Do objective moral values exist?

[Thwingly]

Hello everyone!

A came up with this argument a while back and I wanted to see if it would stand up to criticism.

For those of you who are not up on the terms in this case, objective moral values deals with what actually is right or wrong, and is characterized by a fact, like, "It is wrong to rape." Subjective moral values deal with peoples opinions, so they are characterized like this, "I think/believe it is wrong to rape."

1. If objective moral values do not exist, then subjective moral values do not exist.

Here's why, for people to form their own moral values (which are subjective) they must understand what morals are and what it means for something to be right or something to be wrong. If there were no morals in fact, people could not recognize them, and would not understand or be able to conceptualize of right and wrong. Therefore they could not possibly form their own beliefs about what actually is right and what is wrong.

2. Subjective moral values exist.
This point does not need any defense.

3. Therefore objective moral values exist.
The natural conclusion.

Bring on some arguments!

Sincerely,
Thwingly

 

[Philosoft]

If "right" and "wrong" are just feelings, then they need not be reflective of some object. Feelings are quite explicable in an evolutionary framework, however unpalatable that might be for some.

 

[TomUK]

I think there is a basic flaw in the structure of your argument. To apply another argument to your structure....

p1. If it rains the streets will be wet
p2. The streets are wet
c1. Therefore it is raining

 

[MoonlessNight]

I think there is a basic flaw in the structure of your argument. To apply another argument to your structure....

p1. If it rains the streets will be wet
p2. The streets are wet
c1. Therefore it is raining

No, actually the logical form is fine.

He's arguing:

~P->~Q
Q (i.e. ~~Q)
Therefore P.

It's just an example of modus tollens, which is a fine form of argument. If you disagree you'll have to attack the premises, since the form is valid.

 

[MoonlessNight]

An equivalent form using the example that you gave would be:

If the streets are not wet than it is not raining
It is raining
Therefore the streets are wet.

See how that works?

 

[Mr. Stupid]

Hi thwingly,

But how do we get from the the fact that people recognize prescriptive value to their objectivity? Is it all a matter of positivistic legalism or majority rule? Are you asking if there is absolute moral value? You haven't posed the question this way, but discussions like this seem to me to eventually lead to this as the next logical step in evaluating ethical or moral value.

 

[tcampen]

Objective morality is something we, as people, recognize by convention. While I recognize rape is wrong under any circumstances, clearly there are cultures that have held otherwise, including our own where legally, rape could not occur between a husband and wife (until fairly recently). But morality is based on particular values. The ultimate value upon which all "objective" morality lies is to survive, and survive well, as a species. This may seem too animalistic for some, but it plays out. We won't survive if we kill each other, or destroy our environment, or engage in destructive practices. Part of surviving well includes happiness. This is an innate characteristic all humans enjoy and strive for. Those communities that survive with a happier people tend to do better. It ebbs and flows over time, but it is by and large true. Living peacefully is better for survival than being at war all the time. I could go on and on. When we get into the minutia of morality, we find what we value and how an act promotes or hinders that value - thereby rendering it moral or immoral.

hey, I'm just tossing this out there. It isn't a perfect hypothesis, just something to consider. Finally, in a free society, where the people have a variety of different sprititual beliefs, it is impossible to find an objective morality based on a particular religious belief. It can't be done. Thus, it seems to me to be far more practical to find a common basis for morality that transcends religious differences, so that we as a people in a free society can work towords common objectives, and, yes, survive well.

 

[MAMiller]

Thwingly 15: This is a well thought out topic. I see your point. At one time all moral values must have been subjective. However, here is a twist for you. If you do believe in the bible, then it could be concluded that there were no subjective morals, only those handed down by God our creator. That in fact morals were meant to be carried on according to his initial teachings. Sorry, here I go twisting everything up again. Everyone will just have to call me Mrs Complicated, headache inducer ... :lol:

 

[Philosoft]

Thwingly 15: This is a well thought out topic. I see your point. At one time all moral values must have been subjective. However, here is a twist for you. If you do believe in the bible, then it could be concluded that there were no subjective morals, only those handed down by God our creator. That in fact morals were meant to be carried on according to his initial teachings.

Except that God is arguably not bound to said objective morals. For a moral precept to be truly objective, it must be objective for all moral beings. If God is a perfectly moral being, then He must adhere to objective morality perfectly. QED.

 

[Prometheus_ash]

MOonlessnight, I disagree with your statement. Thwingly's argument is:

If objective moral values do not exist (X), then subjective moral values do not exist (Y). Subjective moral values exist (Y), therfore Objective morals exist.

In logical form it would look like this:

X-->Y
Y
----
therefor X

this is an invalid argument form, called affirming the consequent (which is never valid.)

Another argument against it might be to say, objectives do not depend on subjectives. Purpose for example, is a subjective, unless god exists and has some overriding purpose (which you cannot proove), and the belief thereof is a subjective.

