Is there Objective Morality?

o_mlly said:

Particular:

If I was to say that harm should be avoided wherever possible the earth is spherical, then that would disappoint a lot of people who enjoy being spanked flat earthers.​

General:

If I were to say something rational then that would disappoint a lot of irrational people.​

Based on my definition of "rational":

ra·tion·al

/ˈraSH(ə)n(ə)l/

adjective: rational

1.1 People who believe as I do.​

Click to expand...

Justify your definition or "rational."

Ken-1122 said:

How do you know this?

Can't argue with ya on that!

Click to expand...

I don't know, and for that I have no answer.

Kylie said:

Do you hold that belief to be true?

Click to expand...

I hold that reality is absurd, and there is no way to explain it. Whether it be true or not, that is irrelevant. The present moment, that is what matters.

Kylie said:

If I was to take you at your word, then I must conclude that your statement that "There is nothing with the quality or state of being true" is not true, and thus there are things that have the quality or state of being true.

Click to expand...

All that you have said is both true and false.

zippy2006 said:

That's not the approach you were taking in the other thread. You seemed to think he was wrong and that he should change his mind to agree with you.

Click to expand...

I was asking him to justify his position and asking if he thinks that "keeping people as slaves is okay" would still apply if he was the one being kept as a slave."

You're contradicting yourself. Now your opinion applies to Abaxvahl. A second ago it didn't. You can't have it both ways. Either your opinion applies to him or it doesn't.

Click to expand...

Me stopping someone from applying their morality to another and me applying my morality to another are two different things.

Bradskii said:

Well, I guess that if you don't think that surviving is objectively better compared to not surviving then none of this will make any sense. And it would be a waste of my time explaining any further.

Thanks for your input.

Click to expand...

I do think survival is better ojectively because I think human life is precious objectively. But I am not sure it makes sense to anyone who believes that morality is only subjective. Using evolution (survival of the fittest) or any feeling or preference as the basis for why something is morally good or bad is subjective and therefore has no ultimate truth about morality beyond human opinion.

If subjective morality is like preferences for say chocoalte cake then how is survival truly morally good. It would be more of a case that a person said I "like" or "prefer" that humans survive. So it really doesnt say anything about what is morally good or bad beyond the subject.

That is why I keep emphasizing "moral realism"(lived morality). Because people may express subjective moral views but they really want to claim objective morality and when placed in a moral situation they live like morality is objective because they won't really want to think that their efforts are meaningless and are not really saying anything true about morality beyond themselves to the world in which they live morality out in.

stevevw said:

If subjective morality is like preferences for say chocoalte cake then how is survival truly morally good.

Click to expand...

In post 800, directly responding to you, I wrote:

'But that, as I said very recently upstream, does not directly equate to 'survival is good' in a moral sense.'

So I've explained that more than once. In the last few posts. And you have simply ignored it. Is there any point in me directing any post to you? You are simply ignoring whatever I write. I am literally wasting my time. And running out of patience...

zippy2006 said:

Do you think things that are wrong should be done?



Yeah... Not sure what to do with this sort of thing.

Click to expand...

I may have overspoke before. When I said I believe slavery is always wrong, I was referring to chattel slavery. There are some forms of slavery; or at least things put under the category of slavery that I think may be perfectly acceptable; especially when agreed by all parties involved; even the slave.

Kupdiane said:

I don't know, and for that I have no answer.

Click to expand...

So why do you assume something that does not appear true, for no reason?

Kylie said:

Justify your definition or "rational."

Click to expand...

The erroneous definition of "rational" given is the only one possible for one who holds that "the Earth is spherical" is an objective claim and that "rape is immoral" is a subjective claim.

Can you reconcile your claims?

If we posit that morals are objective;

1. How do we find out which morals values and positions are the correct ones?

2. Why would it matter?

Kylie said:

I'm not. I answered it sufficiently.

Click to expand...

Can you refer me to your post in which you answered these questions:

Kylie said:

So you think morality means that every single animal must be looking to help out every single other animal?

Click to expand...

No, just explaining that being moral isn't contingent on someone being moral to you. What you are talking about is more likely group survival behaviour.

But nevertheless you keep missing the point that regardless of whether animals have morality or not evolution "only explains how we got morality and it doesn’t account for why something is morally right or wrong".

What I've said is entirely consistent with subjective morality between members of the same social group.

Why you take that to mean that it must prove objective morality between members outside the same social group is beyond me.

Click to expand...

OK so basically the subjective morality examples you use within a social group don't truly explain morality because it is not about moral behaviour/claims when it’s subjective. It’s just personal opinion or preferences about the subject and the subject’s personal views are not moral truths for others outside them.

Morality becomes objective when the subject turns their moral view into a truth beyond them whether it’s another social group or their own social group. They do that when they push their moral view into the world outside themselves into lived moral situations that affect others. People do it all the time, they can't help it.

I think it was quite clear I was saying there are no objective oughts.

Click to expand...

