Is there an absolute morality?

[stevevw]

Just how do "people act like morals are objective"?

There are many ways. For example they may claim stealing is subjective like for example its OK for someone to steal if they are hungry and have no option. But as soon as that hungry person steals from them they object.

Primarily morality matters more than peoples subjective feelings, preferences and opinions. So when they protest, and condemn that a wrong is done they are actually expressing more than subjective views but a truth statement out into the world. When people disagree over morality it means there is a right and wrong to the matter and we act like morals need to be either right or wrong. This is different to peoples subjective preferences.

We see this right through society where people on social media are condemning, shaming, exposing bad behaviour, marching through streets and fighting. Even tearing down people for their beliefs and rhetoric. This behaviour is consistent with their being truth to what is right and wrong and inconsistent with morality being like preferences and opinions. People dont want to tear each other down for not liking the same icecream flavour.

 

[stevevw]

No, we're using philosophers because that's the group you chose. Philosophers are the experts on logic and reason, I'll grant that, so you have a slight lead for the reasonableness of Moral Realism, and we have a big lead for the lack of reasonableness of believing in God.

For this thread I'll take that as a win.

No, I'm talking about theists using that argument to prove God, and it is found faulty by a majority of experts on arguments and reason.

I actually think the arguement for God from objective morality is a pretty good one. As morality is a rational enterprise and because objective morality has to be grounded in something beyond humans but is also rational that means the only thing that this could be is a transcendent being. Because that transcendent being has to be all knowing and perfectly good it does point to God or at least God wouldnt look to out of place.

 

[VirOptimus]

There are many ways. For example they may claim stealing is subjective like for example its OK for someone to steal if they are hungry and have no option. But as soon as that hungry person steals from them they object.

Primarily morality matters more than peoples subjective feelings, preferences and opinions. So when they protest, and condemn that a wrong is done they are actually expressing more than subjective views but a truth statement out into the world. When people disagree over morality it means there is a right and wrong to the matter and we act like morals need to be either right or wrong. This is different to peoples subjective preferences.

We see this right through society where people on social media are condemning, shaming, exposing bad behaviour, marching through streets and fighting. Even tearing down people for their beliefs and rhetoric. This behaviour is consistent with their being truth to what is right and wrong and inconsistent with morality being like preferences and opinions. People dont want to tear each other down for not liking the same icecream flavour.

That was a long way of saying that you cant support your assertion.

People feel very strongly abut morality, that is correct, that in no way support a objective morality.

 

[Bradskii]

But being faithful and committed relates to the moral wrong of sex outside marriage. Can't you see that.

You weren't talking about being faithful and commited. This is what you said:

I disagree that a person has to be married before they can have sex.

That's as plain as a statement as one could make. Having sex without being married can be subjectively moral. But you also say it's objectively immoral. So the arguments you use in order to claim it's objectively immoral are ones that you reject when you claim it's subjectively moral - as you just did above.

You can't argue both for and against a moral act. But this is what we have:

B: Is sex outside marriage morally acceptable?
S: No.
B: Do you think that sex outside marriage is morally acceptable?
S: Yes.

You surely realise that this is nonsensical.

 

[Moral Orel]

I never said anyone is irrational for disagreeing with "Me". I have said they would be irrational to disagree with objective morals. Thats a different thing. If morality is determined to be a truth/fact then it has been determined by rationality. It is logical that someone disagreeing with it will be irrational by the fact that the moral objective was determined rationally.

You claim moral realism, I disagree with you, you say I'm irrational. I claim moral non-realism, you disagree with me, I say you're irrational. You're still ignoring the actual proof I provided that you cannot justify any moral fact with reason alone.

No its not 1 non-realist but the majority in the survey done. It wasnt a personal guess but an academic survey. But this is not the only support if you read the mainstream general articles they will all say that we all agree that there is a small core set of objective morals we agree on and think are objective regardless of peoples subjective views. So its pretty musch the majority view even if your an atheist or non-objectivists as its also a commonsense view.

No. It starts with a survey where moral realism comes out a little ahead. And then you have the opinion of one guy stating that he imagines a differently worded survey would have 90% blah blah blah.

Feel free to take credit that there is a slight majority in favor of moral realism and then stop there.

 

[Moral Orel]

For this thread I'll take that as a win.