There is no overriding moral authority, and thus all morals are subjective. What we have instead is a form of social contract, which serves as a sort of objective morality, tho it varies form person to person.

 

[Brimshack]

Thwingly your definition of objective moral values assumes that they do in fact evist independantly of subjective impressions. Note that you say objective morality is morality deals with what "ACTUALLY" is real. In other words, objective morality is real morality. That is, however, what you were trying to prove to begin with. You then carry the assumption foreword by assuming that subjective mroal values are approximations of these real objective values, whereas someone aserting a subjectivist stance on morality would actually deny that this is what a subjective moral value is. So, you are assuming once again precisely what you purport to be proving. So, the argument is circular.

Take care.

 

[MoonlessNight]

MOonlessnight, I disagree with your statement. Thwingly's argument is:

If objective moral values do not exist (X), then subjective moral values do not exist (Y). Subjective moral values exist (Y), therfore Objective morals exist.

In logical form it would look like this:

X-->Y
Y
----
therefor X

this is an invalid argument form, called affirming the consequent (which is never valid.)

Another argument against it might be to say, objectives do not depend on subjectives. Purpose for example, is a subjective, unless god exists and has some overriding purpose (which you cannot proove), and the belief thereof is a subjective.

There is no overriding moral authority, and thus all morals are subjective. What we have instead is a form of social contract, which serves as a sort of objective morality, tho it varies form person to person.

If you want to define the terms as:
X - objective moral values do not exist
Y - subjective moral values do not exist
Then "subjective moral values exist" is Not Y. Y can't mean both that subjective moral values exist and also that they don't.
So the logical form looks like this:

X->Y
Not Y
Therefore Not X

This is a valid argument form called modus tollens.

As for the rest, that's a fine way to attack the argument. But you can't say that the form is invalid when it is in fact valid.

 

[Thwingly]

Hello again!

Brimshack, how can a definition assume the defined things existence? OR does the fact that I can define it point towards its existence (in the case of objective moral values...)? I suppose if I defined paper as "an existing object" then I would assume its existence, but I did not do that anywhere. You are probably referring to "characterized by a fact." I did not mean that objective moral values existence was a fact, I meant that for something to be an objective moral value, it must be a fact, it cannot be a person's opinion. As for what I was trying to prove, that would be my conclusion, that objective moral values exist. Maybe I did not clarify what I meant by subjective moral values, either way, tell me what a subjectivist would define these as.

MAMiller, I absolutely believe that we should do exactly as God tells us to do, and that objective moral values exist because God created them. We should follow objective moral values, but because objective moral values exist, and we know that they do, we also have the capacity to form twisted or weakened subjective moral values. My point was just to show that objective moral values exist, didn't really have any other purpose (except to show that the objective moral values point to God).

tcampen,
Survival sounds like a biological basis for morality. But why should we bother to survive? I could say not survival is my basis for morality, and unless you give me a deeper standard of morality from which to say that is wrong, neither of us is right. I would say, survival is a characteristic, or a fruit of doing right, and destruction a characteristic of doing wrong.

Mr. Stupid, My point was to make a valid argument for the existence of objective moral values. I wanted people to challenge my argument so I could make it stronger or see that it would not work.

Philosoft, I do not see any reason to think that right and wrong are just feelings, though they may manifest themselves in a way. For example are conscience may pressure us to do a certain thing and to not do another. I am simply talking about the knowledge of right and wrong, of good and evil, not our feelings about it. Our understanding of what it means for something to be right and what it means for something to be wrong is, I think simply undeniable. Perhaps though, that was not what you were getting at. I thought I made my post pretty clear, but then all these misinterpretations came up. Oh well.

So I'll try to make it clear, I am arguing for the existence of objective moral values, with the existence of subjective moral values. Take a look at my original post to get a clear idea of my argument.

Good night/good morning/good afternoon/good evening depending on the time of day for you.

Sincerely,
Thwingly.

 

[Philosoft]

Philosoft, I do not see any reason to think that right and wrong are just feelings, though they may manifest themselves in a way. For example are conscience may pressure us to do a certain thing and to not do another. I am simply talking about the knowledge of right and wrong, of good and evil, not our feelings about it. Our understanding of what it means for something to be right and what it means for something to be wrong is, I think simply undeniable. Perhaps though, that was not what you were getting at. I thought I made my post pretty clear, but then all these misinterpretations came up. Oh well.

Well, I don't see any reason to consider "knowledge" of right and wrong as anything other than feelings. Now what? We have empirical evidence for the inability to distinguish right and wrong in some individuals. Is that considered deniability?

So I'll try to make it clear, I am arguing for the existence of objective moral values, with the existence of subjective moral values. Take a look at my original post to get a clear idea of my argument.

I'm not sure what else I should be looking for.

 

[burrow_owl]

This is a valid argument form called modus tollens.

Fine, but that's just not how the original argument was structured. Prometheus's reading is the right one; the OP is clearly invalid reasoning.

 

[Dfwells]

I do agree with the individual who started this thread. He has made a good point, yet the tactic he is using to prove his argument is transcendental in nature.

