Is there Objective Morality?

zippy2006 · Oct 4, 2021

Kylie said:
Why can't I argue about subjective stuff?

My husband and I have argued many times over what to watch on TV, yet there is no objectively best option.

In any case, how can anyone argue over whether the food is burned or not? You really think someone's going to say, "The food is burned," and the other person will say, "No it isn't!" If it's objective, then shouldn't there be agreement?

Seems to me the only argument should be about the SUBJECTIVE things. For example, my husband likes his steaks very rare, I prefer mine medium to medium well. So a steak that is fine for me is burnt by his tastes, and what is fine for him is practically raw to my tastes. We've had arguments about that, and that's subjective.

To disagree is not necessarily to argue. You and your husband might disagree over which sort of steak tastes best, but the disagreement is probably not an argument. In the same way, toddlers disagree over who gets to play with a toy, but they aren't having an argument. They aren't presenting reasons and rebuttals for intellectual positions.

When you say, "Slavery is wrong," are you making the same sort of claim as, "Gilmore Girls is good," or, "Medium steak tastes good"?

My point is that if you think someone has said something false, then you can argue with them. Apparently you think it is false that slavery is permissible. But you don't think it is false that rare steak tastes good. The steak claim is equivocal. You and your husband are both saying, "My taste buds find [rare or medium] steak to be more pleasurable than [medium or rare] steak." So the claims do not contradict, for "my taste buds" refers to two different sets of taste buds. When your husband makes a claim about his taste buds, you do not think he is saying something false.

But the slavery claim involves no equivocation. When you tell Abaxvahl that, "Slavery is always wrong," you are both using the same definition of slavery and wrong, and you are engaging in propositional disagreement (i.e. there is a contradiction). In this case there are not two sets of "taste buds." So you tell him that what he has said is false. But truth and falsity are not subjective notions. They are objective. Propositions like "slavery is wrong" can't be true for some people and false for others. That's why you objected: because you believe he is objectively wrong.

Kylie · Oct 4, 2021

zippy2006 said:
The simpler answer to this is: so what? People are irrational.

If pizza preference is subjective then rational people won't argue about it. If it is not true that a pineapple pizza is better than a non-pineapple pizza, then you shouldn't argue that a pineapple pizza is better than a non-pineapple pizza.

It is not possible to argue about purely subjective things and simultaneously be a rational human being (or be engaging in a reasonable act).

And I think you'll find that most people hold the view "I like/don't like pineapple on my pizza, but if you prefer it the other way, that's up to you."

Another example. I'm in quite a few Star Trek groups on Facebook. There are many people who complain about the newer series. Star Trek Picard, Star Trek Discovery and Star Trek Lower Decks. They say it's not real Trek, for instance, and often come in and say it's terrible and that no one should watch it. Of course, their opinion is subjective, and most people in the group have the opinion that if they don't like it, they don't have to watch it, but trying to convince others that their view is objectively true is rude.

In other words, the more a person tries to seriously argue a subjective viewpoint as an objective truth, the more irrational they are.

Kylie · Oct 4, 2021

Kupdiane said:
I disagree that this universe has any inherent truth, whether that be logic, morality or reason.

Are you denying reality?

zippy2006 · Oct 4, 2021

Kylie said:
And I think you'll find that most people hold the view "I like/don't like pineapple on my pizza, but if you prefer it the other way, that's up to you."

But you would never do that with slavery, would you? It is a different kind of thing. It is not "subjective."

Another example. I'm in quite a few Star Trek groups on Facebook. There are many people who complain about the newer series. Star Trek Picard, Star Trek Discovery and Star Trek Lower Decks. They say it's not real Trek, for instance, and often come in and say it's terrible and that no one should watch it. Of course, their opinion is subjective, and most people in the group have the opinion that if they don't like it, they don't have to watch it, but trying to convince others that their view is objectively true is rude.

In #721 I gave a movie example. If you think that Star Trek and slavery are parallel, then would you say that you were being rude when you claimed that no one should own slaves?

In other words, the more a person tries to seriously argue a subjective viewpoint as an objective truth, the more irrational they are.

Well I definitely agree with that, which is why you should either admit that morality is objective and slavery is objectively wrong, or else you should stop arguing it. (Hint: no one argues for "subjective truths")

Kylie · Oct 4, 2021

zippy2006 said:
To disagree is not necessarily to argue. You and your husband might disagree over which sort of steak tastes best, but the disagreement is probably not an argument. In the same way, toddlers disagree over who gets to play with a toy, but they aren't having an argument. They aren't presenting reasons and rebuttals for intellectual positions.

