They are objective because they aren't influenced by individual feelings or opinions. They are collective, social, innate morals and are therefore objective by definition.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Being Innate in of itself doesn't make it Objective, the Innate values are Objective(Romans 2:15), however just being Innate doesn't automatically make them Objective, it happens that the Objective Moral Values are Innate/Instilled.
To be clearer, What makes those Innate Morals Objective?
I always wanted my worldview to be therefore.
Do you think that english grammar is objective?
Nope. My worldview is devoid of objective morality. It still contains subjective and intersubjective morality. And it is found in all of reality. It is all that reality has to offer in terms of morality.
As soon as you prove that it is objective, and that without objective morality, there is no morality at all.
They are objective because they aren't influenced by individual feelings or opinions. They are collective, social, innate morals and are therefore objective by definition.
Collective & Social would be Subjective Morality, as they would be determined by Society.
You are incapable of defending Innate Objective Morality without YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)
you refuted your very own argument.
Proof that it's based on Human Judgement rather than instilled?
I'm not going to blindly accept your claim that Humans make what's Right and Wrong.
Meaning that Morality being Subjective would render it Imaginary, your worldview doesn't have a such thing as right/wrong, that under your worldview anything could be right/wrong.
Your worldview is therefore untenable.
Actually they do(I see that you needed to reassert yourself that Right/Wrong exist in your worldview, as a crutch for Atheism),
if Anything can be Right/Wrong, then the terms are pointless, there wouldn't be a right/wrong, anything could be done under your worldview.
When did we enforce our standards on the Nazi's? How do you know that these are our standards rather than Instilled standards?
My worldview is untenable, because you, as I am certain, really agree with it? Now that is some kind of logic that is beyond me.Didn't finish my sentence, I'll complete it now that you bought it up, your worldview is therefore untenable.
If it is subjective, then right and wrong are based on the decisions and evaluations of moral agents. It is useless in the same way as "taste" is useless: for objective evaluations.If it's Subjective then there's no Right/Wrong, Under your worldview murdering someone is Subjectively Right while being Subjectively Wrong.
The terms Right and Wrong are therefore useless, as under your worldview anything could be right/wrong.
Every example of morality that you care to find is based on moral agents making decisions and evaluations. There is not a single instance of "morality" existing without these.Found in all reality?
Without a subject to make a moral judgement, there is no moral judgement. Thus morals are subjective.By all means show us that Morality is Subjective.
You asserted that "it could mean anything" and that it was useless. You are wrong on both counts. Even subjective morality does not mean "anything" and I have shown how it is useful.Evasion #1, I proved right above that if Right/Wrong could mean anything then the terms are useless in your worldview.
You need to show me that Morality is Subjective and Not Objective, I asked you and you evaded.
Atheists, What makes something Objectively Right or Wrong?
What makes Harming others Objectively Wrong?
What makes Helping others Objectively Right?
What makes Love Objectively Right?
What makes Hatred Objectively Wrong?
5 simple questions.
There is no objective morals. In fact, morals doesnt exist per se, its just in our minds.
This is a very good thing IMO, if morals where set then we couldnt evolve society and the values thererin.
Define objective, please
in what way?
Far from it
Well since the ideas of right and wrong change over time, and are enforced by social forces, it's hard to claim they are objective.
Some basic ideas have such obvious and horrible consequences that they are fairly universally thought to be wrong, but overall, the standards of morality seem to change as society evolves.
Things based upon human judgment are very real since humans are real and so is their judgment. So subjective morality about as "imaginary" as society in general or any other human caused/invented thing.
You specifically claimed they did not exist in my world view which is untrue.
I am saying anything can be thought to be right or wrong depending on how you assign value.
All thoughts are certainly not created equal, and since moralities main function is to help us exist in society, the best ideas for that purpose will generally prevail.
What are instilled standards and how do they happen? And, further, if they are objective and instilled why are there Natzi's?
You used the Natzi example because most people are not Natzi's and it is a generally despised ideology that was defeated by use of force and decades of social derision.
My worldview is untenable, because you, as I am certain, really agree with it? Now that is some kind of logic that is beyond me.
If it is subjective, then right and wrong are based on the decisions and evaluations of moral agents. It is useless in the same way as "taste" is useless: for objective evaluations.
But in the cases where it counts - where moral agents make decisions, where groups of moral agents make decisions - it is perfectly usable.
Every example of morality that you care to find is based on moral agents making decisions and evaluations. There is not a single instance of "morality" existing without these.
Without a subject to make a moral judgement, there is no moral judgement. Thus morals are subjective.
You asserted that "it could mean anything" and that it was useless. You are wrong on both counts. Even subjective morality does not mean "anything" and I have shown how it is useful.
But even if you were right... showing that subjective morality was useless would only show that morality is useless... not that objective morality needs to exist.
