• 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.

Is there an absolute morality?

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

The fact that I find value in life, both my life and the lives of others, does not mean "life has value" is an objective fact.

So is it an objective fact that these moral wrongs of rape, murder and stealing cause hardships or not.

It's typical enough that I'll say yes. Rape, murder, stealing all cause some degree of hardship.

Now let me say it again:

The amount of hardship is subjective.


So you claim "life has inherent value" as an axiom, yet you don't justify claiming it is an axiom, and you repeatedly refuse to answer questions that such a claim leads to.

In the course of life and the circumstances that happen all lives are not valued the same. If someone breaks the law and ends up in prison which causes them a less valuable life then that was because of what happened during a life lived.

So, how do we OBJECTIVELY determine how much value a life has?

But this doesn't devalue their natural human right to life which is based on "life" itself being of value without any other reason to make it valuable. You seem to find this concept hard to grasp.

So why is it that the only thing that seems to treat life as having any value is people?

I'll tell you why: because the idea that life has intrinsic value is a subjective Human idea.


Are you really playing this game again?

Your cry of, "If morality is subjective, we should be willing to let other moral ideas exist, even if we disagree, and let people rape and murder if they think it's the morally right thing to do" is old and tired.

I've responded to it many times. You obviously haven't bothered to read my reply to it. Since you didn't read it before, I don't see why you'd read it now, and these intellectually dishonest games you are playing are getting boring and tiresome.


Once again, you claim that morality is objective without offering any support.

Repeating your claims does not make them true.


I'm not asking who you would kill. I wasn't talking about choosing one to die at all. Are you reduced to obvious strawman arguments now as an attempt to hide the fact you are incapable of answering the question?

Thats not even an objection to what I just explained.

No, it's pointing out that you use flawed arguments, treating it like a dichotomy when it isn't.

Unless there is some specific circumstance you want to apply this to I would have to say that both lives are of equal value.

Show me how you OBJECTIVELY determined this.


I'm not asking you to choose one for death, for crying out loud!


Why can't it? Well, why don't you show us how it can, mmm? Do more than just say, "Well, maybe it works that way." Put your money where your mouth is.


No. Claiming that something is obvious is not a proof. I showed you a proof that 1+1=2, so there's no need to rely on the "it's just obvious" argument. Yet that's all you can do for morality.

I could go to a Star Trek convention and say, "It's obvious that Star Trek is better than Star Wars, and everyone there would agree with me. That doesn't make it true.


Yeah, you have no idea how mathematical proof works, do you?


Okay, a person acts in self defence and the other person ends up dead. Is that morally right or wrong. Show your working.

It doesn't matter how they achieve that "functioning society". The point is they all think a functioning society is a good basis for morality.

So what? The fact that there are numerous ways have a functioning society means there is no one objectively best way of doing it. Otherwise all societies would be the same, or you could show that Society A is better than Society B.


And there are cultures that would find the concept of kissing on the lips deeply disgusting. Perhaps we are objectively morally wrong for kissing. You're the expert in objective morality, show us the moral equation that shows us if kissing is morally right or morally wrong.


Person arrested = justice has been served?

Okay. So a rape victim reports the crime, her rapist is arrested, goes to court, and is found innocent and released. Does the rape victim say, "He was apprehended, so justice was served"? Of course not.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I never said that. I said that society is being forced to accept and go along with SSM regardless of subjective views.

No they aren't. Show me where people are being forced to attend or participate in SSM against their will. Are people being forced to get married to people of the same gender?

Actually it is because TV shows are completely different to morals. There is no law legislating that society should make certain TV shows law.

"Yeah, but that's different" is a spectacularly weak argument.

Find a better one.

And there's no law that legislates a society must make certain moralities law either.


Yes, that person who stole the $1 coin today might be stealing cars and planes tomorrow, and then investor fraud! Insider trading! Drug dealing! Oh, if only I had reported them for stealing that one dollar coin!

