Is there Objective Morality?

zippy2006 said:

The trajectory and destination of a projectile depends a great deal on circumstances (angle, velocity, gravity, aerodynamics, wind speed...) and yet this does not mean that the physics problem is not objective. It's just more difficult to solve.

Click to expand...

You missed my point.

Let's say I had an alternative explanation. Say, magical gravity fairies. And I used my MGF theory to make predictions about where the ball would land, but these predictions were always wrong. I could invoke those excuses, to explain away the errors. No matter what criticism you could present against the MGF idea, I would be able to provide an explanation. But that wouldn't make the magical gravity fairies correct, would it? The magical gravity fairies would be unfalsifiable. There's not a thing in the world that could prove them false.

This is the phenomenon of moral disagreements noted in post #2. Here is what you have argued:

1. Morality involves lots of complex variables and circumstances.
2. Therefore there is widespread moral disagreement.
3. Therefore morality is not objective (or is unlikely to be objective).

This is actually invalid. Disagreement can be a sign of non-objectivity, but disagreement based on the complexity of a problem is not a sign of non-objectivity. It is just a sign that the problem is difficult. The sort of disagreement that flows from difficulty is not an indicator of non-objectivity.

If you gave middle-schoolers the difficult trajectory problem there would be widespread disagreement, but this wouldn't mean that there is no objective answer to the problem.

In my opinion there is widespread moral disagreement because moral philosophy is difficult and because expertise in this field is often neglected. These are reasons to maintain the possibility of objective morality, not to exclude it.

Click to expand...

But the big difference is that if you gave the trajectory problem to people, they could make mistakes due to the complexity, but then others could say, "You made a mistake in this part," or "You forgot to account for the rotation of the Earth." And the other people would say, "Oh, so I did."

This does not happen in morality because there are no objective facts that can be shown.

Ken-1122 said:

The person I was discussing with is describing relative as outside influences, and extenuating circumstances. these descriptions are under the umbrella of subjective.

Click to expand...

No, they're not.

zippy2006 said:

"Relative morality" has no standard meaning. It can mean that morality is relative to circumstances or it can mean that morality is relative to people.

Moral relativism is contrary to moral universalism, and moral subjectivism could be seen as a species of moral relativism where the relativity attaches at the individual level (the level of the subject).

Click to expand...

Even if it's at the level of the subject, the moral relativist still thinks that an act is correct or incorrect for that individual. The subjectivist says there are no moral facts. I'd say that makes relativism objective, not subjective. It's dealing in facts, not feelings.

Ken-1122 said:

Okay just between me and you; Atheist to Atheist, we both know sin no more exist than their God, Devil, or other fictional characters. But there are a lot of people on this forum who believe it does; so sometimes I try to respond to what they say in the context of what they believe, not what's real

Click to expand...

Lol! Fair enough.

Moral Orel said:

Even if it's at the level of the subject, the moral relativist still thinks that an act is correct or incorrect for that individual. The subjectivist says there are no moral facts. I'd say that makes relativism objective, not subjective. It's dealing in facts, not feelings.

Click to expand...

I believe murder to be wrong. This is a moral judgment. I say this judgment is subjective because it is based on my beliefs, and opinions regardless of whether a murder has taken place or not, or who has committed the murder. You say my moral judgment is relative right? What is relative in my belief that murder is wrong?

Kyrani said:

If it was subjective then it is only a matter of personal opinion. But there is more to it. God made us in such a way that we have a moral compass, our conscience.

Click to expand...

But our compasses don't all point in the same direction. Again, this is exactly the distinction between objective and subjective. Actual compasses point along the local magnetic field lines. It's an objective measurement of the local magnetic field. But people in the same position have moral compasses that may point them in different directions.

Kylie said:

A few fallacies here.

First of all, you assume that God created us with a moral compass. That's begging the question. Secondly, after starting with the premise that there is an objective morality, you then have to explain why we don't act like there is, but you don't justify why this claim about some objectively true nature of ourselves is any different to other objectively true things about ourselves, like our need for oxygen.

And the fact remains that everything you have described here can easily be explained by morality being subjective. Occam's razor indicates subjective morality is correct.

