Is there an absolute morality?

[Moral Orel]

Your personal values are not objectively accessible.

What do you mean "accessible"? I know both of those statements I made to be objective facts.

 

[Chriliman]

Your personal values are not objectively accessible.

Again this discussion reveals the objective/subjective distinction as a lousy way to understand morality.

Sure they are, all you have to do is make your personal values known by expressing them to others. Then others can judge whether they agree(think your values align with the facts) or not.

 

[Chriliman]

Why are those "subjective values" and your example an "objective value"? What's the difference between those terms? It's true that I value being fed, and it's true that I value the flavor of chocolate ice cream. Both of those are objective facts, so they're both objective values, right?

I would say yes.

 

[Moral Orel]

I would say yes.

So can you give me an example of a "subjective value"? If anyone values anything, that thing has "objective value"? If there are no subjective values, why are we distinguishing between terms?

 

[Chriliman]

So can you give me an example of a "subjective value"? If anyone values anything, that thing has "objective value"? If there are no subjective values, why are we distinguishing between terms?

Exactly.

 

[Moral Orel]

Exactly.

Well, the idea behind distinguishing between "objective value" and "subjective value" (in discussions on morality) is to say that there are some things which are factually valuable. As in, valuing these things is correct, and not valuing them is incorrect.

 

[durangodawood]

What do you mean "accessible"? I know both of those statements I made to be objective facts.

Is introspection an objective endeavor? Not sure.

 

[durangodawood]

Sure they are, all you have to do is make your personal values known by expressing them to others. Then others can judge whether they agree(think your values align with the facts) or not.

Other people get your report of what you value. But they can't verify your report.

 

[Chriliman]

Other people get your report of what you value. But they can't verify your report.

True, there is some element of trust, but what if your actions consistently support your reported values?

 

[durangodawood]

True, there is some element of trust, but what if your actions consistently support your reported values?

I do think that behavior indicates values. You can fake it. But people who are close can tell.

 

[Chriliman]

Well, the idea behind distinguishing between "objective value" and "subjective value" (in discussions on morality) is to say that there are some things which are factually valuable. As in, valuing these things is correct, and not valuing them is incorrect.

So are you saying the term “subjective” should only be used when referring to someone who’s not valuing the correct things?

 

[Moral Orel]

Is introspection an objective endeavor? Not sure.

So maybe you don't know for a fact what you like or dislike? That's silly.

I do think that behavior indicates values. You can fake it. But people who are close can tell.

Yeah, they can tell by your behavior.

 

[durangodawood]

So maybe you don't know for a fact what you like or dislike? That's silly....

Depends what you mean by objective. Lets take the wikip view for a moment:

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.

Not sure introspection gets you there. It utterly pov dependant, unlike scientific modes of observations.

 

[stevevw]

Honestly, I'd probably pick them up but not leave until I found my child.

Yes so we do want to save humans in general when faced with the real situation. What happens if you keep going and come across another child thats not yours. You will probably save them as well even if that came at the cost of your own child in the end. We cannot deny the moral truth that we value "Life" intrinsically, not just because it brings us happiness, not just because its a particular life. Not for any other value reason apart from "Life"itself.

PS I am not saying you don't put your child first. Just pointing out what happens in reality. If we were to find a strangers child and walked away from them crying and choking in the smoke we could not live with ourselves even if we managed to save our child instead.

because they cause hardship, and we generally want to avoid hardship.

As for HOW MUCH hardship is caused, that's an entirely subjective determination.

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

So you are just trying to define your position into being true.

Its not a case of definition but justification for believing its true. This is epistemics and we can justify knowledge and beliefs as being true based on an assessment of our efforts investigate alternative possibilities. If the belief stands up after maximizing our efforst to do this then we are justified to believe it to be true.

Some things have already been subjected to this process and are seen as prima facie truths such as "Life" being intrinsically valuable and other values such as Human Rights. They don't need to be reasoned as they already pass the tesr.

And you STILL haven't told me if all lives are worth the same.

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.

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.

And you miss the point that corporations do that ONLY because they are required to do so.
If they didn't have to do it, they wouldn't.

So whats your point. How does enforcing codes onto companies negate that the codes are laws and objective. The fact that only one set of moral codes are viewed as being true seems to be over riding all other subjective views.

If all moral views are equal under a subjective/relative system then a government has no right to force one specific moral view onto companies and companies have no right to force this onto their employees. So a relative/subjective moral system is living a contradictory moral reality

And that is exactly what we see. How many cultures have treated the life of a baby girl as less than that of a baby boy?

The fact is when it comes to morality we see a small and universal set of moral truths such as with Human Rights for which we are trying to weed out those wrong acts like desrimnination against females. Just because a culture acts differently doesn't make it morally right.

The fact that we can stand on something like Human Rights and say that the culture descriminating against little girls is morally wrong is our basis that that culture is just plain wrong in an objective way.