So start to do that: prove that morality is objective.
So you went into this debate not knowing what it means,
Objective meaning based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings.
So whatever is based on Society/Collective is not Fact, as that's what people would Agree on, Agreement is not Objective, it's Subjective.
You cannot demonstrate Morality to be Objective without YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)
Whatever is Collective is not Objective.
Yes you did, you claimed Morality is Objective while appealing to a Subjective source as proof. that's self refuting.
I can see you're not one to accept being wrong, despite whatever you may claim.
Subjective Morality means anything can be right/wrong, you asserting things are enforced by Social Forces is Subjective, as you need to prove it.
Sorry, I don´t understand what "Objectively Right/Wrong" is supposed to mean when it comes to valuations (in my understanding valuations are by their very nature subjective). Could you please clarify so that I can answer congenially?Atheists, What makes something Objectively Right or Wrong?
What makes Harming others Objectively Wrong?
What makes Helping others Objectively Right?
What makes Love Objectively Right?
What makes Hatred Objectively Wrong?
5 simple questions.
Subjective Morality means anything can be right/wrong, you asserting things are enforced by Social Forces is Subjective, as you need to prove it.
You claim to think Morality is Subjective, yet you use Objective Standards such as "Horrible Consequences" as a crutch for your atheism, under your worldview it would be what you find Horrible.
Hitler for example found it horrible that Jews lived, according to you, that would be "subjectively right"
Humans being real doesn't mean Human Judgement/Opinion is Objective.
Subjective Morality(what you blindly believe without any proof whatsoever) would mean Anything could be Right or Wrong, making the terms Right/Wrong useless.
Your worldview is untenable.
I didn't claim, I proved it, if Anything can be right/wrong then the terms are useless.
So now you're talking about what people Think are right and wrong. we're talking about what Is Right and Wrong.
#1 Saying that Moralities purpose is to help us exist in society would be an subjective claim in Your worldview.
According to Your Worldview, if someone says "Moralities main purpose is so we can not exist", then according to your worldview that is right.
#2, Help us exist, What makes existing Objectively Right/the Objective Purpose?
Subjective Morality fails you can't answer anything without appealing to Objective.
#1, Harming innocent is Objectively Wrong, Love is Objectively Right.
What makes Popularity/Most Agreed Right?
If most people agreed Murder is right, would that be true?
No.
Morality is the way that things ought to be.
Determinism says that everything is an effect of antecedent causes. Those causes could have been different, however.
Fatalism says that nothing that has happened, is happening, or will happen could have been / can be different. Period.
Morality, it seems, is neither subjective or objective. It is elusive.
In the OP, you asked about "harming others". Now you are down to "harming innocents". Already within the space of this thread, you have watered down your "objective morals".I do not agree with your worldview, Morality is Objective, people's opinions don't change what is Objectively Right and Wrong.
If taste is like this - no right and wrong at all, as you assume here... there would be no one ever to say that "this tastes good - that tastes bad".So Right and Wrong are based on decisions and evaluations of Right and Wrong(Moral) Agents?
That's Circular, if Morality is like Taste, then your worldview on Morality is dead, as there would be no Right/Wrong, just like there's no Right/Wrong when it comes to people's taste, you by accident refuted yourself there with the taste argument.
Yes, that is what we are trying to tell you. They don't have an objective standard.What moral agents? in a Subjective Morality Worldview there would be no one to make decisions for others, so if 100 people thought Hitler was wrong, and Hitler by himself thinks he's right, then even by Popular Agreement people have no Objective standard to make decisions on what's right and wrong, as under Subjective Morality anything would still be right/wrong.
It's working quite well.Your worldview is still not working.
Look around you.Demonstrate.
God would be such a moral agent.So you're assuming God "doesn't" exist, your argument is basically, "God doesn't exist & there's no moral judgement because God doesn't exist & there's no moral judgement"
Circular Reasoning, not proof.
No. You still assume that subjective moral evaluation would make something objectively right or wrong ("anything could be right", meaning, anything could be objectivelyright).By Definition Subjective would mean Anything could be right, as people could have different ideas on what is right and wrong, they could think anything is right/wrong.
Why should I accept that? I would only follow your faulty reasoning.I think you hold to Objective Morality like I do, because if you didn't, then you would've accept the fact that under Subjective Morality Anything could be right/wrong.
Faulty reasoning. It does not show morality useless.It would show that Morality is useless In Your Worldview. In Reality it exists.
The same faulty reasoning again. As long as you assume that there is an objective standard, and that everything has to follow such an objective standard, you are unable to correctly evalutate the possibility of subjective morals.By definition Morality would be an Objective Standard, if you could use a word/term for anything then the word/term is useless, hence if Anything can be Right/Wrong, then the terms are useless.
