Is there an objective morality?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,591
71
Bondi
✟248,693.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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.

I think we need to go back to basics and skip the multiple point 200 word posts.

Tell me why you think stealng is immoral.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: VirOptimus
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I think we need to go back to basics and skip the multiple point 200 word posts.

Tell me why you think stealng is immoral.
I base objective morality on moral realism (morals have a realness and truth about them outside human minds) and moral experience in real lived situations.

So stealing can be shown to be objectively wrong in a real lived situation not by what people say or claim morality is but by how they act and react in moral situations which cannot be hidden and often exposes what people really believe about morality even to the point of contradicting their own subjective moral views.

Most telling is how people react in the moral situation itself. So someone that claims the subjective moral view that stealing maybe OK for some like poor people when a poor person steals from them they react like its objective wrong to steal.

We intuitively know certain things are morally bad regardless of subjective moral views. We don't walk on by someone stealing a womens handbag and think "Oh well thats OK because the mugger is just acting out his moral views that stealing is OK". Rather we think someone has to stop the mugger and that is wrong.

If you look at society this way you will begin to see how even the most subjective moral claims by people are contradicted by the way they protest and condemn behaviour as being morally wrong. This is especially true on social media and even forums like this. People shame others, virtue signal, condemn others.

Its not just expressing views either but actually putting some truth out into the world about morality. It logically stands that an opinion or preference carries no punch because its like condemning someone for liking choclate. It just doesnt work.

So they want to be able to make a good arguement and truth claim beyond their subjective views otherwise its just a meaningless exercise and people don't really believe that their moral values are meaningless in the moral world they live.

If you look at most philosophical articles the experts agree that when people express moral views/claims they are actaully making some moral truth claim beyond them and into the world. There is also an arguemnet for why we should trust our moral experience as real and true but thats another explanation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,591
71
Bondi
✟248,693.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I base objective morality on moral realism (morals have a realness and truth about them outside human minds) and moral experience in real lived situations.

Let's skip tbe 'outside human minds' option for a moment. Let's go with 'moral experience in real lived situations.'

So if you lived in a world where the majority of people thought abortion was entirely acceptable and lived their lives thinking, believing and acting as if it was acceptable, then according to your proposal, it would be morally acceptable. But I'd guess that you'd say that it wasn't. So we have a dichotomy. How do you explain that?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Why do you assume something that does appear true? It may be smoke and mirrors construed by history handed down to us.
Because for me belief happens after reason and logic demands it; not before. This is why I abandoned theism, this is how I live my life; if it doesn't seem real, eventually I have to abandon it even if told otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

Well-Known Member
May 20, 2021
1,899
259
Private
✟66,396.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Morality is subjective, thus any claim about what is moral or not must be a subjective claim. The shape of the earth is objective - it is the same shape for all people.

I honestly don't see what the problem is.
Begging the question does not reconcile the problem.

Here's the problem:
  • Unanimous agreement is the appropriate condition of the human mind with regard to anything that is a matter of truth rather than a matter of taste.
  • In matters of taste we do not expect human beings to overcome their conflicting preferences, nor do we think they should try to do so.
  • In contrast, the affirmation of opinions or beliefs as true and the rejection of their opposites as false involve judgments that are determined intrinsically by the substance of the matters being considered and by reference to the probative force of the relevant evidence and the cogency of the applicable reasoning. (See Post #625.)
  • In matters of truth, objective considerations (evidence) play the major role.
  • Differences in matters of taste do not yield to reason or to argument. Differences in matters of truth must do so.
  • The sphere of truth is transcultural. Where at a given time it fails to be transcultural, it can become so in the future.
Do you claim that the substance involved in judging the morality of "rape" is identical to the substance involved in judging a preference for "chocolate ice cream"? If so then one must conclude that you have grossly misjudged the substance of these matters.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: stevevw
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Begging the question does not reconcile the problem.