When you say, "Slavery is wrong," are you making the same sort of claim as, "Gilmore Girls is good," or, "Medium steak tastes good"?

My point is that if you think someone has said something false, then you can argue with them. Apparently you think it is false that slavery is permissible. But you don't think it is false that rare steak tastes good. The steak claim is equivocal. You and your husband are both saying, "My taste buds find [rare or medium] steak to be more pleasurable than [medium or rare] steak." So the claims do not contradict, for "my taste buds" refers to two different sets of taste buds. When your husband makes a claim about his taste buds, you do not think he is saying something false.

But the slavery claim involves no equivocation. When you tell Abaxvahl that, "Slavery is always wrong," you are both using the same definition of slavery and wrong, and you are engaging in propositional disagreement (i.e. there is a contradiction). In this case there are not two sets of "taste buds." So you tell him that what he has said is false. But truth and falsity are not subjective notions. They are objective. Propositions like "slavery is wrong" can't be true for some people and false for others. That's why you objected: because you believe he is objectively wrong.

Of course, I must point out that slavery causes demonstrable harm, and I base my subjective conclusion that slavery is morally wrong on that objective harm.

VirOptimus · Oct 4, 2021

zippy2006 said:
Tell me about it. Just so everyone knows, the positions that you all are holding do not exist in academic moral philosophy. This level of incoherence doesn't survive in academia. Take it for what you will.

-snip-

It sure does. You on the other hand do not seem to know even the basics of moral philosophy.

The fact that there are arguments about moral values do strongly suggest that there is no such things as moral truths.

zippy2006 · Oct 4, 2021

Kylie said:
Of course, I must point out that slavery causes demonstrable harm, and I base my subjective conclusion that slavery is morally wrong on that objective harm.

Then there are two claims:

Slavery demonstrably causes harm.
Harm should be avoided when possible.

You have affirmed that (1) is objectively true, but you cannot say that "slavery is wrong (for everyone)" unless you also affirm that (2) is objectively true. If (2) is like Star Trek, then it would be rude for you to tell other people that they should observe (2) and oppose slavery. It is only if you believe (2) to be objective that you can rationally hold to the position that everyone should oppose slavery.

Kylie · Oct 4, 2021

zippy2006 said:
But you would never do that with slavery, would you? It is a different kind of thing. It is not "subjective."

I dunno, I've heard of some pretty kinky fetishes in my time. And if someone wants to be a slave to someone else because they get off on it, then I'm not going to tell them it's wrong.

In #721 I gave a movie example. If you think that Star Trek and slavery are parallel, then would you say that you were being rude when you claimed that no one should own slaves?

No, because as I've said, slavery causes demonstrable harm. Star Trek does not.

However, causing harm is not enough of a basis for morality. Breaking someone's leg causes harm, but if that is the only way to get them out of a burning car, then it will still be considered morally good by most people.

Well I definitely agree with that, which is why you should either admit that morality is objective and slavery is objectively wrong, or else you should stop arguing it. (Hint: no one argues for "subjective truths")

However, there are objective truths about slavery - that it causes harm.

As I've argued before, my empathy let's me imagine how a slave must feel, so I can understand the harm they are going through (at least to some degree). Since I would not want to go through that myself, and since it would cause me great distress to be subjected to that slavery, I reach the reasonable conclusion that the person who is a slave feels the same thing (or a similar thing). Thus, I do for them what I would hope someone would do for me if I were a slave, and I do what I can to free them/make sure that nobody is a slave.

zippy2006 · Oct 4, 2021

VirOptimus said:
The fact that there are arguments about moral values do strongly suggest that there is no such things as moral truths.

See post #2.

It sure does. You on the other hand do not seem to know even the basics of moral philosophy.

Which academic philosopher holds that slavery is always wrong and there are no moral truths? Give me a name, a document, and a page number. I think you're full of bologna.

Kylie · Oct 4, 2021

zippy2006 said:
Then there are two claims:

Slavery demonstrably causes harm.

Harm should be avoided when possible.

You have affirmed that (1) is objectively true, but you cannot say that "slavery is wrong (for everyone)" unless you also affirm that (2) is objectively true. If (2) is like Star Trek, then it would be rude for you to tell other people that they should observe (2) and oppose slavery. It is only if you believe (2) to be objective that you can rationally hold to the position that everyone should oppose slavery.

If I was to say that harm should be avoided wherever possible, then that would disappoint a lot of people who enjoy being spanked.

In any case, if I were to say, "Slavery is wrong for everyone," then I would be speaking of it as though it was objective morality, which I have routinely said I do not believe is the case. The best I can say is, "I believe that slavery is wrong for everyone, and here's why."