And do you consider the life of an old man who is too weak to get out of a hospital bed to be equal to the life of a healthy five year old with their entire life ahead of them?

No everyone has inalienable rights to life regardless of age, race, or whatever. We cannot kill an old person because they are old in the same way we cannot kill a child because they are young.

What your talking about is something completely different such as a moral dilemma in choosing one life over another in a specific setting for which we need to consider. But for the value of "Life" itself without all those specific added contexts everyones "Life" is of value just because its human "Life".

Once again you run and hide behind your black and white argument.

Thats not even an objection to what I just explained.

Once again you fail to actually answer my question.

There are two people:

1. A five year old girl
2. A ninety-five year old man

Whose life has more value? The little girl? The old man? Do their lives both have equal value? Show your OBJECTIVE working.

Unless there is some specific circumstance you want to apply this to I would have to say that both lives are of equal value. We don't just kill old people because we think they are of less value because they only have a few years to live. We think that old people are still of value and worth it even if their life is harder and they have less time to live. Otherwise we would have squads going around collecting old people because they are less valuable and eliminating them.

I've been asking you to actually provide a PROOF of this, in the same way that mathematicians con provide a proof that 1+1=2, and you have ALWAYS failed to do so. You just repeat the same unsupported claim again and again and think that counts as proof for some reason. [/quote] So what is the proof for Math apart from an assumption its correct. Its an abstract idea and there is nothing physical about Math. So whats this proof for Math. Morality is also abstract and theres no physical thing to pick up and measure. Why can't morality work like Math truths.

Don't just say, "It's obvious," and then refuse to actually prove it. I can say it's obvious that morality is subjective and refuse to prove it just as easily, and such a claim would be just as valid as yours.

Ok so its obvious that 1+1=2 agree. 1+1=3 is wrong, agreed. So rape = being wrong is an obvious truth. Rape = being morally good is like 1+1=3. There is no way you can say rape is good. Its impossible to = being good. Unless you can come up with some explanation why rape = being good then there is no such thing. Its like trying to come up with an explanation why 1+1=3 is correct.

In any case, the claim 1+1=2 does have a proof, so even mathematicians don't just say, "It's obvious" and leave it at that.

View attachment 311946

But thats just an equation made up be humans. You would have been better using the example of placing 1 apple on a table and then adding another apple to show there is now 2 apples. But the formula is abstract and just because we write down some formula doesn't make it objective. Its just writing on some blackboard created by humans.

And since different people place different values on those variables, there can never be any answer which everyone agrees is objective.

No they don't put different values on the variables. As we see witrh "killing in self defence". There is a a set criteria for what is "killing in self defence". There is a set criteria for 1st degree murder. If a person kills someone to protect their family then that is clearly different to someone who has planned and plotted to kill someone out of revenge.

And the vast numbers of different cultures around the world shows that there are many differnt ways to achieve that. Again, there is no best version of what a functioning society is.

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.

For example different cultures have different ways of greeting people. But that doesn't change the moral truth that greeting people with repsect. Some may kiss the person on the cheek, some may embrace, others may bow and in the west we shake hands. But they all represent the moral truth of showing repsect for others when we greet them.

Yet you are still basing the idea on the concept of JUSTICE, which is subjective.

That's why you can have some people who think that justice can't be served unless the criminal is executed, and others who think that justice can be served in non-lethal ways.

Justice is justice. Its the act of bringin the person to Justice. What your talking about is degrees of punishment. But Justice has already been down by apprehending the person in the first place. If there was no justice then why even bother to apprehend people for doing wrong. You can't see the forest through the trees.

 

[Moral Orel]

So maybe you don't know for a fact what you like or dislike? That's silly.

Depends what you mean by objective.

Uh, I didn't use the word "objective". So no, it doesn't depend on a word I didn't use.

 

[stevevw]

Oh, absolute garbage. No one is being forced to marry someone of the same sex if they don't want to, just like no one is being forced to like and accept Star Wars as the best TV show.

I never said that. I said that society is being forced to accept and go along with SSM regardless of subjective views.

All that's happened is the law was changed so same sex couples could marry if they wanted to, in just the same way that people who like Star Trek and not Star Wars can still watch Star Trek and never have to watch Star Wars if they don't want to.
This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

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

Do you really think that all people must dedicate their lives to fighting everything they see as morally wrong? If I see Person A drop a $1 coin, and Person B sees this, and picks it up and keeps it, am I going to chase after Person A and tell them Person B stole a dollar from them? Probably not.

The point is you accept and support the system that stops/prevents stealing. That doesnt mean you have to personally go around keeping that moral system upheld yourself. But you do know that what person B did was wrong even if petty. You know that petty crime leads to greate crime and that moral norms and laws will maintain peace and order in society. Thats why nearly all societies have similar moral norms because they work.

Yes.
But we can still have subjective views of morality that most people reject, and thus reject those who hold those views.

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.

