Is there Objective Morality?

[Ken-1122]

I agree that doesnt in itself. But is one of many supports that show there are objective morals. People intuitive know there are moral truths. They act and react like there are moral truths. Sometimes if it talks and walks like a duck chances are its a duck. At least we should go with that until something better defeats it.

Moral truth does not mean objective moral truth.

Thats silly. The fact that they have certain criteria for what is 1st degree murder and what is killing in self-defence is not decided subjectively.

1st degree murder is a legal issue. Laws are not about morality.

I All of the laws, conventions which most countries have signed up for, treaties, UN Human Rights, US declaration and many countries constitutions all make Human "LIfe valuable above all else. Entire nations are built on this.

Generally people act/react like life is valuable. All religions, spiritual beliefs, social sciences, evolution (biology) most other sciences also make life important and valuable. There is no doubt that "LIfe" is important according to humans. We believe other things with less support so why are we being skeptical.

People acting like human lives have value only means it has subjective value to hemans. Remember; that which is objective is beyond human beliefs. Do bears value human lives? Try messing with a cub and see how valuable your human life is to a bear.

I What do you mean morality is constantly changing.

Look at issues like slavery, human sacrifice for religious purposes, or even homosexuality. Today’s morality of those issues is different than it was a couple thousand years ago.

I Well if human "LIfe" is acknowledged by humans as valuable then obviously preserving life is part of that.

I asked for objective proof. Objective is beyond human thoughts and views. Pointing out that human lives are valuable to humans is not going beyond human thoughts and beliefs. Again; what objective proof do you have that killing children is wrong?

 

[Bradskii]

No, only when the source is God's revealed truth.

How do we know when you are giving us God as the source or when you are giving us your personal opinion? It's the most important question.

If your answer to any question is: 'It's what God wants', then you'll find no argument from me. There's no argument to be made. But if it's your personal opinion, then...be prepared to justify it against other opinions.

 

[Landon Caeli]

If your answer to any question is: 'It's what God wants', then you'll find no argument from me. There's no argument to be made. But if it's your personal opinion, then...be prepared to justify it against other opinions.

Isn't it *mostly* personal opinion though, considering the Bible can be interpreted both literally or metaphorically depending on the type of Christian or the particular chapter being cited?

...Especially considering no two people are exactly the same, so their interpretations may vary a little.

 

[Bradskii]

Isn't it *mostly* personal opinion though, considering the Bible can be interpreted both literally or metaphorically depending on the type of Christian or the particular chapter being cited?

Well...yeah. I totally agree, Landon. But then I don't think o_mlly is talking about hermeunetics. But he can clarify that I'm sure.

 

[Moral Orel]

There are desires inherent in our human nature, the most basic of which is to live. The desire to live is a natural desire, a desire with which we are innately endowed. Because it is inherent in human nature, as all truly specific properties are, it is present in all normal human beings, just as human facial characteristics, human skeletal structure, or human blood types are.

Since our desire to live is natural and necessary to achieve all other possible desires, life is a real good, not merely an apparent good, that we ought to desire. The is to ought gap has been, therefore, bridged.

We desire X
X is necessary to achieve Y
We desire Y
We ought to seek X

Invalid argument. It's missing a hidden premise:

We desire X
X is necessary to achieve Y
We desire Y
We ought to have X and Y
We ought to seek X

See, now you've got to prove that bolded one too. What's that? You don't think that premise is necessary? Well, what if it was false?

We desire X
X is necessary to achieve Y
We desire Y
We ought to not have X and Y
We ought to seek X

Oops! Invalid argument! If "We ought to have X and Y" is false, then those premises would lead to the opposite conclusion: "We ought to not seek X".

So "We ought to not have X and Y" must not be true.
So "We ought to not have X and Y" must not be true.
So "We ought to have X and Y" must be true.

This has been a demonstration, not a mere assertion. To deny the validity of this demonstration is to deny reason itself and your extreme skepticism precludes any fruitful further discussion.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yup, that's my contention exactly.

Once you have a metric against which to measure something, it's value becomes "objective", "relative" to that metric.

This means however that no act is ever objectively immoral in and of itself, and that's the difference between "objective" morality and "relative" morality.

In objective morality acts are intrinsically good or bad, but in relative morality they're not.

In objective morality, murder and rape are intrinsically bad. In relative morality they're not.