Here's the problem:
  • In matters of taste we do not expect human beings to overcome their conflicting preferences, nor do we think they should try to do so.
I disagree. Depending on what the issue is, we often do expect people living in a social environment to over come their matters of taste if it is harmful to others in the society
  • In matters of truth, objective considerations (evidence) play the major role.

    [*]Differences in matters of taste do not yield to reason or to argument. Differences in matters of truth must do so.
Differences in taste does as well depending on the issue.
  • The sphere of truth is transcultural. Where at a given time it fails to be transcultural, it can become so in the future.
Do you claim that the substance involved in judging the morality of "rape" is identical to the substance involved in judging a preference for "chocolate ice cream"?
No; Ice Cream preferences does not affect other people; rape does. In a social environment these are huge differences.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
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?"

Then we have another case where you believe in objective morality: consent. You believe that--ceteris paribus--forcing someone to do something against their will is objectively immoral, and you will force others to observe your own opinion in this matter.

I am not inconsistent, though. I agree that, generally speaking, forcing someone to do something against their will (such as eat pineapple pizza) is objectively immoral. And yeah, I am happy to force my opinion on others when they try to do certain things which I believe are objectively immoral.

The difference is that I don't irrationally claim that my opinion is subjective and objective at the same time. I don't say my opinion is merely subjective and then go around forcing everyone else to comply with my opinion.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
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.

Why would you only need an argument that you find convincing? Would you only object to yourself holding slaves? Or would you also object to others holding slaves? If you would object to others holding slaves, then presumably you would need an argument that would convince them, too. Else you will simply be forcing them to adhere to your subjective opinion which they do not find reasonable.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
No, it's really not. You are stopping him from applying his morality because you think that his morality is wrong, yours is right, and that he must follow your morality in his actions. You are saying, "I will allow you to think in a way contrary to my opinion, but I will not allow you to act in a way contrary to my opinion."

Again, if your opinion applies to other people, then it isn't merely subjective. Clearly if you are going to prevent someone from acting in a way contrary to your opinion, then you believe that your opinion applies to other people.
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!'

This is a remarkable response. Did you even read the post you were responding to? If you did, you would know that your response makes no sense at all.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Why would you only need an argument that you find convincing?
Because if I don't have a reason or argument, I won't find it convincing
Would you only object to yourself holding slaves? Or would you also object to others holding slaves?
Right vs wrong is not something that only pertains to me, it pertains to everybody.

If you would object to others holding slaves, then presumably you would need an argument that would convince them, too.
Or course! The same argument I apply to myself. Now whether or not they find it convincing or not, I can't say because it is all subjective.
Else you will simply be forcing them to adhere to your subjective opinion which they do not find reasonable.
Morality is not enforced; laws are enforced. However if I had the authority to create laws that are aligned with my moral views; I would be perfectly fine with that, and if someone find those laws unreasonable..... well there are a lot of laws I find unreasonable; so they will just have to get used to it.
 
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
15,689
10,591
71
Bondi
✟248,693.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I am not inconsistent, though. I agree that, generally speaking, forcing someone to do something against their will (such as eat pineapple pizza) is objectively immoral.
.

Generally speaking? That's almost the definition of inconsistent. I'd suggest that you think it would be immoral for you to force them to do something against their will if you have no problem with what they want to do. If, in your opinion, someone is doing something that you believe to be grossly immoral then you'd have no compunction forcing them to stop.

We again dip into the realm of the relative. It depends on what the guy is doing. And the point at which you personally believe it crosses a line between acceptable or unacceptable. Will everyone agree where that line is? No. It's a subjective opinion. And it'll be your subjective opinion as well as to whether it's acceptable. That is, morally correct or not.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,591
71
Bondi
✟248,693.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
  • Unanimous agreement is the appropriate condition of the human mind with regard to anything that is a matter of truth rather than a matter of taste.
Unless I'm wrong (and I actually hope that I am), you implied in an earllier post that a man may have some 'rights' when it comes to the marital bed. So let's use that.

