral issue; what about all the others? What about abortion? The use of Nuclear weapons during war? Polygamy? Eating meat? What about male circumcision? female circumcision?

If you can't come up with anything else for the big one, what makes you think you've got something else for any others? You already said you could do it for murder and you were incorrect.

Ken-1122 said:
Can you list an outside source to justify your claim? Or is this just another one of your empty claims.

Ken-1122 said:
Just because you say it doesn’t make it so. You need to prove when I said “nobody makes ice cream flavor a moral issue” and the person I was speaking to agreed; that I did not make a point. Don’t just say I didn’t make a point, prove it!

My gosh man! You just don't even know the basics of how to formulate an actual argument, do you? You just say whatever you feel! Alright, I'll try to help, I guess.

Validity and Soundness

An argument is only valid when the conclusion must be true if all of the premises are true. If one of those premises is an opinion, then it isn't true, so it can't be a valid argument.

If X, then Y.

X has to be true, which an opinion is not because true/false are objective terms.

So when you say, "If nobody treats ice cream like a moral issue, then it is absurd to compare it to murder" we look at your premise, "nobody treats ice cream like a moral issue" and see that you're just stating your opinion (according to you, I might add) and determine it is not true. Therefore your argument is invalid, and you don't make points with invalid arguments.

Ken-1122 said:
I determine each moral case on a case by case basis.

We aren't talking about what you specifically do. We're talking about what reasonable people do. Use reason to answer my questions instead of dodging all of them.

Ken-1122 · May 16, 2020

stevevw said:
OK I'm getting mixed up. The important thing in what I am saying is that under subjective morality moral values don't have any independent grounding. So they are more like a person's preferences, opinions, views, likes, and dislikes.

That is the case with all of morality; regardless of if you believe it is objective or subjective.

stevevw said:
I agree that subjective morality is not a universal morality.

Can you think of an objective moral issue that is universal? My point is; none of morality is universal.

stevevw said:
Some things can be demonstrated to be objectively true without being a physical thing we can measure. Though we cannot measure it directly we can measure the effects it has on something else. This is used in science all the time.

Such as?

stevevw said:
Psychologists can use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and other diagnostic tools to determine someone with various kinds of mental illness. This is objective enough to be used in court as evidence.

That’s measurable thus objective.

stevevw said:
We know that love is a real thing but we cannot measure it directly.

Love is subjective.

stevevw said:
But we can measure its effects.

The effects of love can be objective.

stevevw said:
There are some things like Dark matter and energy that we cannot see but scientists say they can measure its effects to verify it.

Just because we don’t yet have the technology/ tools to verify something doesn’t mean it is not verifiable.

Ken-1122 · May 16, 2020

stevevw said:
Then that shows you have breached your own moral position. But if there are only subjective morals what real moral have you breached. All you are really doing is doing what you "like" or prefer to do as it will give you some advantage in life.

Which dispels the claim that what I find moral is based on what I like, and what I find immoral is based on what I dislike.

stevevw said:
You said earlier that an objective has to be scientifically verified.

Actually I said an objective has to be verifiable; big difference!

Speedwell · May 16, 2020

stevevw said:
Why is that? Isn't that what subjective morality is personal opinion, views, and preferences.

No. And even your source doesn't really say that. Even so, it does not exhaust the possibilities of non-objective morality.

Good points of subjectivism

Click to expand...

it reflects the close relationship between morality and people's feelings and opinions - indeed it can cope with the contradictory moral views we often find ourselves wrestling with.
BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Subjectivism

Given our evolutionary past, in a highly social and cooperative ecological niche, we will inevitably have been programmed with moral feelings, feelings about how we act towards each other. Thus morals are rooted in human values and in what we like and dislike. That makes morals, at root, subjective, since the term “subjective” means “based on or influenced by personal feelings, values and opinions”.

Whether an act is regarded as “morally good” or “morally bad” must, in the end, be a statement about how humans feel about the matter. No viable alternative has ever been proposed.
There is nothing wrong with morality being subjective!