Haven't I already dealt with this? Are you going to keep making me explain the same things over and over?

You have not dealt with this. As far as I remember you just said "its because we all live in societies that agree with these moral truths". That is not an explanation. Just being conditioned to have certain morals assumes that the conditioned morals are correct in the first place. What if a society is conditioned to like rape. Under your analogy rape would be morally good because society was conditioned to think that. They are only acting according to their conditioning.

So we need more than just conditioning. We need an evaluation judgement as to whether that conditioning is truthfully right or wrong. That is why the UN condemns cultures for certain wrong practices regardless of their cultural conditioning. Thats because there is a core set of moral truths that underpin Human Rights that applies to all cultures.

I didn't say polygamy, I said polyamory.

OK still the same applies.

Okay, you've made the claim that stealing a candy bar is morally wrong. Prove it.

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.

However, you position is clearly assuming that there is an objective morality, and you've never yet been able to prove it.

Yes I have epistemically. If we are proper investigators then we will understand the intrinsic value of life and that there are certain moral truths that stem from this. Its the same rational for why we have Human Rights and laws. I'm not the first to go down this track and many good people have done the same and they all come to the same conclusion. So its a justified belief.

And what is the best way to behave? There are so many variables to take into account, and so many of them are based on personal preference, that there's no way to conclude that there is one objective best way to behave.

Thats a logical fallacy. Your giving up on even trying to investigate based on an assumption that its too hard. Why can't we even try to investigate things. Fir example we can say that not mugging someone is better than mugging them because it brings a lot of trouble and harm. We try acting that way and we find it works pretty good. We can say that treating a child with kindness is a better way to behave than neglecting them. We can look at research which shows that kindly treated jkids fair better.

We can begin to eliminate the subjective thinking by testing out different behaviours to see which is better/best behavoiur. We may not always find the best way to behave (but often we do) but at least we can take a step in the right direction and define what is a better way to behave than other ways of behaving. I think its common sense.

 

[stevevw]

The fact that morality is subjective doesn't change the objective fact that it can cause harm. That in itself does not make morality objective.

It's like I can add something to water to give it flavour, but the fact that the water now objectively has flavour doesn't mean the flavour is objectively pleasant.

But when we are looking back on past acts and claiming they were wrong in the light of todays morals is an evaluative judgement. We cannot claim those past acts are wrong if there is no objective measure of what wrong is that we are moving away from and towards some moral truth.

To use the basis that acts cause harm and that doesn't change is the objective basis. We are saying past acts are wrong because they caused harm. Without that basis then past acts are just different acts like different tastes in fashion. They are not morlaly wrong.

I don't know what in the world you are talking about, but I never made that argument at all.

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.

And again I will ask you to tell me, whose life has great value? A five year old girl, or a ninety year old man?

Already answered this. According to Human Rights which is reasoned and justified all humans have equal value regardless of gender, age, race ect.

Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal.
Article 2
Everyone should have all of the rights and freedoms in this statement, no matter what race, sex, or color he or she may be.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to live, to be free, and to feel safe.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights Regular English Version

And you didn't answer my question. I asked you to show your working for how you reached your conclusion, and you give me some vague wishy-washy mumbo jumbo about where you might possibly start looking for an answer.

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

Like I said the working out about the value of human "life" has already been done with Human Righst and other laws and ethical codes we have installed and universially acknowledge. There are rational reasons why we have a specific set of Human Rights and laws

Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

Human rights are needed to protect and preserve every individual's humanity, to ensure that every individual can live a life of dignity and a life that is worthy of a human being
Questions and answers about Human Rights

Throughout history, concepts of ethical behaviour, justice and human dignity have been important in the development of human societies.

The promotion and protection of human rights became a fundamental objective of the Allied powers. In 1941, U.S. President Roosevelt proclaimed the 'Four Freedoms' that people everywhere in the world ought to enjoy - freedom of speech and belief, and freedom from want and fear.

Values of tolerance, equality and respect can help reduce friction within society. Putting human rights ideas into practice can helps us create the kind of society we want to live in. Human rights are an important part of how people interact with others at all levels in society - in the family, the community, schools, the workplace, in politics and in international relations.
https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work...ur freedom to,world have agreed are essential.

These are all rational and objective reasons.

And why do you think evolution can't account for this?

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.

 

[Kylie]

Of course theres subjective values.

But you asked for an objective one, and I provided.

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.

 

[Kylie]

I agree that our subjective perceptions or morals aren’t necessarily correct just because they exist in objective reality, but if your subjective perception or morals align with the facts then they are objectively correct.

How can my morals align with the facts if there are no objective moral facts?

 

[Moral Orel]

So are you saying the term “subjective” should only be used when referring to someone who’s not valuing the correct things?

No, the term "subjective" is for when folks value things and there is no "correct" or "incorrect". I'm not correct or incorrect to value chocolate ice cream. My wife isn't correct or incorrect to disagree with me.