If people want to say that morality is relative then they must by definition accept that morality is objective. Why is this? When someone makes the statement "All morality is relative" or "there are no moral absolutes" then one is making a faith claim about morality. All morality is subjective andand relative...except for the foundation of subjective morality, which is in itself a moral absolute.

One may then say, "Okay then, I make no moral claims at all." That is the point. Morality on any level can't exist if not objective. When it comes down to it, either MAN of GOD is the author of right and wrong. With MAN as the author, I believe some obvious problems happen. First, morality can't exist at all since according to relativists and materialists (who are usually the ones who promote man-centered ethics) all of reality is just a bunch of atoms banging around. My thought process is just a bunch of chemical reactions. This atomistic worldview destroys free will (along with morality).

Second, if man (or society) is the final basis for deciding morality, then by what authority can we condemn Adolph Hitler for killing 6 million Jews? Do we really want to accept a view of reality and ethics which makes it impossible for us to judge right from wrong? We couldn't even condemn someone who decided it was his "ethic" to torture a little child.

I believe that only a Christian worldview can account for morality. All other worldviews fail to take an account for morality, logic, free will, reason, science, math, order, etc. Though this sounds like a bold claim, I believe it can be defended adequately.

 

[MoonlessNight]

[/font]

Fine, but that's just not how the original argument was structured. Prometheus's reading is the right one; the OP is clearly invalid reasoning.

How? Isn't there being subjective moral values the falsification of there not being subjective moral values? Isn't there being objective moral values the falsification of there not being objective moral values?

If I'm still making a mistake, point it out to me, because try as I might I can't find out how the argument doesn't fit into the form:

P -> Q
~Q
Therefore ~P

 

[Philosoft]

If people want to say that morality is relative then they must by definition accept that morality is objective. Why is this? When someone makes the statement "All morality is relative" or "there are no moral absolutes" then one is making a faith claim about morality. All morality is subjective andand relative...except for the foundation of subjective morality, which is in itself a moral absolute.

Um, no. The "foundation of subjective morality" is at most an existential fact. It makes no claim about the rightness or wrongness of its existence.

One may then say, "Okay then, I make no moral claims at all." That is the point. Morality on any level can't exist if not objective. When it comes down to it, either MAN of GOD is the author of right and wrong. With MAN as the author, I believe some obvious problems happen. First, morality can't exist at all since according to relativists and materialists (who are usually the ones who promote man-centered ethics) all of reality is just a bunch of atoms banging around. My thought process is just a bunch of chemical reactions. This atomistic worldview destroys free will (along with morality).

Well, it probably destroys utterly libertarian free will and absolute morality. Neither one of which is sensical, IMO. Your narrow definitions amount to mere equivocation, really.

Second, if man (or society) is the final basis for deciding morality, then by what authority can we condemn Adolph Hitler for killing 6 million Jews?

What authority do we need to issue a condemnation? We judge by our internal moral senses. Hitler was wrong because my sensibilities are egregiously offended. I can't alter my sensibilities simply because I don't posit a God to authenticate them.

Do we really want to accept a view of reality and ethics which makes it impossible for us to judge right from wrong? We couldn't even condemn someone who decided it was his "ethic" to torture a little child.

You have far overstepped the bounds of this argument. It doesn't even make sense as you phrase it - how can a particular "view of... ethics" entail the absence of moral sense?

I believe that only a Christian worldview can account for morality. All other worldviews fail to take an account for morality, logic, free will, reason, science, math, order, etc. Though this sounds like a bold claim, I believe it can be defended adequately.

You just go ahead and drag out the TAG. We ought to dedicate a new thread to that anachronism.

 

[Marz Blak]

Hello everyone!

...

1. If objective moral values do not exist, then subjective moral values do not exist.

Here's why, for people to form their own moral values (which are subjective) they must understand what morals are and what it means for something to be right or something to be wrong. If there were no morals in fact, people could not recognize them, and would not understand or be able to conceptualize of right and wrong. Therefore they could not possibly form their own beliefs about what actually is right and what is wrong.

...

Thwingly

Apart from the arguments about whether your reasoning is sound, I take issue with your premise.

The fact that everyone seems to have an innate moral sense does not automatically imply that there must be some objective morality.

Everyone seems to have an innate aesthetic sense. Does it follow from that observation that there must be some objective aesthetic? I take great issue with the notion that an objective aesthetic exists.

How is ethics different? Or do you think there is an objective aesthetic?

 

[Marz Blak]

Alternately, consider this:


If objective beauty does not exist, then subjective aesthetics do not exist.

Here's why, for people to form their own aethetics (which are subjective) they must understand what beauty is and what it means for something to be beautiful or something to be ugly. If there were no aesthetics in fact, people could not recognize them, and would not understand or be able to conceptualize of beauty and ugliness. Therefore they could not possibly form their own beliefs about what actually is beautiful and what is ugly.

Does anyone agree with this?