Do you think that you'd get unanimous agreement as to the degree of immorality between a man having drunken sex with his sleeping wife and a girl being abducted and raped? I don't think so. Your black and white life is made up of an infinite number of shades of grey. And where an act crosses from one's personal opinion that it is morally acceptable to unacceptable will vary.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Generally speaking? That's almost the definition of inconsistent. I'd suggest that you think it would be immoral for you to force them to do something against their will if you have no problem with what they want to do. If, in your opinion, someone is doing something that you believe to be grossly immoral then you'd have no compunction forcing them to stop.

We again dip into the realm of the relative. It depends on what the guy is doing. And the point at which you personally believe it crosses a line between acceptable or unacceptable. Will everyone agree where that line is? No. It's a subjective opinion. And it'll be your subjective opinion as well as to whether it's acceptable. That is, morally correct or not.

You misread Kylie's post and you misread my response. You are reading very poorly.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
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?"

To be clear: you have misidentified the act. The act that you believe to be immoral is not in this case "eating pineapple pizza." It is "forcing someone to do something against their will." That "something" just happens to be eating pineapple pizza, but this fact is incidental.

Further, even if you, I, and Person B all believe that pineapple pizza is a preference that need not be forced or prevented, obviously Person A does not feel that way. And so you force Person A to adhere to your opinion by preventing them from forcing Person B to act contrary to his/her will.

So yeah, the self-contradiction you have been trying to ward off isn't going away. When you force others to comply with your opinion, that opinion is not merely subjective. It doesn't matter how much you want to adhere to the dogma of moral subjectivism. You can't logically claim that your opinion is merely subjective when you go around forcing others to comply with it. If you want to say that slavery is wrong (in such a way that you would force the hand of slaveowners) then you will have to abandon that dogma.

Peace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevevw
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,591
71
Bondi
✟248,693.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You misread Kylie's post and you misread my response. You are reading very poorly.

So you are consistent? You'd never try to stop someone doing something against their will? Or does it depend on what they want to do?

To save bouncing posts back and forth I'll propose that you do think it's actually necessary in some cases. So you'd think it wrong and she'd think it right. Yet you'd feel justified in stopping her. I don't see that as being an example of an objective morality.

I see it as being an example where you personally think a line has been crossed. How do we dtermine where that line is so we'll know who is right?
 
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

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Begging the question does not reconcile the problem.

Here's the problem:
  • Unanimous agreement is the appropriate condition of the human mind with regard to anything that is a matter of truth rather than a matter of taste.
I'd agree with that (given that all people are perfectly rational. We do, after all, see that there are people who do not agree with things that are objective truth, such as the world being roughly spherical).
  • In matters of taste we do not expect human beings to overcome their conflicting preferences, nor do we think they should try to do so.

Agreed.

  • In contrast, the affirmation of opinions or beliefs as true and the rejection of their opposites as false involve judgments that are determined intrinsically by the substance of the matters being considered and by reference to the probative force of the relevant evidence and the cogency of the applicable reasoning. (See Post #625.)

What? I'm not awake enough for this. (And this is after two coffees.)

  • In matters of truth, objective considerations (evidence) play the major role.
  • Differences in matters of taste do not yield to reason or to argument. Differences in matters of truth must do so.

Yeah, okay.

  • The sphere of truth is transcultural. Where at a given time it fails to be transcultural, it can become so in the future.

Again, what? No need to phrase things complicatedly.

Do you claim that the substance involved in judging the morality of "rape" is identical to the substance involved in judging a preference for "chocolate ice cream"? If so then one must conclude that you have grossly misjudged the substance of these matters.

Ah, and here we go. Always with the extreme examples, just as I said in post 850. Funny, you'd think that objective morality would apply to ALL moral issues, not just the extreme ones.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: stevevw
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Then we have another case where you believe in objective morality: consent. You believe that--ceteris paribus--forcing someone to do something against their will is objectively immoral, and you will force others to observe your own opinion in this matter.

