Is there an objective morality?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
In the thread on mortal force there was a side-discussion about objective morality (for example, see this post). Is there such a thing as objective morality? If so, what is it? If not, why not?

Anyone who answers the question needs to give their definitions of “objective” and “morality.” Once they have set out their definitions they should go on to explain why they believe there is or is not an objective morality. Some starter definitions of objectivity can be found at Merriam-Webster and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

If you want to critique someone’s position you should begin by telling them 1) Whether their conclusion accords with their definitions, 2) Whether you agree with their definitions, and 3) Why you believe their argument is sound or unsound.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rebecca12

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The most common argument against objective morality is made on the basis of moral disagreements. This common argument will no doubt permeate this thread. From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:


Moral Disagreements

The simplest and most common argument for moral skepticism is based on observed facts: Smart and well-meaning people disagree about the moral permissibility of abortion, affirmative action, capital punishment, active euthanasia, nuclear deterrence, welfare reform, civil rights, and so on. Many observers generalize to the conclusion that no moral claim is or would be accepted by everyone.

However, all of these disagreements together still do not exclude the possibility of agreement on other moral beliefs. Maybe nobody denies that it is morally wrong to torture babies just to get sexual pleasure. Moreover, even if no moral belief is immune to disagreement, the fact that some people disagree with me does not prove that I am unjustified in holding my moral belief. I might be able to show them that I am right, or they might agree with me under ideal circumstances, where they are better informed, more thoughtful, less partial, and so on. Moral disagreements that are resolvable do not support moral skepticism, so any argument for moral skepticism from moral disagreement must show that moral disagreements are unresolvable on every issue. That will require a separate argument.​
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I will go first. I hold that objective morality exists. Here are my definitions:

  • Objective: True and accessible to all; “expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations” (MW 1a)
  • Morality: A set of guidelines for how one should or should not behave
Note that morality does not need to be exhaustive. Even a single guideline constitutes a morality. For example, even if the only moral precept that someone holds is, “Do not murder,” they still have a morality.


My approach is Aristotelian or Thomistic. Just as there is a spectrum of excellence in pine trees and lions, the same is true of human beings. That is, just as a good lion hunts well, provides for its young, and cooperates with the pride, the good human also exhibits specific qualities that are characteristic of good human beings. The goal of human life is happiness, and the way to achieve happiness is through virtue (habituated dispositions that allow one to act well—to act in accordance with human excellence and the human telos). Once we understand what makes for a good lion we can start judging between better and worse lions. Once we understand what makes for a good human being we can start judging between better and worse human beings and, further, we can know which human acts are conducive or inconducive to human flourishing.

Like medicine or music, morality is an art. Everyone knows that certain things are conducive to health, but only the physician has in-depth knowledge of medicine, the art of health. If we want to know the ins and outs of health we will go to a physician, not a layman. There is a similar expertise with respect to morality. If we want to know the ins and outs of morality we will consult the behavior of the virtuous man. If we want moral knowledge—an account and rationale of moral behavior—we will consult someone who has studied the moral art in much the same way that a physician has studied the medicinal art. Let us call this person who is capable of teaching virtue or morality the moral philosopher, as opposed to the virtuous man who acts well but may or may not be able to give an account of virtue and morality.

The concrete set of guidelines that constitute the morality of Aristotelian virtue ethics involves things like the classical cardinal virtues of justice, prudence, temperance, and fortitude. It involves things like being honest, fair, courageous, rational, etc. It is about becoming the kind of person who acts well with ease, but in order to come to the point where we do something with ease we must begin by doing that thing with difficulty and effort.

Aristotelian virtue ethics (AVE) is objective because it is the key to human excellence, flourishing, and happiness regardless of anyone’s personal opinions or biases. The guidelines are knowable, accessible, and verifiable to all. The demands of virtue are intrinsic to human nature. Just as every lion wants to be a good lion, so too every human wants to be a good human. It is of course possible for a human to choose and act poorly and thus to become unhappy, just as it is possible for a man to disobey the physician’s orders, get sick, and die. The relevant counterfactual is that if the vicious man possessed virtue he would see that it is better than vice, and those who have knowledge of both virtue and vice understand that virtue is superior (cf. Republic, ST I-II.1.7).