I answered that even though you did Not prove that Morality is Subjective and Not Objective.
So according to your worldview Murdering innocent isn't wrong, as "morals doesnt exist"
Your worldview is not only repulsive but conflicts with reality, as Objective Moral Values exist, Murder is wrong regardless of opinion.
You have no argument then, if it's "very good" In Your Opinion("IMO"), then the claim "we couldn't evolve society and the values" is an opinion, not a fact, thus we can dismiss it.
Also, "just in our minds", Thoughts are just in our minds as well, your point?
-snip-
Well, the idea of "Objective Morality" is your position - so I am not quite clear why you expect me to defend it.Not one Atheist in this thread has answered what makes something Objective Right or Wrong,
The existence of subjective morality is evident: People have conflicting moral views.nor have they proven Morality is Subjective.
As always, quatona hits the nail on the head.Does - beyond the demonstrably existing subjective moralities - exist an objective morality (and what does that even mean)?
It seems that proving this would be your job - since it is the position you hold.
#1, Proof that Objective Morality doesn't exist? How is it Subjective? Demonstrate.
#2, Then According to your worldview Harming people can be Right, as under your worldview Morality is Subjectivel.
I don't really, all observed morality is enforced by social standards. Morality has never been observed apart from moral agents.
What is horrible is what is horrible to humanity. It is a subjective determination like delicious.
No, I would disagree with Hitler, making him subjectively wrong from my perspective.
There is nothing "useless" about it, it is in fact a very useful activity depending on what you actually want to accomplish.
No, I knew well what it means, please don't be condescending. I asked because your arguments seemed to imply that your definition was different from mine.
Exactly, so objectivity could therefore be defined by innate social morals.
Defining morality based on the belief in a deity is the exact opposite of objectivity because it is rooted in belief.
This doesn't make sense. By definition objectivity is outside of individual feelings and opinions, so something that is universally agreed upon could easily be considered objective.
I didn't say they were "enforced by social forces". "Social" morality means morality concerning engagement with fellow humans. Universally innate social morality is objective.
Sorry, I don´t understand what "Objectively Right/Wrong" is supposed to mean when it comes to valuations (in my understanding valuations are by their very nature subjective). Could you please clarify so that I can answer congenially?
Also, I am not sure how to interprete the capitalization of these terms.
However, I don´t think that you use the term "objective" correctly. The opinion of a powerful being (no matter how incredibly powerful it may be) isn´t objective.
And so am I. In the end of the day I don´t care about the moral opinion of a God (assuming for a moment there is one). Let´s say it turns out that there is a God and He approves of harming others and forbids loving others, I still would cling to my diametrically opposed own ethics and morality.
We generally agree that murder is wrong because it makes for a pretty dysfunctional society, and we like society.
Heh, no. You dont understand. I reject the existance of metaphysics. That does not mean that I dont have opinions on different things, including what is acceptable behaviour and not. I also think that I have better arguments for why its bad to kill people then its just wrong beacuse its just wrong (as you say).
Well, the idea of "Objective Morality" is your position - so I am not quite clear why you expect me to defend it.
I´m also a little confused why you haven´t even tried to substantiate this opinion, so far.
The existence of subjective morality is evident: People have conflicting moral views.
The question is not: Is morality subjective or objective? but:
Does - beyond the demonstrably existing subjective moralities - exist an objective morality (and what does that even mean)?
It seems that proving this would be your job - since it is the position you hold.
It seems that proving this would be your job - since it is the position you hold.
As always, quatona hits the nail on the head.
Slavery, rape, genocide...these are objevtively wrong in your estimation?
Well first I would need you to tell me what you think objective morality is before I can attempt to show it doesn't exist. Generally speaking though, when most people refer to objective morality, they believe that moral good/bad are unchanging, whether across different circumstances or throughout time. Is this what you mean by objective morality?
#1. I think the easiest way to demonstrate this isn't the case would be to point out that without knowing what is definitively good and bad for every moral action...the whole notion of objective morality cannot logically exist. Why? Because for any moral actions which we do not know are objectively good and bad we would have to decide these things for ourselves. If you're deciding for yourself that a moral action is good or bad, then you're demonstrating what most people refer to as subjective morality. I like to call it relative morality.... and it's the only concept of morality that that consistently describes how morals work in real life.
#2. Yes, in some situations hurting people is a "good" moral behavior. Absolutely. I would call it relativistic morality, but I think we understand each other.
All morality is subjective. That's not an opinion, it's a readily observable fact.
We once used to consider it morally acceptable to keep slaves. We no longer do. Our moral code has changed in this regard. It has been SUBJECT to changing societal values.
We used to consider it morally acceptable to publicly torture and execute people for their religious beliefs. We no longer do so. Our morality has evolved. It is subjective in nature
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?