Just because our "conscience" tells us something is always morally wrong doesn't mean that it is objectively wrong.

Ken-1122 · May 16, 2020

Moral Orel said:
That's a way to know what you are going to like or dislike or prefer.

Empathy is the ability to understand the feelings of others. It’s not about what I like or prefer.

Moral Orel said:
If you can't come up with anything else for the big one, what makes you think you've got something else for any others? You already said you could do it for murder and you were incorrect.

I’ve never said I don’t base any moral issues are based on my likes or dislikes, I said all of them are not based on my likes or dislikes. Care to try again?

Moral Orel said:
My gosh man! You just don't even know the basics of how to formulate an actual argument, do you? You just say whatever you feel! Alright, I'll try to help, I guess.

Validity and Soundness

An argument is only valid when the conclusion must be true if all of the premises are true. If one of those premises is an opinion, then it isn't true, so it can't be a valid argument.

If X, then Y.

X has to be true, which an opinion is not because true/false are objective terms. So when you say, "If nobody treats ice cream like a moral issue, then it is absurd to compare it to murder" we look at your premise, "nobody treats ice cream like a moral issue" and see that you're just stating your opinion (according to you, I might add) and determine it is not true. Therefore your argument is invalid, and you don't make points with invalid arguments.

I’m not talking about making an argument, I’m talking about making a point designed for a specific person. As long as the specific person is made to understand my position; mission accomplished! Even if the point is made using an opinion shared by the both of us.

Moral Orel said:
We aren't talking about what you specifically do. We're talking about what reasonable people do. Use reason to answer my questions instead of dodging all of them.

There is no one reasonable answer that can be applied to all moral situations; that’s why each situation has to be taken on a case by case basis

Moral Orel · May 16, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
Empathy is the ability to understand the feelings of others.

Sure, and you say to yourself, "That thing makes that other person feel bad, it would make me feel bad too and/or it makes me feel bad that someone else feels bad, and I don't like feeling bad, so I don't like that thing. As I said, it's a way to know what you will like or dislike.

Ken-1122 said:
I’ve never said I don’t base any moral issues are based on my likes or dislikes, I said all of them are not based on my likes or dislikes. Care to try again?

You said "murder is wrong" wasn't based on likes/dislikes/preferences and you were incorrect. What makes you think others are based on something else? I'll work through one more with you. Which moral do you ascribe to that you believe doesn't ultimately boil down to likes/dislikes/preferences? Care to try again?

Ken-1122 said:
I’m not talking about making an argument, I’m talking about making a point designed for a specific person. As long as the specific person is made to understand my position; mission accomplished! Even if the point is made using an opinion shared by the both of us.

"Making a point" = "making an argument". Gee whiz, man.
Make-a-Point
You just can't admit when you're wrong can you? You made an argument, that argument was riddled with fallacies, just own it, learn from it, and move on.

Ken-1122 said:
There is no one reasonable answer that can be applied to all moral situations; that’s why each situation has to be taken on a case by case basis

Okay, then just in the case of ice cream flavor, what is the reason that it can't be a moral issue?

Ken-1122 · May 16, 2020

Moral Orel said:
Sure, and you say to yourself, "That thing makes that other person feel bad, it would make me feel bad too and/or it makes me feel bad that someone else feels bad, and I don't like feeling bad, so I don't like that thing. As I said, it's a way to know what you will like or dislike.

No; It’s like I say to myself
“that thing makes the other person feel bad, and though it wouldn’t make me feel bad, I don’t want the other person to feel bad so I do something that may not be in my best interest for the sake of someone else”.
This is about someone else’s feelings not mine.

Moral Orel said:
You said "murder is wrong" wasn't based on likes/dislikes/preferences and you were incorrect.

Murder isn’t based strictly on my likes/dislikes/ or preferences; it is also based on other people’s likes/dislikes/preferences.

Moral Orel said:
What makes you think others are based on something else? I'll work through one more with you. Which moral do you ascribe to that you believe doesn't ultimately boil down to likes/dislikes/preferences? Care to try again?

My likes and dislikes? Or anybody’s?