I am not inconsistent, though. I agree that, generally speaking, forcing someone to do something against their will (such as eat pineapple pizza) is objectively immoral. And yeah, I am happy to force my opinion on others when they try to do certain things which I believe are objectively immoral.

The difference is that I don't irrationally claim that my opinion is subjective and objective at the same time. I don't say my opinion is merely subjective and then go around forcing everyone else to comply with my opinion.

Where did I say it was objective? My belief that consent is required is a subjective one. There are plenty of people out there who think it isn't required, such as the husband who believes he has the right to have sex with his wife whenever he wants.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
To be clear: you have misidentified the act. The act that you believe to be immoral is not in this case "eating pineapple pizza." It is "forcing someone to do something against their will." That "something" just happens to be eating pineapple pizza, but this fact is incidental.

Further, even if you, I, and Person B all believe that pineapple pizza is a preference that need not be forced or prevented, obviously Person A does not feel that way. And so you force Person A to adhere to your opinion by preventing them from forcing Person B to act contrary to his/her will.

So yeah, the self-contradiction you have been trying to ward off isn't going away. When you force others to comply with your opinion, that opinion is not merely subjective. It doesn't matter how much you want to adhere to the dogma of moral subjectivism. You can't logically claim that your opinion is merely subjective when you go around forcing others to comply with it. If you want to say that slavery is wrong (in such a way that you would force the hand of slaveowners) then you will have to abandon that dogma.

Peace.

Seems like we're getting close to the paradox of tolerance here. I'm not going to let you draw me into a paradoxical situation.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,591
71
Bondi
✟248,693.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Ah, and here we go. Always with the extreme examples, just as I said in post 850. Funny, you'd think that objective morality would apply to ALL moral issues, not just the extreme ones.

Everyone who thinks it's subjective obviously thinks it's all subjective. But I haven't seen anyone who is supporting objective morality say if it's only some moral acts are objective and the rest subjective.

But take an example like beating a dog. It might be seen as immoral. Maybe objectively so. But I just slapped my grandson's puppy on the butt because he started to chew a power cable. That would be considered acceptable. But if I beat it to death with a shovel...maybe not so much. So there's a hundred ways I could beat the pooch* from a small slap to the shovel. At what point does it become objectively immoral? And how is that exact point determined?

I'd suggest that there is no definitive point. It's like a gradual change from green - it's OK, to red - it's not OK. There's no point when one colour becomes the other. And so no point when it changes from moral to immoral. Except if we personally select an arbitrary point and say 'That's it'. Which will be entirely... subjective.

* not a euphemism.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Kylie
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
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Let's skip tbe 'outside human minds' option for a moment. Let's go with 'moral experience in real lived situations.'

So if you lived in a world where the majority of people thought abortion was entirely acceptable and lived their lives thinking, believing and acting as if it was acceptable, then according to your proposal, it would be morally acceptable. But I'd guess that you'd say that it wasn't. So we have a dichotomy. How do you explain that?
It wouldn’t be a dichotomy if we could show that despite those people claiming that they are happy to have abortions it is still wrong. Thats why I say its not just about lived morality but other factors that show its not morally good.

Basically the reason why people think abortion is wrong is because it takes a life. So if we can show that abortion takes a life then it doesn’t matter how happy people are about abortion. That supports the lived morality. Its like someone saying they are happy to ignore the "Truth"as a moral value when seeking the truth.

It won't matter how happy people claim they are if it can be shown that the moral value of the 'truth' is needed to find the truth then in that lived moral experience the "truth" has necessary value regardless of people subjective feeling of being happy to live without "Truth".

So let’s say abortion is taking a life then it would be on par with people killing babies in prams on the street and being happy about it. Do you think that is counter intuitive? If anyone seen a baby being killed on the street would they just think “ok those people think killing babies makes them happy so I will just walk on by and not do anything”. Do you honestly think that would be the case.

Thats why intuition is an important part of understanding what is real or not. We are justified to believe that if something is lived on a daily basis like its real and true then we can safely say it is real and true.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0