Why reject people who hold those views if they have done nothing wrong and are only expressing their different and opposing subjective view. Its like rejecting people out of society for liking peas.

Are you for real?

The guy who lives next door to you tells you that he doesn't think there's anything wrong with breaking into a neighbour's house and killing them. He's never actually DONE it, but he thinks it's perfectly acceptable to do it.

Would you feel comfortable with that?


It's a bit hypocritical for you to complain I haven't given a good justification for my position when you've never provided one for yours.

Stealing harms individuals and society and there is scientific evidence for this. Harming society devalues human "life" which is an inalienable Human Right which is based on the justified belief that stands up epistemically.

I've already told you God only knows how many times that the harm experienced by a victim is subjective, not objective.


Nah, you haven't. Your claim that human life has intrinsic value is a subjective opinion.


By all means, go ahead.

I agree that not mugging someone is better than mugging them.

I'm just saying that you have not proved your point of view that moral claims are OBJECTIVE statements.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

Utter nonsense. We don't need an objective standard to reach that conclusion. I can look back at the poetry I wrote in school and see that it's absolutely terrible. Yet I don't need an objective standard by which to measure poetry quality to do so.


And I've agreed numerous times that we can determine if an act has objectively caused harm, haven't I? That's not what I'm disputing. I'm saying that the AMOUNT of harm experienced is subjective - different for every person, because it depends on the person, and that is subjective.

Didnt you say companies are only forced to conform with ethical codes and they don't really care about their employees as far as ethics is concerned.

Yeah, so?

Were your unsupported claims supposed to prove something?


So if you could rescue one of these people and leave the other one to die, would you be unable to decide?

Its not wishy washy but a specific and clear set of Rights and laws.

You said, "Well obviously its based on human "Life" being intrinsically valuable. With that comes certain other values such as with Human Rights. So I guess the first place to look for a definition is there."

You only GUESS that this is where to start a search?

Like I said, wishy washy and vague. Your guesses, and only the first step.

I asked you to provide a specific answer and to show your working, and you give me some vague advice about a first step.


Okay.

Tell me why it is objectively required to preserve an individual's humanity.

I may very well be the basis for morality. That still makes it objective as its a hard wired biological basis which can be shown as fact.

I assume you meant "IT", referring to evolution, not "I" there.

But evolution doesn't create something that is objectively the best. It simply works with what's available to it.

I mean, if evolution produced what is objectively the best, we wouldn't be so easy to suffocate when food gets caught in our throats.
 
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟173,201.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
How can my morals align with the facts if there are no objective moral facts?

Can you show that there are no objective moral facts?

Because I can show that there can be. For example:
An innocent person asks you not to violate them. So what are the moral facts?
Moral Fact 1: Innocent person
Moral Fact 2: Asking you not to violate them

Now explain how it wouldn't be factually wrong to go ahead and violate them anyway?
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
27,382
19,090
Colorado
✟526,405.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Uh, I didn't use the word "objective". So no, it doesn't depend on a word I didn't use.
Sorry, I fail to explain I was relating back to the subtopic at hand: whether introspection can reveal "objective" facts.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
27,382
19,090
Colorado
✟526,405.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I don't think it's objective. A starving man would value a sandwich much more than a man who has just eaten a large meal.
I fail to see how the natural fluctuations in the visceral feelings that accompany a value make it any less objective.

We value being fed. Evidence: we eat regularly and ensure we will have ongoing access to food. We prepare for this even in moments when we're not feeling hunger.
 
Upvote 0

Amittai

baggage apostate
Aug 20, 2006
1,426
491
✟48,680.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I'm saying that the AMOUNT of harm experienced is subjective - different for every person, because it depends on the person, and that is subjective.

1. What is, asks our respect. That is my version of "Is > Ought".

2. Testimony is evidence, therefore the subjective contributes to the objective.

3. Much good is done by pondering the phenomenology of differentiated experience. Much good is done by degrees of inference by everyone.

