Is there Objective Morality?
- Thread starter zippy2006
- Start date
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
And you keep missing the point that your question "Why is something morally right or wrong" depends on morality being objective. Since I hold that morality is NOT objective, the question is meaningless to me, and I am not able to answer it.
It would be like me asking, "Hollywood can only explain why television show X is made, it can't explain why it's objectively the best show on TV." The whole thing is based on the idea that the particular TV show is actually the best show. For someone who says that it's a subjective opinion, they can't explain why it's objectively the best show because they don't believe the term objectively best even applies.
As I've said before, just because a person acts like their subjective opinion is objective doesn't mean it actually is.
I see a lot of Star Trek fans who hate (and I mean LOATHE) the new shows like Discovery and Picard. They come in to the Facebook groups and start telling everyone that the new shows are bad and that no one should watch them. This is them trying to push their viewpoint onto others. By your logic, this can't happen unless their viewpoint is objective, which means that the new Star Trek shows are OBJECTIVELY bad.
This is, of course, ridiculous. Whether or not someone thinks the new shows are bad or not is a totally subjective opinion.
And the only reason you could be continuing to argue this is if you are a member of the grammar police. I think it's pretty obvious that if I say to someone, "You shouldn't steal that chocolate from the store," that I'm not speaking of an objective fact, but just stating my opinion.
What are you talking about?
Yes, I made a claim that it's an objective fact that there are no objective morals. But since that itself is not a moral statement, there is no issue here.
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.
I disagree with those premises.
Okay, since you are the one saying that there is objective morality, how about you provide the criteria which we are to use to determine if some behaviour is moral or not.
Are you familiar with the word "jurisdiction"?
Do you really think this is a good argument? Morality must be objective because we don't get upset when animals kill each other?
Citation required.
Upvote
0
Okay. I guess to answer your question; I find chattel slavery to be always wrong. Can I provide an argument against it that will convince everybody that it is wrong? Probably not; but I don't have to, I only need an argument that I find convincing.
Upvote
0
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
This sounds like the rat example I gave.
Sometimes it seems like you are intentionally misunderstanding my point.
My example showed that honesty is not always morally good. Thus we can't conclude that honesty in itself has any moral connotations.
No, they do not determine the truth. Lots of people have been wrongly convicted, and many who are guilty (even obviously so) have walked free.
And again, you have not shown that honesty has any inherent moral value.
You have done no such thing.
Yes I do, and your problem is that you are trying to fit it into your "morality is objective" point of view.
If you try to make something that is subjective fit into an objective hole, it won't fit. All you are doing is complaining that because it doesn't fit, there must be something wrong with the subjective idea.
It's no different to saying, "This circle doesn't fit into the square hole, so it's a pretty lousy square."
And once again you are starting from the assumption that morality must be objective and that truth has some moral value.
Yeah. You haven't shown that morality doesn't also fit into this catefory.
I don't know what in the world would give you the impression that I think anyone's subjective opinion is an objective fact when I have CONSTANTLY been claiming otherwise.
We can't measure morality. That's the point. Whether or not A is more moral than B is a subjective choice, that's why we get situations where there is disagreement about morality.
Of course, if you can think of a way by which we can measure morality, please feel free to present it.
Upvote
0
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
If it makes you feel any better, I'd be driven to stop someone from inflicting something we both agree is subjective on someone else as well.
If I saw Person A trying to force Person B to have pineapple on their pizza, or watch a movie they didn't like, or anything else that was subjective, I'd step in and say, "Hey, they said they didn't want to. You might think it's the best thing in the world, but they don't, so give them a bit of respect, okay?"
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
- Aug 19, 2018
- 15,967
- 10,847
- 71
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
You're doing it again.
B: 'I think that rape is wrong'.
Z: 'Oh, so you think it's perfectly OK for everyone else then!'
That's as nonsensical as this:
B: 'I think capital punishment is wrong'.
Z: 'Oh, so you think it's perfectly OK for someone else to execute criminals!'