My point is you can only have objective "oughts". You cannot have subjective oughts beyond the subject. You can say "I ought to do that" or "in my opinion you "ought to do that" to another person. But you cannot say "you ought to do that" full stop as now you are making a moral claim outside yourself.

I am saying that people do this all the time and it’s understandable because they want to make morality a truth outside themselves to give it the value it deserves and carry some weight. Otherwise it means nothing as a personal opinion because it has no truth value in real world situations outside the subject.

Ah yes. Kylie doesn't think there is objective morality, so she isn't allowed to make any objective statements at all! She isn't allowed to believe that it's an objective truth that she is married!

Click to expand...

You can make the objective claim and hold the belief truth that you are married because you have independent evidence (a marriage certificate).

But this still doesn’t explain that you claimed there were no objective morals which are an objective claim. You would have to come up with some independent evidence for that like your marriage certificate showing you are married.

You don't expect me to find the "God works in mysterious ways" argument to be convincing, do you?

Click to expand...

But I am not using that to support God or any god or transcendental being as the ultimate moral stoppage point. That argument doesn’t need to prove a particular god. All I need to do is argue the type of god needed to be the ultimate stoppage point i.e. all knowing, perfectly good by nature, rational, necessary.

Because the grounding for objective morality has to be beyond humans but also rational and necessary it logically follows that this has to be some sort of transcendent being like God. There is a good argument for this here. It covers all the objections like the Euthyphro dilemma etc.

The moral argument
Premise 1. Morality is a rational enterprise
Premise 2. Moral realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist
Premise 3. The moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality.
Premise 4. Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source (from 1,2,3)
Premise 5. This source is what we call God or a god or transcendent being.

Where in the world do you get such a harsh black and white view of this? You need to learn to see the subtleties of all the shades of grey.

Rats help each other out. This is morality for them. That does not mean that the python must say, "I won't eat the rat because it is immoral." The python is not part of the social group the rats are a part of.

Click to expand...

So by what basis do you determine that the rat behaviour is moral besides your personal opinion? If you say there is no objective morality then isn’t the rat behaviour just an expression of subjective morality which isn’t really about morality but preferences.

[ quote] Actually, the issue of morality in animals has been investigated. Here's a book by a philosopher who argues that animals do have morality. And this is just from a quick search on Google. there were lots of other results that supported this. https://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html [/quote] Can you see the irony though. If animals do have morality and know right from wrong can they be held accountable like humans. If so why are we not arresting or being outrages at animal behaviour. If a primate kills another primates baby to gain a selection advantage is that murder. It’s a very murky area.

Where do you draw the line? When a grasshopper eats another grasshopper is that cannibalism. Do we include insect or worms having moral behaviour. But once again it’s all irrelevant as evolutionary explanations for morality don't account for why something is wrong (the ought). And just remember subjective morality doesnt help because thats not about morality but preferences.

There are no OBJECTIVE oughts. But there are plenty of subjective ones that apply to individuals in social groups.

Click to expand...

Yes and they are not about morality but preferences. They only explain the subject’s psychological state and not any truth or anything including morality outside them.

Kylie said:

Morality is about helping those who don't reciprocate? So I guess all of those people who think rapists should just be locked up forever are immoral?

Click to expand...

No we should still have consequences for immoral behaviour and that is also part of morality because there has to be consequences for immoral behaiour to incur moral duties. But what I am saying is morality is also about helping those who are in need without getting any return or benefit.

We don't know why people are a burden, they may have been dealt a bad set of cards. But if we started to deny people who didnt contribute then we would be a callous society and cause more problems.

Are you seriously saying you disagree with the claim that other animals do not face the same social requirements as us?

You think a herd of zebras on the Serengeti is going to face the same social pressures as people living in New York?

Click to expand...

Socialisation is not always about morality especialy for animals. A zebra will face a lion running across the open to cut it down and rip its throat open. Should be charge the lion with murder or inhuman treatment. If a human did that to another human in the street they would be locked up and morally condemned.

You have not shown that truth and honesty are moral. You gotta stop acting like you have shown that, because you haven't.

Click to expand...

OK I thought that was a given. Are you seriously saying they are not moral values? Are you saying the opposite of honesty and truthfulness such as deceit, lying is not immoral. Didn’t you use an example of dishonesty to show how people can get around honesty as a moral value?

Anyway here is the evidence that ‘Honesty and Truth ‘are morals.
Honesty or truthfulness is a facet of moral character that connotes positive and virtuous (moral) attributes such as integrity, truthfulness, straightforwardness, including straightforwardness of conduct, along with the absence of lying, cheating, theft, etc. Honesty also involves being trustworthy, loyal, fair, and sincere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honesty#:~:text=Honesty or truthfulness is a,loyal, fair, and sincere.

Courts do not determine morality.

Click to expand...

But they determine the truth which is a moral and you have to be Honest to find the truth which is also a moral as shown above from Wikipedia. So therefore 'Honesty and Truth' are indespensible in cases that determine the truth.

Perhaps, but since they are not aspects of morality, it doesn't prove that morality is objective.

Click to expand...

OK so now that I have shown that 'Honesty and Truth' are moral values and are necessary for finding truth I rest my case.