Okay, good. Most philosophers (you're citing as experts on reason) are atheists

I actually think the arguement for God from objective morality is a pretty good one.

Most experts on reason find the reasoning faulty. And to a much bigger percentage than the realism/non-realism debate. If they thought it was rational they wouldn't be atheists.

As morality is a rational enterprise and because objective morality has to be grounded in something beyond humans but is also rational that means the only thing that this could be is a transcendent being. Because that transcendent being has to be all knowing and perfectly good it does point to God or at least God wouldnt look to out of place.

For morality to be objective it needs to be grounded outside of any mind (not just humans). Grounding it in God just defers to his preferences. If you want to call what He prefers "good" you can, but it'll be an arbitrary definition.

 

[stevevw]

You weren't talking about being faithful and commited. This is what you said:


That's as plain as a statement as one could make. Having sex without being married can be subjectively moral. But you also say it's objectively immoral. So the arguments you use in order to claim it's objectively immoral are ones that you reject when you claim it's subjectively moral - as you just did above.

You can't argue both for and against a moral act. But this is what we have:

B: Is sex outside marriage morally acceptable?
S: No.
B: Do you think that sex outside marriage is morally acceptable?
S: Yes.

You surely realise that this is nonsensical.

Why. People disagree with morality even when they know its objectively wrong just like they do with the law. The question is why is sex outside marriage immoral. Surely you have a reason why you think sex outside marriage is OK.

So let me ask. Why do you think sex outside marriage is OK.

 

[Moral Orel]

Why. People disagree with morality even when they know its objectively wrong just like they do with the law. The question is why is sex outside marriage immoral. Surely you have a reason why you think sex outside marriage is OK.

So let me ask. Why do you think sex outside marriage is OK.

Careful. Promoting sex outside of marriage is a banned topic on these forums.

 

[stevevw]

Okay, good. Most philosophers (you're citing as experts on reason) are atheists.

Yeah but the case for moral realism is not just based on expert support. I only cited that article because someone said moral realism was an irrational position to take so I could show that the experts seem to think its a rational position.

Most experts on reason find the reasoning faulty. And to a much bigger percentage than the realism/non-realism debate. If they thought it was rational they wouldn't be atheists.

Yeah but your comparing 2 different things. Belief in God takes faith so no amount of reasoning is going to help. Belief in God is in the realm of religion. Whereas determining moral truths can be reasoned as the article stated. They mentions that the reason most philosophers will support moral realism is because a case can be made for it (reasoned out).

But if the question was not “is moral realism true” but “is there a good case to be made for moral realism”, I suspect the percentage would jump from 56.4% to somewhere in the high nineties.

But anyway expert opinion is not the only way moral truths can be supported. As I said their reasoned out and we can observe our moral behaviour to see if it conforms to our moral intuition. This gives us a basis for measuring moral truths.

In the sciences we decide between theories based on observations, which have an important degree of objectivity. It appears that in moral reasoning, moral intuitions play the same role which observations do in science: we test general moral principles and moral theories by seeing how their consequences conform (or fail to conform) to our moral intuitions about particular cases. Richard Boyd Essays on Moral Realism, How to be a Moral Realist Page 184.

For morality to be objective it needs to be grounded outside of any mind (not just humans).

What do you mean (not just humans).

Grounding it in God just defers to his preferences. If you want to call what He prefers "good" you can, but it'll be an arbitrary definition.

Proving moral truths (absolute/objective morlaity) cannot be done by using God because as you say you can't prove God. So the arguement stops dead. Thats why we have to find support for objective morals in how humans behav, our intuitions.

 

[stevevw]

Careful. Promoting sex outside of marriage is a banned topic on these forums.

To put things into context I did clarify that I was still supporting a monogamous and committed relationship and that I can under the logic of why Marriage is best as it adds a deeper commitment.

I just think there are times when people are not always in the position to be marriage (officially) but do everything like they are married. This doesnt open the door for people having sex outside marriage as relationships still need to meet the same moral values of marriage which is commitment, monogamy and fidelity.

 

[stevevw]

You claim moral realism, I disagree with you, you say I'm irrational. I claim moral non-realism, you disagree with me, I say you're irrational. You're still ignoring the actual proof I provided that you cannot justify any moral fact with reason alone.