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
- Aug 19, 2018
- 15,967
- 10,847
- 71
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
We're always going to have disagreements in these sort of threads because the first moral quandry that is likely to be presented by those who believe in objective morality is an act with which no person is likely to agree. Such as rape or torturing children. Followed by 'there's no argument you can put forward that says it's ever ok, therefore it must be objective'. Notwithstanding that there are biblical examples of rape that will offer reasons enough - Lot offering his daughters up to be raped and he in turn being raped by them. So argue with a biblical literalist and they'll be able to offer up situations where it is actually allowed.
It's often the premises which are in dispute - which leads to different conclusions. Such as:
A: It's not for us to decide who lives or dies.
B: It's entirely up to us who lives or dies.
Whichever position you hold, you'd feel justified is saying that it is an objective fact. And that therefore any conclusion using that as an initial premise would be true. But we can't have two different conclusions that are both objectively true. So either it is a subjective conclusion. Or one of those premises is wrong. But they depend on one's personal beliefs. So...what else could it be but subjective?
Upvote
0
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
I also have noticed that moral objectivists go for the extreme examples. That's why I like using much more mild examples, such as a child who has stolen a candy bar and what is the morally correct punishment, and all of a sudden I am told, "Ah, well, you see, it's complicated..."
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
Bradskii
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
- Aug 19, 2018
- 15,967
- 10,847
- 71
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
That's another good point.
You might argue that punishing a child is objectively correct. But who decides on the severity of the punishment? That's a subjective view. If a group of men abduct and assault a young girl, is that as bad as a man who has sex with his wife when they are both drunk and she has fallen asleep? If I agree to work for someone for nothing to pay off a debt and the guy passes the debt on to someone else - in effect selling me, is that as bad as the usual concept we have of antebellum slavery in the old south? If you think that caging wild animals is objectively wrong, then what if the cage is a few hundred square kilometres? How small does it need to get before it's objectively wrong?
Is it possible to ask 'to what degree is X wrong?' and still define it as being objectively wrong? Based on one's personal opinion of the severity of the act? Of course not. But I just gave three examples of when we can ask that very question about what some claim are objectively immoral acts.
Upvote
0
Would you all accept that some people will say that strong morals shared by most of humanity could possibly interpret both?
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
So therefore when you make moral claims to me about what is right or wrong moral behaviour with bats or rats or that certain examples I give are not examples of objective morality it’s also meaningless. Yet you keep making those moral claims and examples like they have some truth to them beyond you.
That’s my point. What we actually do and what we actually claim are 2 different things and we cannot help but act like morality is objective. Otherwise our claims are meaningless and we don't want to think that’s the case as we believe there is truth to morality.
So therefore then what you have been claiming about morality and the examples of rats and bats and all that is meaningless as to what morality is as far as the truth. Its just you expressing a preference or opinion for what we should not take seriously.
What your failing to see is that your premise (that morality = 'likes' and 'dislikes', is wrong in the first place. That’s how you keep getting the wrong idea about morality because that is not what morality is.
So if we then realize that morality (moral values) is more than 'likes' and 'dislikes' but is actually speaking some truth into the world beyond the persons 'likes' and 'dislikes' we can then see how when a person claims something is morally wrong they have to be speaking some truth beyond them otherwise it makes no sense or has no meaning.
If we used the 'likes' and 'dislikes' example again it would be like saying because I like chocolate cake it is morally good to like chocolate cake which is wrong and unnecessary because the two don't equate. Whereas the moral value of 'Honesty' is a necessary value independent of subjective 'likes' and 'dislikes' for seeking the truth because without it we cannot find the truth. So your examples of Star Treck and all that are irrelevant as they don't equal examples of morality.
So therefore why say it as it’s meaningless. You may as well say steal that chocolate cake as it’s yummy b because there is no destinction between saying don't steal and do steal. They are just preferences, opinions.
That’s because morality is more than grammar or opinion. Language is powerful and you need to be have meaningful and truth especially when it comes to morality because its vital that the truth be known as it has consequences.
Otherwise people are devaluing moral actions as just an opinion that has no weight when in reality morality it is one of the most important issues we should take seriously and I don't think people really believe its meaningless beyond themselves when they express morality to others.