VirOptimus · Oct 4, 2021

zippy2006 said:
See post #2.

Which academic philosopher holds that slavery is always wrong and there are no moral truths? Give me a name, a document, and a page number. I think you're full of bologna.

To think that something is wrong moraly does not necissarily mean its ”the truth”. Read up on value nihilism for starters.

Also, your op and post 2 is just ignorant about the subject.

zippy2006 · Oct 4, 2021

Kylie said:
I dunno, I've heard of some pretty kinky fetishes in my time. And if someone wants to be a slave to someone else because they get off on it, then I'm not going to tell them it's wrong.

Then we can reduce the discussion to non-consensual slavery (which is presumably what we were talking about in the first place).

As I've argued before, my empathy let's me imagine how a slave must feel, so I can understand the harm they are going through (at least to some degree). Since I would not want to go through that myself, and since it would cause me great distress to be subjected to that slavery, I reach the reasonable conclusion that the person who is a slave feels the same thing (or a similar thing). Thus, I do for them what I would hope someone would do for me if I were a slave, and I do what I can to free them/make sure that nobody is a slave.

Okay, that makes sense.

Kylie said:
In any case, if I were to say, "Slavery is wrong for everyone," then I would be speaking of it as though it was objective morality, which I have routinely said I do not believe is the case. The best I can say is, "I believe that slavery is wrong for everyone, and here's why."

But you do believe that slavery is wrong for everyone, and that is an objective moral claim. It doesn't matter that you give a reason for your objective moral claim. Everyone, without exception, gives a reason for their objective moral claims. Giving a reason doesn't make something non-objective.

Heck, earlier you claimed that objective things are things that all rational people would believe. That means there must obviously be reasons supporting objective things. So why in the world would giving a reason make your claim non-objective?

Kylie · Oct 4, 2021

zippy2006 said:
But you do believe that slavery is wrong for everyone, and that is an objective moral claim. It doesn't matter that you give a reason for your objective moral claim. Everyone, without exception, gives a reason for their objective moral claims. Giving a reason doesn't make something non-objective.

Heck, earlier you claimed that objective things are things that all rational people would believe. That means there must obviously be reasons supporting objective things. So why in the world would giving a reason make your claim non-objective?

No, it is NOT an objective moral claim. I have made it very clear that I am saying, "It is my opinion that slavery is wrong." Not once have I ever claimed that my morality is objective, and I have repeatedly said that I believe all morality is SUBJECTIVE, and that would, naturally, include my own.

Again, my beliefs are NOT objective.

zippy2006 · Oct 4, 2021

Kylie said:
No, it is NOT an objective moral claim. I have made it very clear that I am saying, "It is my opinion that slavery is wrong."

If your opinion applies to other people then it is not merely subjective. If other people are rationally obliged to agree with your opinion, then it is not merely subjective. Apparently you think this is so given your argument with Abaxvahl. You think he is wrong and he ought to agree with you that slavery is wrong.

In #101 you said that an objective thing is "not something that exists just because someone says so." Does that mean that you think slavery is only wrong because you said so? That it would not be wrong if you had not said so?

Not once have I ever claimed that my morality is objective, and I have repeatedly said that I believe all morality is SUBJECTIVE, and that would, naturally, include my own.

Again, my beliefs are NOT objective.

This reads like a dogma. Many atheists hold to "subjective morality" as a dogma, as something that cannot be abandoned no matter what (even if they aren't quite sure what they mean by it).

Kupdiane · Oct 4, 2021

Ken-1122 said:
Truth in the Universe? What does that mean?

There is nothing with the quality or state of being true, even what I am saying is nonsense.

Kupdiane · Oct 4, 2021

Kylie said:
Are you denying reality?

Yes and no. We can never know reality for what it truly is, if there is a truth to it.

Ken-1122 · Oct 5, 2021

zippy2006 said:
Your argument is not sound. Just because you don't want to be a slave doesn't mean slavery shouldn't exist.

You didn’t ask me if slavery should exist or not, you asked if I believed slavery was wrong. I said I believe it was wrong, and explained why.

zippy2006 said:
But if your argument was sound then it would be sound for everyone, and could be used to show anyone that slavery is wrong.

If you wanted me to answer whether or not slavery was wrong, you should have asked; but you did not, you asked if I believed it was wrong. I said I believed it was and explained why I believe it is wrong. Whether or not anybody else would agree has nothing to do with the question you asked.

zippy2006 said:
There is no such thing as a "subjective argument." Arguments are based on reasons, and reasons are by definition accessible to all.