Moral Orel said:
"Making a point" = "making an argument". Gee whiz, man.
Make-a-Point
You just can't admit when you're wrong can you? You made an argument, that argument was riddled with fallacies, just own it, learn from it, and move on.

It was not the argument, it was a response to the argument that was being debated.

Moral Orel said:
Okay, then just in the case of ice cream flavor, what is the reason that it can't be a moral issue?

If you want to make ice cream flavor a moral issue, go ahead! But why would you want to?

Moral Orel · May 16, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
No; It’s like I say to myself
“that thing makes the other person feel bad, and though it wouldn’t make me feel bad, I don’t want the other person to feel bad so I do something that may not be in my best interest for the sake of someone else”.
This is about someone else’s feelings not mine.

Why don't you want other people to feel bad?

Ken-1122 said:
It was not the argument, it was a response to the argument that was being debated.

It was an argument unto itself. Every time you make a statement that uses or implies the word "because" you are making an argument.

Ken-1122 said:
If you want to make ice cream flavor a moral issue, go ahead! But why would you want to?

Okay, so then the nature of "murder is wrong" and "ice cream is good" is basically the same thing, just like Steve and I have been saying. "Murder is wrong" because we dislike it. "Ice cream is good" because we like it. And there are no distinguishing features between the two that would make my saying "Eating chocolate ice cream is right" inappropriate.

[serious] · May 16, 2020

Speedwell said:
That's what we're trying to find out. Be patient--we're only 1960 posts into it. But keep in mind that demonstrating moral objectivity is only the first step; we're really working on a proof for the existence of God: if morality is objective then (insert logical discourse here) a transcendent moral law-giver is required and if a transcendent lawgiver exists it will be (insert more logical discourse here) the God of the Bible.
QED.

Does God set moral standards by virtue of omnipotence, or omnibelevolence?

Ken-1122 · May 16, 2020

Moral Orel said:
Why don't you want other people to feel bad?

Because I care for them

Moral Orel said:
It was an argument unto itself. Every time you make a statement that uses or implies the word "because" you are making an argument.

So if I ask you a question, and my question contains the word "because" that makes my question an argument? You might wanna rethink that one.

Moral Orel said:
Okay, so then the nature of "murder is wrong" and "ice cream is good" is basically the same thing, just like Steve and I have been saying.

You and Steve may see it that way, but I don’t

Moral Orel said:
"Murder is wrong" because we dislike it. "Ice cream is good" because we like it.

I think you are confusing “good” with delicious/tasty. Ice cream is delicious; but then so is Anti-freeze. The difference is anti-freeze will kill you; ice cream will only make you fat. But I don’t consider either of them good. Now if you and Steve wanna attach moral stipulations to ice cream and anti-freeze, go ahead and make your case.

Moral Orel said:
And there are no distinguishing features between the two that would make my saying "Eating chocolate ice cream is right" inappropriate.

Only if you make ice cream a moral issue.

Moral Orel · May 16, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
Because I care for them

Why do you care for them?

Ken-1122 said:
So if I ask you a question, and my question contains the word "because" that makes my question an argument? You might wanna rethink that one.

"Statements" aren't questions. You're misusing the English language again.

4 English Sentence Types

I see I now have to cite sources for even the most basic of claims, so I'm one step ahead of you in that regard too.

Ken-1122 said:
You and Steve may see it that way, but I don’t

What's the difference? See we keep coming back to this. You never give any reasoning for why you see it that way. I know and you know that there's no difference, you just can't bring yourself to admit it out loud. It would make you feel as though your dislike of murder is trivial, and you wouldn't like that feeling.

Ken-1122 said:
I think you are confusing “good” with delicious/tasty. Ice cream is delicious; but then so is Anti-freeze. The difference is anti-freeze will kill you; ice cream will only make you fat. But I don’t consider either of them good. Now if you and Steve wanna attach moral stipulations to ice cream and anti-freeze, go ahead and make your case.

Ken-1122 said:
Only if you make ice cream a moral issue.