Okay, let's do a little thought experiment.

Let's say there was a social group that decided that killing babies was okay. What would happen to this group? They'd die out, wouldn't they? After all, how could it keep going? Each member would get older and older until eventually they died, but where are the new members coming from? They aren't getting any, because every time a baby was born, it would be killed. So the group and it's "It's okay to kill babies" idea would die out.

Now let's look at a group that had the exact opposite idea. Babies should be nurtured. This group will have lots of babies, and will likely grow. This group will last. And so the "Let's nurture babies" idea helps the group survive.

The group that believes that nurturing babies will survive and the group that believes killing babies is right will die out. Thus, I'm sure you can see, the idea that nurturing babies is best is going to become the most common position.

And yes, there is no independent grounding of morality through evolution, but that's fine. Because if there was independent grounding, then that would make it objective, and I'm not arguing for objective morality. But this evolutionary explanation works just fine for SUBJECTIVE morality.

Click to expand...

OK so you have just given a good example of evolution by natural selection. But someone could then ask why it is morally wrong for one group to kill babies and morally good for the other group to allow babies to live. What is the moral basis for this if morals are only subjective? Nothing tells us why something is right or wrong and it only tells how babies will die in one group and live in another.

The only benefit if you can call it that is one group will survive. But evolution as Dawkins says has no benefits; it’s just a natural process like a volcano that may wipe out species and forests. There’s no rhyme or reason. One could ask why is it morally good for that one group to survive over the other when it’s only about natural selection. No one is doing anything immoral. Do you get what I mean?

Acting like something is objective doesn't mean it IS objective. I've said this many, MANY times.

Click to expand...

You’ve missed the point again. I am not using a non-sequitur of like for like actions but rather the moral value being a necessity for meaningful human interaction. According to the logical argument for objective moral values of using 'Truth' and 'Honesty'
1) You cannot expect to find 'Truth' without the moral value of 'Truth' and 'Honesty' applying regardless of your personal opinion about whether 'Truth' and 'Honesty' is subjective (unnecessary).
2) Therefore it’s not just a case of correlating acting some way as proof of it being that way.
3) Its self-evident for each situation where there is no option but to hold 'Truth' and 'Honesty' as independent values outside personal opinion if you want to find the 'Truth'.
4) Because 'Truth' and 'Honesty' stands independent outside humans for situations in finding the 'Truth' that makes them objective.

You think all subjective claims are equivalent now?

Click to expand...

Yes of course they are because subjective moral claims are not about morals but rather likes and dislikes or opinions. As far as I understand subjective 'like' and 'dislikes' or opinions are all equal because they are only about the person (subject) and nothing else. A preference for coke is not better than a preference for Pepsi, Fanta, milk, water ect.

Yes it was just his opinion, but I hardly think a discussion about my sex life is appropriate here.

Click to expand...

OK sorry. But let’s say it wasn’t about that. Are you saying your husband’s opinion is objectively right just because it’s his opinion?

Let's redirect this to a discussion about food and say my husband was trying to get me to try a new food that I had previously been averse to trying. Do you think he's going to pull out charts and say, "As you can see, Kylie, scientific research indicates that this new food is 31.7632% tastier than the food you currently eat." I mean, how would such subjective things be measured?

Click to expand...

Exactly, therefore how a subjective moral claim would be measured.

Bradskii said:

In post 800, directly responding to you, I wrote:

'But that, as I said very recently upstream, does not directly equate to 'survival is good' in a moral sense.'

So I've explained that more than once. In the last few posts. And you have simply ignored it. Is there any point in me directing any post to you? You are simply ignoring whatever I write. I am literally wasting my time. And running out of patience...

Click to expand...

OK sorry about that. I just re-read your post 800 and yes you did say moral good does not directly equate to 'survival is good' in a moral sense.'

Its not a case of ignoring you but misunderstanding what you meant which is a miss on my part as I assumed what you meant.

I think my disagreement came from you equating feelings as the basis for morality. Like preferences and 'likes' and 'dislikes' feelings are a subjective state of the subject. The problem I have with this as a basis for morality is that people act/react beyond feelings and treat moral acts as some sort of 'truth' in the world beyond their feelings, preferences and 'likes' and 'dislikes'.

When people engage to find the 'Truth' of a matter how they feel about the morals of 'Truth' and 'Honesty' that they may feel that these morals are subjective is irrelevant because 'Truth' and 'Honesty' stand as independent moral values regardless of subjective feelings about their moral value.

They cannot find the 'Truth' of a matter by rejecting 'Truth' and 'Honesty'. The engagement will become a farce and meaningless. They have no choice but to respect and include 'Truth' and 'Honesty' in their engagement.

stevevw said:

OK sorry about that. I just re-read your post 800 and yes you did say moral good does not directly equate to 'survival is good' in a moral sense.'

Its not a case of ignoring you but misunderstanding what you meant which is a miss on my part as I assumed what you meant.' in their engagement.

Click to expand...

No worries. And my apologies for being somewhat snippy. Must have been caffeine withdrawal...