What people claim morally has been shown to be an expression of more than opinion and about claiming some truth in the world? IE
Most of us see ourselves as capable of recognizing what is good, bad, valuable, and worthwhile. We think of ourselves as beings whose moral beliefs — about the badness of suffering, for example — are objectively true.
https://arcdigital.media/morals-are-objective-d647dc5bf12a
Plato distinguished between opinion or common belief (doxa) and certain knowledge, and that’s still a workable distinction today: unlike “1+1=2” or “there are no square circles,” an opinion has a degree of subjectivity and uncertainty to it.
Thats an important destinction. Why would be express an opinion that is uncertain about its truth for such an important moral issue of stealing or not stealing.
You can’t really argue about the first kind of opinion. I’d be silly to insist that you’re wrong to think strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate. The problem is that sometimes we implicitly seem to take opinions of the second and even the third sort to be unarguable in the way questions of taste are.
But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false. And this too is a distinction that tends to get blurred.
https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978
So as you can see morality because of its real value in lived situations is more than about opinions about food like chocolate but people often mix up this with the moral truth of a situation i.e. stealing isn’t about opinions but moral truths otherwise saying " In my view you can steal that chocolate" would hold as much moral value as not stealing that chocolate.
But in moral lived situations (reality) telling someone to steal something is counter intuitive to being good and cannot be justified as being OK. So because your opinion doesn't really state the truth of the situation is it really something we should take seriously. Is it really about what a person should or shouldn’t do. If not why even express it.
It is an issue sort of as you complained about objective moral claims having not support and yet make objective claims about morality without support. That’s sort of hypocritical. Therefore I could make objective moral claims without support to make my argument. So it’s sort of the same thing.
But you also did make objective moral claims when you said that evolution can account for morality. Claims using your examples of rats and bats were part of your argument and I don't think you would want to make arguments based on opinion as that is just meaningless. So I think you may have been claiming some truth there.
Even if you claimed that you were only speaking about subjective morality as subjective morality has nothing to do with morally right and wrong behaviour unless you were just making opinions it logically follows that you were doing more than that if you wanted to be taken seriously.
It’s not a case of disagreeing with the premises. As mentioned before because you already bought into arguing a scenario of how "if there were objective moral laws" as you posed how does this support God as the moral lawgiver assumptions of the premises has already been given by you. It’s just a thought experiment and not a real thing. So if you go along with the premises how can you refute it. It logically stands.
The arguement isn't based on setting criteria. I am using moral realism and arguing that some moral situations necessitate that certain moral values be used regardless of peoples subjective moral views.
Because they are necessary and stand independent of people’s subjective views this meets the requirements of objective morality i.e. (objective morals have to have value and independence from the human subject). So I guess if theres any criterion it is that the moral values are necessary for that particular moral situation regardless of subjective moral views.
I don’t think this has nothing to do with the moral value of 'Honesty' and ’Truth’ in a court to find the truth of a matter. Jurisdiction is about who has the power to make those determinations about what is the 'Truth' of a matter. So no matter what jurisdiction each will have to determine the truth of the matter that appears before them.
Humm not sure, I will have to think on that one. But why don't we treat animals killing one another the same as we do humans who we know have morals.
OK I would have thought you already knew this.
Subjectivism holds that moral statements convey information about the speaker of the moral statement. According to private subjectivism “X is right” states the psychological fact that “I like X”.
Cultural relativism is the view that statements like “X is right” state a sociological fact that “We our culture like X”.
Cultural relativism and private subjectivism are very much alike. Few philosophers hold that these metaethical theories are adequate treatments of morality. The reason is they make moral statements into non-moral statements. The statement “x is right” appears to be a moral statement that makes a normative claim about “right and wrong” and it implies a statement about what one ought to do. The private subjectivism and cultural relativism cannot be adequate understandings of moral meaning.
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Book Review)
But moral choices are not subjective, like choosing an ice-cream flavour. Rather moral choices are more like insulin. Insulin, as many of you know, controls diabetes. If doesn’t matter if I think chocolate ice cream will control diabetes because the truth is that it will not. Controlling diabetes correctly requires insulin. Regardless of my personal preference (likes or dislikes) or feeling, the statement “Insulin controls diabetes” is objective Truth.