I should eat ice cream. Now it's a moral issue and it's completely appropriate for me to say, "Eating ice cream is right". See? No inherent difference between the nature of disliking murder and liking ice cream. In order to show a difference, you would need to show that murder is in all actuality more important than ice cream, which would prove an objective moral truth. You say you don't believe in those, so I don't know why you think there's a difference between these two things.

Ken-1122 · May 16, 2020

Moral Orel said:
Why do you care for them?

It depends on the person. Why does it matter?

Moral Orel said:
"Statements" aren't questions. You're misusing the English language again.

4 English Sentence Types

I see I now have to cite sources for even the most basic of claims, so I'm one step ahead of you in that regard too.

Okay. Back on post #1861, I said “nobody makes flavor a moral issue”
You obviously have a problem with this. Why? Do you make flavor a moral issue?

Moral Orel said:
What's the difference? See we keep coming back to this. You never give any reasoning for why you see it that way.

As I said before; I do not think ice cream is good! I’ve never heard of anyone who believes it is good. It may be delicious, but not morally good. Yet you keep calling it good as if this is something universally agreed upon.

Moral Orel · May 16, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
It depends on the person.

Pick any person you want and tell me how you know that you care.

Ken-1122 said:
Okay. Back on post #1861, I said “nobody makes flavor a moral issue”

Yeah, I don't know that and I don't believe you know that. Prove it.

Ken-1122 said:
As I said before; I do not think ice cream is good! I’ve never heard of anyone who believes it is good. It may be delicious, but not morally good. Yet you keep calling it good as if this is something universally agreed upon.

I don't care if you or anyone else think it's good or not. I feel it's good, so now it's a moral issue in the same way that murder is a moral issue. Good and bad are subjective terms, I never implied that anyone else agrees with me that ice cream is good.

Kylie · May 16, 2020

stevevw said:
But its not a claim. I am citing what people actually do. They claim certain wrongs are always wrong despite subjective opinion and that these wrongs can never be right regardless of any rationalization or justification for them. This is what society often does and we see it all the time. This is what I have been saying is the lived moral experience we see. I gave you ample examples.

It isn't just about quantity as in "just because many people do it" doesn't prove objective morality. This is about quality. That people contradict their own subjective morality like some inner force is making them do it (conscience). They don't even believe in their own moral position in that they contradicts it in real living situations. What we observe is the real indication of what people believe and not what they subjectively claim and that real lived experience we see has all the hallmarks of objective morality.

You support subjective morality right. So I will ask you. Do you think that it is morally wrong to sexually abuse a child for fun despite anyone saying that it is OK? That any person who says it is OK no matter what reason they give that it is still morally wrong despite their subjective opinion.

Yes, people do act like that.

But you claim that their actions mean the moral ideas they share are objectively true because they share it.

How many times do I need to say that people acting like something is objective does not make that thing objective?

Ken-1122 · May 16, 2020

Moral Orel said:
Pick any person you want and tell me how you know that you care.

I know what it feels like to care about someone.

Moral Orel said:
Yeah, I don't know that and I don't believe you know that. Prove it.

What type of proof are you looking for?

Moral Orel said:
I don't care if you or anyone else think it's good or not. I feel it's good, so now it's a moral issue in the same way that murder is a moral issue. Good and bad are subjective terms, I never implied that anyone else agrees with me that ice cream is good.

Why is ice cream a moral issue for you?

Tinker Grey · May 16, 2020

Kylie said:
Yes, people do act like that.

But you claim that their actions mean the moral ideas they share are objectively true because they share it.

How many times do I need to say that people acting like something is objective does not make that thing objective?

And I'd add, what does even "acting like something is objective" even mean? Acting like something is right? Is there an action I take that I think is wrong? I might think it is wrong sometimes, but clearly I think I'm justified in making an exception for myself. Right?

Someone who thinks that morality is objective should try to explain how their behavior is any different from someone who doesn't believe that.

Where does morality come from?

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Newbie

Proud Citizen of Moralton

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

Newbie

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Newbie

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Defeater of Illogic

Newbie

Wanderer

Similar threads