Therefore Aristotelian virtue ethics provides us with a morality that is indeed objective. It is an objectively knowable set of guidelines for how we should and should not act.


[Let me also include a quick word on David Hume’s is-ought objection. My claim is that virtue is proper or fitting for human beings, and therefore humans should seek after virtue. Someone may respond, “I can do whatever I like, and there is nothing that forces me to seek after virtue.” I would say that although humans are indeed free, there is something (like conscience) that impels you to seek after virtue and that this is ignored at your own peril. No one will force you to be happy, or rational, or virtuous. The point is not to deductively constrain you to be a good human being, but if you choose to ignore virtue then you are choosing to be a bad human being and to suffer the consequences.

Since my argument is practical rather than deductive, a legitimate counterargument must also be practical rather than deductive. For example, if a person had full knowledge of virtue and full knowledge of vice and nevertheless chose vice as being more conducive to happiness and human flourishing, then this would count as a counterargument.]
 
Upvote 0

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,081
8,268
Frankston
Visit site
✟727,030.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
In the thread on mortal force there was a side-discussion about objective morality (for example, see this post). Is there such a thing as objective morality? If so, what is it? If not, why not?

Anyone who answers the question needs to give their definitions of “objective” and “morality.” Once they have set out their definitions they should go on to explain why they believe there is or is not an objective morality. Some starter definitions of objectivity can be found at Merriam-Webster and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

If you want to critique someone’s position you should begin by telling them 1) Whether their conclusion accords with their definitions, 2) Whether you agree with their definitions, and 3) Why you believe their argument is sound or unsound.
Objective morality is set out in God's word. This is anathema to the world. God says homosexuality is wrong. The world is rejecting God's way. The world says if they love each other it's ok. Well, no it's not. Some people say that they feel like a man when they were born a woman. So they want to take drugs and have surgery to change. This is subjective. God created male and female. There is nothing else. It's insanity. Governments demand that we submit to science with climate change, vaccination, evolution etc. Then they say you can choose your gender. Totally not scientific.
 
Upvote 0

Sabertooth

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!
Supporter
Jul 25, 2005
10,491
7,061
62
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟952,659.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Is there Objective Morality?
Yes, there is, but
Unsaved people will only acknowledge those parts
that can advance their own personal agendas and​
Saved people have only a partial grasp of it.

"For now we see in a mirror, dimly,
but then face to face.​
Now I know in part,
but then I shall know just as I also am known." 1 Corinthians 13:12 NKJV​

If you love Me [Jesus], keep My commandments.
And I will pray the Father,
and He will give you another Helper,

that He may abide with you forever—
the Spirit of truth,..." John 14:15-17 NKJV

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit,
whom the Father will send in My name,
He will teach you all things,
and bring to your remembrance
all things that I said to you.
" John 14:26 NKJV​

"Beloved, now we are children of God;
and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be,
but we know that when He is revealed,
we shall be like Him,
for we shall see Him as He is." 1 John 3:2 NKJV​
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Morality: Ideal conditions required for flourishing of both self and society.

Objective: That which is completely independant of experience or individual perception. It is thus opposed to the subjective, mediated via human experience or qualia. As such, I hold that humans are unable to achieve the objective, as all our reasoning and thought is necessarily subjective. So any human attempt at morality will needs be a subjective variant. Likewise, the assumed endpoint of morality is also conceived subjectively, but the concept can be considered to be a possible Form or Idea in a more objective sense.

This does not mean that objective morality doesn't exist, only that we cannot completely grasp it. The Aristotlean view I fully agree with, that by comparison of the various subjective moralities, we can discern some commonalities that suggest a common source or goal or subject. It seems universally acknowledged that certain things are better than others in some real sense, a human killing their child being worse than feeding it say, which suggests the 'third thing'. This is the principle of the triad, that two unlike things can only be juxtaposed or considered in light of a third that connect them, such as a standard to weigh them against. If almost all our subjective moralities assume similar axiomatic points of better or worse, barring the far extremes of the bell curve represented by the vile or psychopathic, this suggests that they are reacting or approaching a similar thing (which we necessarily cannot fully grasp objectively). So we can weigh our subjectivity and keep critiqueing it, so that we can try and keep treading water to get as close as possible to this third thing, as we inevitably can start sinking away again from it (seeing that any human attempt at codification inevitably fail in practice in the chaos of real experience and our subjective imterpretations thereof).