4. This has not got to do with "God" for those who don't have a use for "Him"; nor with bossiness for anyone.

The fact that I find value in life, both my life and the lives of others, does not mean "life has value" is an objective fact.

Why not? Are your observations so worthless?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,846
1,700
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,482.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No they aren't. Show me where people are being forced to attend or participate in SSM against their will. Are people being forced to get married to people of the same gender?
I think we should change the topic as its hard to get into the details.

"Yeah, but that's different" is a spectacularly weak argument.

Find a better one.
But you have used TV shows as an anology for morality many times.

And there's no law that legislates a society must make certain moralities law either.
What about laws against stealing, rape, murder, descrimination, sexual harassment, equality, ect. Heck theres even laws against speaking certain words that are deemed morally wrong. You can get sacked for just expressing a personal view. I mean you don't see laws stopping people from expressing their personal views about TV shows or preference for brussel sprouts lol.

Why he's only expressing his personal subjective view, its not wrong. I may not feel comfortable with that but his view is just one of many views out there that has equal rights to be expressed as there is no moral truths under a subjective/relative system.

On what basis can you say they are wrong if you have no basis to determine what is wrong and everything is about feelings or opinions. Feelings and opinions cannot be wrong. They are just a different feeling or opinion to you.

It's a bit hypocritical for you to complain I haven't given a good justification for my position when you've never provided one for yours.
If we look at any world body or national laws we find that as a society, nation and world we have a small set of specific moral truths that we have made Rights and laws. This means that only one set of moral view is allowed and any deviation from this is not acceptable. These Rights and Laws have been made inalienable so they cannot be subject to subjective/relative views.

I am not saying that this is evidence alone for objective morals. But its more consistent with objective morality. If you want to use conditioning as evidence for relative morality then the evdience I am claiming is no different.

I've already told you God only knows how many times that the harm experienced by a victim is subjective, not objective.
I have already acknowledged this. What I wanted to know is how that relates to the objective event of rape happening.

Nah, you haven't. Your claim that human life has intrinsic value is a subjective opinion.
Then if its subjective then why doesn't world bodies like the UN not allow an subjective/relative views that devalue life. If it was determined by subjective/relative views then Human Rights are forcing their personal subjective views onto the world. Its like they have declared that everyone should like Star Wars and brussel sprouts and all other preferences are ruled out.

That doesn't sound like a subjective/relative system but rather either the UN and most nations are being dictators or that they believe that Human Rights and other laws protecting and respecting "Life" are universial law and justified to be true.

By all means, go ahead.

I agree that not mugging someone is better than mugging them.

I'm just saying that you have not proved your point of view that moral claims are OBJECTIVE statements.
Well perhaps thats because your expectation of what evidence should be is all wrong. Your looking for the knock down evdience of science like in a test tube. Well that ain't gonna happen when it comes to morality. The evdience is in how we live morality out in real life. There is no other way.

So its good you agree that not mugging people is a better way to behave than mugging them. We have already worked out one subjective view of behaviour that we can disregard as wrong. So if someone says I think mugging is the best way for humans to behave we can say they are objectively wrong.

We could probably come up with a bit of a list for how we can behave in better ways morally using this method.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Amittai

baggage apostate
Aug 20, 2006
1,426
491
✟48,680.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
So why is it that the only thing that seems to treat life as having any value is people?

I'll tell you why: because the idea that life has intrinsic value is a subjective Human idea.

Animals' biodiversity and instincts demonstrate it in a far simpler way.

"Absolute" is a metaphor for "approximation to absolute".

I've skipped 1,200 posts but I will say any ideology that devalues me in the name of a power bigger than me frightens me.