Yes and so supporting moral realism is not based on reason alone. It is also logically coherent and an arguement can be made for why it is more likely true. We can also use our moral intuition as a guide to moral behaviour.

No. It starts with a survey where moral realism comes out a little ahead.

Its not a little ahead. For every non-realist there were 2 who supported moral realism. So double the philosophers who opposed it.

And then you have the opinion of one guy stating that he imagines a differently worded survey would have 90% blah blah blah.

Yeah there was some of that. But he also based his opinion on the facts that came out of the survey. As the majority of those who supported moral realism were atheists it was a logical conclusion to say that moral realism is broadly accepted regardless of religious faith among philosophers.

That is why I linked the other evidence (articles) to support what the survey article said that most people accept a core set of moral truths. This is consistent with the survey.

 

[Ken-1122]

I believe the True God should define all the morals that we should all have in common as a/the human race, etc, because without that, it really does all seem subjective to us, as we are right now divided by cultures and races, etc, with different sets of morals for each, etc...

What makes you think things would be better if your God defined morality?

 

[Ken-1122]

Yet is it argued through rationality and logic. Thats why most philosophers agree that objective morality is a rational position because it is reasoned out and logically stands.

It would be a mistake to assume everyone who uses reason, logic, will arrive to the same conclusion. the Pope and the Feminist will both use reason and logic concerning the morality of abortion and will both remain polar opposites on the issue.

But its not just based on agreement for the sake of it. Its a reasoned and logical position which makes it independent from subjective views and opinions.

But rational and logic ARE based on your subjective views and opinions.

No thats whay you are saying. I don't know, there are some moral objectives I sort of disagree with like having to be married to have sex with your partner. I mean I would love to be able to get rich and live the high life literally. So I sort of agree with it but know its not right. Not as a Christian anyway

That's not what I asked. You gave an example of the discrepancy between what you wish to be moral vs what is objectively moral; I didn't ask that. I asked for an example between what you BELIEVE to be moral vs what IS objective moral. So unless you believe sex out of wedlock is perfectly fine, but believe it is not objective morally okay, you didn't answer my question. Care to try again?

 

[Neogaia777]

What makes you think things would be better if your God defined morality?

Gotta be more advanced/evolved/experienced than us I think, etc...?

Anyway, I trust them.

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

There might be things that some of us think are not good or OK, and even say and agree are not OK, etc, but that calling them 100% always wrong or bad is an aversion, and they most certainly wouldn't call them always 100% evil always, and it's all a matter of degrees, etc, and every person might see it differently, so it's all subjective really, etc...

All it takes is one person saying: "I don't think what you say is wrong, is wrong, or at least is wrong for me", and then it is all of the sudden no longer 100% objective, etc, but becomes subjective at that point, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Ken-1122]

Gotta be more advanced/evolved/experienced than us I think, etc...?

Anyway, I trust them.

God Bless!

Just because one is more advanced, evolved, and experienced does not make them morally good.

 

[Moral Orel]

To put things into context I did clarify that I was still supporting a monogamous and committed relationship and that I can under the logic of why Marriage is best as it adds a deeper commitment.

You asked Brad to violate site rules by explaining why he thinks sex outside of marriage is okay.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes and so supporting moral realism is not based on reason alone. It is also logically coherent and an arguement can be made for why it is more likely true.

These are all the same thing. Logic, reason, arguments. None of them can justify objective morality.

We can also use our moral intuition as a guide to moral behaviour.

We cannot. Everyone "intuits" things differently. How do you know that your intuition is correct and Ted Bundy's intuition was incorrect? You would need reason. You ready to look at my proof for why reason necessarily fails to prove any and all moral facts?

Is there Objective Morality?

 

[Neogaia777]

Just because one is more advanced, evolved, and experienced does not make them morally good.

Not necessarily, but I'm willing to gamble on it in this case.

God Bless!

 

[Ken-1122]

Not necessarily, but I'm willing to gamble on it in this case.

God Bless!

But when you consider the history of Colonization, the Colonizers were more advanced and knowledgeable than the indigenous people inhabiting the land they colonized, yet the colonizers were not fair, kind, or morally superior to those they colonized. With that in mind, I'm sure you will understand not everybody is gonna be willing to gamble on all that stuff you said back on post #330 to be accurate.