It is similar, and in fact akin to in more ways than one, to the concept of Health. We cannot list off perfect values that are 'healthy', but can surmise averages and ratios and generalities that are connected to it, that may or may not be valid in specific individuals. No one is in an absolute state of perfect health, but we can conceive such an ideal state exists of physical and mental wholeness, and we can see from investigating specific examples of humans approaching or failing to approach it, what rough elements would be required for it (though we cannot perfectly encompass these elements). Morality is similar in my mind, or even an aspect or causation of health itself, in fact.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,649
6,108
Massachusetts
✟583,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yes, I think there is morality of the sort which even evil people can understand, and we can find a lot of such moral principles written in God's word.

But God Himself has standards which He goes by. For example, He has His overall purpose of having many children who are conformed to the image of Jesus; and so He works all things in accordance to this purpose and standard which guides Him Himself. And in prayer we seek to be guided according to all which guides God, Himself, though we might not understand all He is going by > we submit to God in His peace >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

In this peace we are guided according to more and better than what unbelievers can understand . . . and what can be better ways than we ourselves can understand.

There is being guided as family, versus only as individuals. A lot of human level morality which humans can understand is only about each individual and one's own rights. I don't remember anything about living in a family way, in the American Constitution, by the way. Rights and obligations seem to be only or mainly about each one for one's own self. But God's word is very into relational morals > including >

"Do all things without complaining and disputing" > in Philippians 2:13-16. By the way, if you look at the purpose for this rule > "that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault" > the purpose of how God means this rule is so we become like Jesus > conformed to the image of Jesus . . . "that He might be the firstborn among many brethren" (in Romans 8:29)! So, there are these reasons for God's morals of relating > to become like Jesus . . . as His own family. So, this is an example of how I say God's word has standards for God and us, about how to be and about family . . . not only practical action morals.

Arguing can be very anti-love; yet we don't see laws and church morals, much, I think, against arguing, or delineating which arguing is good and which is bad. And societal and church culture regulations can be more individual, it seems to me.

But we can relate in the really morally good way, by submitting to how God is guiding us while we are relating and communicating as His family.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,271
7,628
51
✟312,681.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
God says homosexuality is wrong.
Problem with that is that what God says is right or wrong depends on the time he said it.

Sometimes it’s okay to kill people, sometimes not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian damage
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,009
Flyoverland
✟1,224,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Apart from people born with hermaphroditism.
Breathtakingly rare special cases which should be handled with compassion and actual science. Unlike the craze we see today where feelings trump biology.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,578
7,775
63
Martinez
✟894,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In the thread on mortal force there was a side-discussion about objective morality (for example, see this post). Is there such a thing as objective morality? If so, what is it? If not, why not?

Anyone who answers the question needs to give their definitions of “objective” and “morality.” Once they have set out their definitions they should go on to explain why they believe there is or is not an objective morality. Some starter definitions of objectivity can be found at Merriam-Webster and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

If you want to critique someone’s position you should begin by telling them 1) Whether their conclusion accords with their definitions, 2) Whether you agree with their definitions, and 3) Why you believe their argument is sound or unsound.
Objective morality only exists in the perfection and purity of truth. Only God has this.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,127
Los Angeles Area
✟820,765.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Objective: Factual. Independent of personal judgments. Independent of people.
Morality: Not how things are, but how they should be. "People do murder people" is a fact. "People should not murder people" is a moral judgment.

If people have a disagreement about whether a picture is hung straight on the wall, tools can be brought to bear to assess the objective facts of the matter. A level.

There is no laser level for morals. There are no moral facts.

Moral statements are inherently subjective. Things like rape and murder engage our strong feelings precisely because they are subjective. They don't matter to the universe; they matter to us. To subjects experiencing them. To people. They are not statements about how the universe factually is; they are statements about how we feel about these situations.