Objective truths as opposed to subjective preferences (likes or dislikes) are based on the external world. They are related to the world independently of how we think or feel.
https://www.amazon.com/ETHIX-Being-Bold-Whatever-World/dp/0805445196
Last edited:
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
Bradskii
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
- Aug 19, 2018
- 15,967
- 10,847
- 71
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
There is so much wrong with the entire post, but I can't even get past the first sentence. I'm pretty certain that Kylie hasn't made any moral claims about bats because bats don't act morally! They act instinctively in a way that increases their survivability. We class that as reciprocal altruism but there is no thought of potential benefits, no conscious thinking about species survival - it's an instinct.
And we, as a species, have had those same instincts. And they worked. So when we reached a point where we could internalise what we were doing and recognising that it worked, we defined it as being good. And then we started developing a system of morality based on what we had decided was good.
How many times have I explained this. And how many times is it being completely and utterly ignored. Or is it that you are ignoring it or do you simply not understand what is being argued?
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
Except you said evolution is not about objective morality. So why should we take seriously anything you said about the rat example as its only about preferences. I don't think preferences we can start accepting or rejecting people for these personal opinions or preferences.
OK sorry I may have misunderstood things. Can you elaborate so I can get a better understanding.
Honest is a moral value (fullstop) in and of itself. Its a virtue. Honesty cannot be a moral part of the time. It will always be a moral. There is 'Honesty' and there is 'Dishonesty'. There is not ' 2/3 Honesty or 1/4 Dishonesty. If someone is 1/2 Honest then they are Dishonest. Honesty doesnt need to be applied to be Honest. It is a virtue in and of itself. You can use it or not use it and when you choose not to use it in a situation where you needed to use it then you are dishonest.
But you were saying that 'Honesty' is not a moral which was in relation to the example I gave about how 'Honesty' is a necessary moral value in discussions/debates seeking to find the truth. That’s the only specific example I am posing as an argument for which I want your counter argument or agreement for.
You have already admitted that 'Honesty' and 'Truth' are necessary for situations when finding the 'Truth' of a matter. You just disagreed that they were morals. But now I have shown they are moral values surely you must now agree that 'Honesty' and 'truth' are necessary morals in that specific scenario and therefore objective morals.
The failure of a court to not find the truth and wrongly convict someoen is not a reflection of the moral values of 'Honesty' and 'Truth'. That is a seperate issue of a poor defence or lack of evidence.
The point I am making is that 'Honesty' and 'Truth' are necessary moral values that need to be acknowldged and used as a rule and guide in finding the truth. Without uphoilding them then people could lie. That is the purpose of swearing on the Bible or whatever promise to tell the truth is used. Without that the court would have no power to ensure the truth is determined.
Thats why they say to witnesses they are under oath or they are in comtempt or are hostile witnesses because they refuse to tell the truth and be honest. But if 'Honesty' and 'Truth' were not necessary and independent moral values that stand regardless of peoples personal subejctive views of them the the court could not enforce them on people.
I just gave you a wiki link that says 'Honesty' and 'Truth' are moral values. The arguement I am posing is can we have a dicussion/debate seeking the truth of a matter without the moral values of 'Honesty' and 'Truth'. Thats all we need to know. What is your answer. Can we or not. Actually just remembered you already agreed they are necessary.
Lol. But it’s not my morality I am talking about. It’s yours. You keep making these moral examples like it’s better that people not kill babies than kill babies and making them objective because you are using them as arguments to prove you are right. If subjective morality is only about opinions then why are you using your opinion as the basis for your arguement.
But in reality you don't think its just your opinion because that would not be a good arguemnet and it would make no sense. So therefore you believe what you say has some truth value beyond your opinions. You know how I know this. Its because you argue your morals like their morals and not subjective preferences. Otherwise you would not argue at all and realise you have no arguement. Otherwise you are doing what you accuse me of doing which is asuming morality holds objective truth.
But it’s not an assumption and you admitted that 'Honesty' and 'Truth' are necessary for finding the truth of a matter. We have no choice but to make 'Honesty' and 'Truth' objective (independent of subjective views) because they are necessary regardless of peoples subjective opinions, 'likes & 'dislikes", and preferences about whether 'Honesty' and 'Truth' have value or not. They have to have value status to allow people to find the truth.