How do you understand the power equation?
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Site Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,640
✟499,248.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, I fail to explain I was relating back to the subtopic at hand: whether introspection can reveal "objective" facts.
And like I said, it's silly to claim you might not know what you like and dislike. If introspection can't reveal objective facts, then you don't know anything about yourself. And that's ridiculous.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
27,382
19,090
Colorado
✟526,405.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
And like I said, it's silly to claim you might not know what you like and dislike. If introspection can't reveal objective facts, then you don't know anything about yourself. And that's ridiculous.
Im sure we can agree on the states of mind that introspection can reveal. Our disagreement is about whether its best to call them objective or subjective.

I presented the wikip statement to show a common understanding of objectivity. Here it is again for reference.


I question whether introspection is free from subjectivity. It seems almost absurd to suggest so.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Site Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,640
✟499,248.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Those aren't "moral facts". A "moral fact" is a moral that is a fact. It is not a fact that is involved in typical moral judgements. Any moral fact is going to prescribe the correct behavior to choose in a given situation. That a person has done no moral wrong is not a moral fact. That a person has made a statement is not a moral fact.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Site Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,640
✟499,248.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Im sure we can agree on the states of mind that introspection can reveal.
Either you know what you like or you don't. If you know what you like, then what you like is a fact. If they are facts, then they are objective. If you say they are not objective, then they are not facts, and you don't have knowledge about your own inner machinations. The only things anyone can claim to actually know at all for certain.
 
Upvote 0

LightLoveHope

Jesus leads us to life
Oct 6, 2018
1,475
458
London
✟88,083.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married

You have summarised the dilemma very well.
Objective truth may exist or it may not. We can theorise it exists and may be objective, but also it may appear objective but be only subjective to something else we are unaware of.

What philosophy and science have shown is everything we know is subjective and based on assumptions. Another way of putting this is to suggest we all are limited by the processing of our bodies. If our bodies decide to tell us something we cannot distinguish between whether this is just an internal creation or something outside ourselves. It is why schizophrenics when they minds create people they appear real to them.

When one goes deeper into thoughts or ideas, we only know the conclusion of them by a feeling we have at the end of the process. This is why people can be "brain washed" and why critical thinking is so important, because one dropped issue and the chain of thought is flawed and useless.

In science this concept is bounded by a measure of error in observations and conclusions. The concept is repeated experiments and observations will eliminate the error affect to a reasonable degree.

Materialists who put their faith in the "real" world fall into this trap. We all live by these reasonable compromises, and they work and should be regarded as truth, as far as we can define it.

Dark matter is a proposal to solve the gravity affect problem, but it is like the observations of galaxies a position of faith. The problem we face today is holding the balance between what is reasonable and what clearly does not work and is dangerous.

God bless you
 
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟173,201.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

So in that situation the right/good moral fact or action would be to not violate the innocent person?
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
27,382
19,090
Colorado
✟526,405.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Then we need a category called "subjective facts" because these introspective finding dont satisfy the basic requirements of objectivity.

This not as unreasonable as it sounds, as facts are fundamentally propositions, and not necessarily truths.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

Okay, let's look at this.

Person A says to me, "Kylie, please don't enter my house without my express permission."

Does that mean it is objectively wrong to enter a house without permission? No. Because Person B might say, "Kylie, if you believe that it is in your best interests, or my best interests, or anyone else's best interests to enter my house without permission, you go right ahead."

So the idea of entering someone's house without there permission is SUBJECTIVELY wrong from the viewpoint of Person A.

But if we say it is OBJECTIVELY wrong, then it must also apply to Person B, and yet they have clearly stated that it doesn't.

Thus, entering a person's house without their permission is subjectively wrong. It is not objectively wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

I honestly don't see how you can reach that conclusion. A starving man who is given a sandwich is going to have a completely different experience of that sandwich than a man who has just eaten a large meal being given an identical sandwich. That makes it subjective because their experience is entirely dependent on themselves.

Identical sandwiches do not produce identical experiences.
 
Upvote 0