Actually there are such a things as subjective (and objective) arguments as described below
Objective and Subjective Arguments

But we’re talking about subjective vs objective morality; not arguments; we’re getting a little off topic here.

Ken-1122 · Oct 5, 2021

Kupdiane said:
There is nothing with the quality or state of being true,

How do you know this?

Kupdiane said:
even what I am saying is nonsense.

Can't argue with ya on that!

stevevw · Oct 5, 2021

Bradskii said:
You either survive. Or you don't. You're dead. Or still alive. I don't think that can be described as subjective in any sense of the word.

The point is why is survival of humans morally good. There is no equating human survival with morality. Plus this is speciesism where humans are being held up as more important for survival than other species. If humans are just more advanced evolved animals then humans wiping out millions of species so they can survive is morally wrong. Whichever way you look at it survival of the fittest cannot be reconciled to what is morally right and wrong.

And even in fairly recent times, senicide has been practiced in some parts of the world:

'In the past some nomadic tribes of Native Americans and Eskimos, such as the Shoshone (Steward) and the Ahtna (De Laguna and McClellan), motivated by the need to move in pursuit of food and other necessities, felt the need to abandon the elderly—a practice known as senicide.' Euthanasia and Senicide | Encyclopedia.com

And infanticide is still practiced among many Amazon tribes.

But this is non-sequitor. Just because some practice senicide and infanticide doesnt make it morally right. It maybe OK under evolution (survival of the fittest) but as mentioned evolution only describes how morals came about. It doesnt prescribe what we ought to do or not do.

The very fact that these types of acts can be justified under evolution shows how evolution can be changable to rationalise all sorts of acts we would usualy regard as immoral. For all we know people may justify rape as morally OK to ensure humans survive in the future. The list goes on.

If you're living in 'a state of nature' then it makes sense, although you and I would be appalled. But it's only because we have been able to control our own evolutionary path that this has changed. So we don't leave grandma out in the snow any more. But we remove her from society and put her away in a home instead.

Personally speaking, I think I might prefer the first option when the time comes. Or some modern version of it.

The point is experts say evolution is based on environmental conditions imposing on species which will dictate their behaviour. So though we don't kill grandma now is not because we are being morally good but because the conditions don't cause us to.

But when they do change any action can be justified as OK if its about survival. That is not how morality works.

Bradskii · Oct 5, 2021

stevevw said:
The point is why is survival of humans morally good. There is no equating human survival with morality. Plus this is speciesism where humans are being held up as more important for survival than other species. If humans are just more advanced evolved animals then humans wiping out millions of species so they can survive is morally wrong. Whichever way you look at it survival of the fittest cannot be reconciled to what is morally right and wrong. But this is non-sequitor. Just because some practice senicide and infanticide doesnt make it morally right. It maybe OK under evolution (survival of the fittest) but as mentioned evolution only describes how morals came about. It doesnt prescribe what we ought to do or not do.

The very fact that these types of acts can be justified under evolution shows how evolution can be changable to rationalise all sorts of acts we would usualy regard as immoral. For all we know people may justify rape as morally OK to ensure humans survive in the future. The list goes on.

The point is experts say evolution is based on environmental conditions imposing on species which will dictate their behaviour. So though we don't kill grandma now is not because we are being morally good but because the conditions don't cause us to.

But when they do change any action can be justified as OK if its about survival. That is not how morality works.

You're missing the point I am making. Surviving is obviously preferrable to not surviving (although I have had arguments that that is not necessarily true - go figure). So survival is good. So what works to keep us alive and passing on our genes we have classed as 'good' in that sense. But that, as I said very recently upstream, does not directly equate to 'survival is good' in a moral sense.
l
To mention the bats once more: They will exhibit reciprocal altruism in feeding which is good for their overall survival. But there is no way that you can describe their actions in terms of morality. Because reciprocal altruism isn't a morally based process. It's genetically determined as a means to survive. Morality is a human construct. Which more often than not is based on deep seated feeling of what is good and what isn't. And those feelings are, to use a term I've used before, the result of a roll of the genetic dice.

So we now equate reciprocal altruism as a moral good. Although it's generally couched in terms such as 'the golden rule' or 'do unto other...' etc.

I don't care how we describe it. I know where it came from and how it evolved.

Is there Objective Morality?

Is there an objective morality?

Yes

No

Dragonsworn

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Dragonsworn

Defeater of Illogic

A nihilist who cares.

Dragonsworn

Defeater of Illogic

Dragonsworn

Defeater of Illogic

A nihilist who cares.

Dragonsworn

Defeater of Illogic

Dragonsworn

Member

Member

Newbie

Newbie

inquisitive

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Similar threads