Think about it. You cannot find the truth without valuing 'Truth'. If you or someone came along and said my subjective view is 'Honesty' and 'Truth' don't apply and have no value status in our debate to find the truth then the debate/discussion would breakdown. You could never determine the truth. But if you wanted to find the truth as most people do then you have to abandon all subjective views and make 'Honesty' and 'Truth' objective and not subject to personal views for the debate to work.
So as I stated in the argument in the last post for debates/discussions that seek to find the truth of a matter it is self-evidence by logic that you have to necessarily have 'Honesty' and 'Truth' and make then objective. If you disagree then please argue why.
You seem to keep adding another hoop for me to jump through. How about addressing the one I replied to. You said I seem to think that all subjective views are the same. I just showed that they are all the same because they are about 'likes' and 'dislikes' and they are all the same. Try telling someone that because they like Pepsi their 'like' is of less value that someone who 'likes' coke.
But I am not sure what you mean by I haven’t shown that morality doesn’t fit into this category. Do you mean I haven’t argued that 'likes' and 'dislikes' are also about morality. If that’s the case please check my last post which linked evidence to show that morality is different to 'likes' and 'dislikes'.
I only think this because you argue like the moral examples you give are objective. Are you saying the moral examples you give are only your opinion, just something you prefer.
So if you said to me as you have already that "I misrepresented you arguement and that you didn't say what I said you said, how would we measure that you were correct and I did misrepresent your arguement.
I've already done that. Try taking the moral value of 'Truth' out of a debate seeking the 'Truth'. Try taking the moral value of 'Fairness' out of a situation determining 'Fairness'. Etc. etc.
Then tell me the measure of those values. It would be that they are necessary. We cannot do without them regardless of people’s subjective views. Therefore they stand independent and objective. That’s unless you can think of how to explain how we can determine the 'Truth' and 'Fairness' without 'Truth' and 'Fairness' if someone subjectively thought they were not needed.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
Actually she has and I have already pointed this out. But I was just going along with this for arguement sake to make another point. It wasnt just about bats, but rats, Beavers, Zebra's ect all having moral behaviour.
#776
Sounds like the bats have some kind of morality if they decide, "Hey, that guy's a greedy one. He takes food from others, but he never helps out when he's asked! So let's stop helping him!"
#819
Rats help each other out. This is morality for them.
But Kylie linked an article I havent been able to check so I wasnt 100% sure.
https://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html
I agree and thats what I said more or less. A sort of pro-social behaviour like you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours so the individuals but also the group benefits. Those who don't participate miss out. But its not about morally right or wrong behaviour.
No its because I disagree with this further exaplanation. Primarily despite whatever the explaination is any evolutionary explaination of how humans came to understand morality or how it came about is only descriptive and not prescriptive. Nothing in the explanation tells us why something is morally wrong.
Whatever the grounding for morality is it needs to be outside human thinking and views. Otherwise theres no grounding of what is right and wrong morally.
But just an observation. You seem to have become rather forthright and frustrated in me not acknowledging or maybe even agreeing with your explanation/conclusion as though you are claiming some objective truth about what is morality or not. I find this a bit ironic really for those who promote subjective views of morality.
Nevertheless as mentioned its only a description and not why something is morlaly wrong. The problem with evolution as an exaplanation is that what we may determine as good and bad at one time for survival may be changed and what may be morally bad now becomes good and what is good now becomes bad if it gives a survival advantage. There is no grounding.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
- Aug 19, 2018
- 15,967
- 10,847
- 71
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
If you think this statement is invalid then you really don't understand the subject:
'It is objectively true that people have subjective opinions regarding morality'.
Last edited:
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
stevevw
inquisitive
Yes I agree. But it is also objectively true that those subjective opinions about moral right and wrong say nothing about whether those moral rights and wrongs are truly right or wrong. It is just information about the psychological status of the subject. What they like, dislike, prefer and opinionated about morality.
So when you say humans gradually used those instincts and this became the basis for what was good and bad what do you mean because it’s certainly not about morality being good and bad ultimately. It may be their perception that is influenced by many things, it maybe their feelings or preferences. But its not about what is really right or wrong morally. So therefore nothing in the evolutionary explanation for morality explains why a behaviour is morally good or bad.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