At best, as Quid suggests, if there were some sort of Platonic objective morality out there floating in Platospace -- we have no way of gaining any access to it.
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

Well-Known Member
May 20, 2021
1,900
259
Private
✟66,497.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
... Is there such a thing as objective morality? If so, what is it? If not, why not? ...
Interesting thread.

I suspect that an exchange among posters who agree to the existence of a human reality -- a human nature that is common to all persons, in all places, at all times -- will be productive. For those who do not hold to the existence of a determined human nature, not so much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,009
Flyoverland
✟1,224,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Interesting thread.

I suspect that an exchange among posters who agree to the existence of a human reality -- a human nature that is common to all persons, in all places, at all times -- will be productive. For those who do not hold to the existence of a determined human nature, not so much.
And it would be even more interesting for those who have had cross-cultural experiences.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,271
7,628
51
✟312,681.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Breathtakingly rare special cases which should be handled with compassion and actual science. Unlike the craze we see today where feelings trump biology.
Are they God's creation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian damage
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,545
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,414.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
And it would be even more interesting for those who have had cross-cultural experiences.

I don't know whatva "determined" human nature is, but agreed
people everywhere have much in common.

The "nature v nurture" question is always a debate of
course. Who knows.

We see here bold claims that " everyone has an inborn
fear of snakes" and "predisposition to belief in god".

The more reason a person has to promote these
thoroughly unproven claims, the more determined they
are that it is so.
Cross culturally, my dozen years in the USA gave me a
lot of observations to process.

Including how often I'd hear that I "really do believe in
God but deny it". (Inborn predilictions and all)
I don't. Never did.
I don't see a whole lot of "spirituality" here, among
people my age.
(Tho, after I came back particularly, but still, here I
am taken to be an American ( ABC).
Even assumed I'm Chridtian!)

I told Christians in the USA that I dont see going to
church to hear about right and wrong, morality,
because we are taught the same values, it's just part
of life.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,545
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,414.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Does a lion WANT TO BE a good lion? Humans often want to be good humans. Even many bad ones want to be good ones.
Who knows what lions want besides food and sleep?
Not our hero of the "fact not in evidence" that they
All want to be good lions. It's just something he made up.

A bit of nonsense tossed into an exposition
has the same effect as some dog, ah, leavings
in the middle of an otherwise clean room.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
There is no laser level for morals. There are no moral facts.

Moral statements are inherently subjective. Things like rape and murder engage our strong feelings precisely because they are subjective. They don't matter to the universe; they matter to us. To subjects experiencing them. To people. They are not statements about how the universe factually is; they are statements about how we feel about these situations.

First, I will heed my own advice in the OP: Your claim comports with your definitions; I disagree with your definitions; I think your argument is unsound.

Obviously you are making counterarguments against some variety of moral objectivity, and I think that is what many naysayers will do in this thread. But a question I have for all such naysayers is this: What is the version of objective morality you are arguing against? Is it a strawman?

For example, I am not aware of any moral objectivist who holds that moral claims are mundane facts, or that morality does not involve persons, or that morality does not involve subjects' judgments. So sure, if we define "objective" as "independent of people," then morality isn’t objective. But in that case neither are toenails, or houses, or sailboats, or global warming, or mathematics, etc.

The proper definition of objectivity with respect to morality is similar to objectivity in the social sciences. For example, take the social science hypothesis, "Race affects access to resources in North America." We don’t have a laser level for this hypothesis. It is not independent of people. It doesn’t matter to the universe. It matters to the subjects who potentially experience the discrepancy. Nevertheless, none of this means that the hypothesis is not objective. Similarly, the things you list are not reasons to believe morality is not objective.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,127
Los Angeles Area
✟820,765.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
"Race affects access to resources in North America." We don’t have a laser level for this hypothesis.

Sure we do. We have ways to assign people to self-identified racial categories. And we have ways of measuring wealth or loan approvals or what have you. And it is an objective measure whether one correlates with the other to some level of statistical significance.

But we have no way of measuring wickedness or virtue.

I think you're uncharitably reading my definition of objective. Obviously murders involve people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Estrid
Upvote 0