Click to expand...

Because we are created in love and with love we have a moral compass. That is simple observation. And those that destroy their conscience have no empathy as they have no love. That is also simple observation.
Now, because we have been created with a moral compass doesn't mean we are compelled to use it, though anyone who values their conscience won't do anything to risk losing it or suffer a bad conscience. We have free will. But people who willingly go against their conscience end up with guilty feelings that may cause them grief.

essentialsaltes said:

But our compasses don't all point in the same direction. Again, this is exactly the distinction between objective and subjective. Actual compasses point along the local magnetic field lines. It's an objective measurement of the local magnetic field. But people in the same position have moral compasses that may point them in different directions.

Click to expand...

If we look at humane people, that is those with a conscience / moral compass, you will find that there are black and white issues that they all agree upon. So for instance killing without just cause or killing for fun is not something that stops people because of any law. The compass points in the exact same direction.

Kyrani said:

If we look at humane people, that is those with a conscience / moral compass

Click to expand...

This seems to be special pleading. First you say we all have a moral compass, and now you simply exclude any inconvenient examples of people by saying they don't have one.

you will find that there are black and white issues that they all agree upon

Click to expand...

People who have musical taste all agree that they prefer Beethoven over nails on chalkboard, but this does not mean that musical taste is objective.

Kylie said:

Actually, you can't say that Jesus said God is good.

All you can do is say it is written that Jesus said God is good. The quote could be a misquote, or entirely invented.

Click to expand...

You are welcome to bring this up in our thread about what is "testable evidence".

Ken-1122 said:

You say my moral judgment is relative right?

Click to expand...

Wrong.

Moral Orel said:

Wrong.

Click to expand...

So what do you call it?

Ken-1122 said:

So what do you call it?

Click to expand...

I'm explaining the differences between relative and subjective. I'm not making an argument for the nature of morality. Been there, done that. Relative says that some acts are correct and some are incorrect. Subjective says no acts can be measured by correctness. Ergo, relative and subjective are not related at all. Do you get that?

zippy2006 said:

Can you give a source that describes moral subjectivism along to the lines you assert?

Click to expand...

Source


While the subjectivist says that "Murder is wrong" can't be true or false, the relativist says that "Murder is wrong" might be true depending on the person or the circumstance.

zippy2006 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I consider "objective" as that which is a concrete fact of existence, and "morality" as a standard through which we determine right from wrong, so that "objective morality" is a particular standard of right from wrong as a concrete fact.

I don't believe there is objective morality. I lack the belief in god(s), and so there is no true or higher authority in the universe to enact such a standard.

zippy2006 said:

Okay, thanks for the source. There are a few problems. Here are two. First, the subtitle of the article is, "Subjectivism (relativism)." Second, it says that, "[Subjectivism] reflects the close relationship between morality and people's feelings and opinions," which is to say that this source does not see subjectivism as based on feelings to the exclusion of opinions or judgments.

Click to expand...

Those judgements and opinions are based on the attitudes of the speaker. People judge murder to be wrong if they hate murder.

zippy2006 said:

I don't understand the difference between saying that "'Murder is wrong' is not true or false," and saying, "'Murder is wrong' may be true or false depending on the person."* How can something like the wrongness of murder be true for some people and false for others? I take it that if it is true it is true for all, and if it is false then it is false for all. That's how "true" and "false" work.

Click to expand...

I made that unclear, I see the misunderstanding. It might be true or false that Bob should murder Larry. If Bob should murder Larry, then "Bob should murder Larry" is true to everyone, even if it isn't true that Sally (or anyone else) should murder Larry. The relativist wouldn't even say "Murder is wrong" without specifying which person or persons such a statement refers to.

Moral Orel said:

I'm explaining the differences between relative and subjective. I'm not making an argument for the nature of morality. Been there, done that. Relative says that some acts are correct and some are incorrect. Subjective says no acts can be measured by correctness. Ergo, relative and subjective are not related at all. Do you get that?

Click to expand...

Perhaps we are talking about two different things. I'm talking about morality; right vs wrong not correct vs incorrect. This thread is about objective morality. Perhaps you can start another thread about relative and incorrect vs incorrect.