Eh, not quite. The acts themselves don't have to be intrinsically good or bad. If some thing is intrinsically good or bad, then we can derive moral facts that are both objective and relative. Before I continue, just a reminder, I agree nothing is intrinsically good or bad. This is all for the sake of argument.

Let's assume we did prove that happiness was intrinsically good, and suffering was intrinsically bad. We can then derive that acts which create happiness are good, and acts that create suffering are bad. These acts aren't intrinsically good or bad, they're good or bad because they create happiness or suffering.

Now let's say my wife is sad. A hug from me will cheer her up. A hug from a stranger will creep her out. Now we can derive the moral fact that "One ought to hug her" but this is only true relative to who's doing the hugging. But it is still an objective fact, that is relative, and that does not require "hugging" to be intrinsically good.

 

[Moral Orel]

If:
P1: You desire to have X
P2: Getting X requires Y
C: You ought/should/must/(are required to) do Y.

Now, if "you" don't do Y then we must conclude that either P1 or P2 is false. This is an ought but it has nothing to do with "moral" values, per se. One might use this sort of logic for a "moral" X (a thing that one desires).

So if I don't do Y, that shows that either I never wanted X or that Y doesn't lead to X? I don't think so.

I desire to have a physique like The Rock.
Getting a physique like The Rock requires hard work.
I ought/should/must(are required to) do hard work.

So, I didn't do the hard work and I don't have a physique like The Rock. Does that prove that hard work doesn't lead to having a nice physique, or does it prove that I don't want a physique like The Rock?

Rather, your argument is invalid and C does not follow from those premises alone. It only works if we add the following premise:

P1: You desire to have X
P2: Getting X requires Y
P3: You ought to have X
C: You ought/should/must/(are required to) do Y

C does not follow from your argument, it only follows from the one with the added premise. We know this because "You ought to have X" must not be false other wise your argument would look like this:

P1: You desire to have X
P2: Getting X requires Y
P3: You ought to not have X
C: You ought/should/must/(are required to) do Y

Clearly invalid.

So "You ought to not have X" must not be true.
So "You ought to not have X" must not be true.
So "You ought to have X" must be true.

I don't think there are different kinds of "oughts" like you said. Rather, we naturally assume that we deserve things we like, so we skip justifying that we ought to have it.

 

[partinobodycular]

Eh, not quite. The acts themselves don't have to be intrinsically good or bad. If some thing is intrinsically good or bad, then we can derive moral facts that are both objective and relative. Before I continue, just a reminder, I agree nothing is intrinsically good or bad. This is all for the sake of argument.

Let's assume we did prove that happiness was intrinsically good, and suffering was intrinsically bad. We can then derive that acts which create happiness are good, and acts that create suffering are bad. These acts aren't intrinsically good or bad, they're good or bad because they create happiness or suffering.

Now let's say my wife is sad. A hug from me will cheer her up. A hug from a stranger will creep her out. Now we can derive the moral fact that "One ought to hug her" but this is only true relative to who's doing the hugging. But it is still an objective fact, that is relative, and that does not require "hugging" to be intrinsically good.

I do believe that we're in agreement, if it seems otherwise, then it's no doubt due to my lack of clarity.

 

[o_mlly]

We desire X
X is necessary to achieve Y
We desire Y
We ought to seek X

You've misstated my argument.

To move from is to ought requires an authoritative is statement that demands the ought.
(There's no benefit in burdening the argument by inserting an instrumental good (X).

• There are real goods and apparent goods.
• Apparent goods are goods we may desire.
• Real goods are goods that all human beings need to be human.
• We ought to desire the things that we need to be human.

And I note that you STILL can't tell me how we objectively measure morality.

So you believe nothing could be known objectively until 1829, the year the tape measure was invented?

So are you saying that you must be right all the time? As there are a few others on the forum with the same 'advanatage' and if you are in disagreement with any of them then some of us would like to know how we tell who is right. So is it you every time?

Well, I'm pretty certain that your "good rape" case is false and that I can objectively know that I am right w/o measuring anything. How about you?

 

[o_mlly]

Morality is both subjective and objective. It's objective due to the influences of the surrounding environment, our biology, and the experiences we undertake, but it is subjective because the environment, biology and experiences are fluid... See the butterfly effect.
Butterfly effect - Wikipedia

...With that being said, it's okay for one to argue that God has initiated the butterfly effect, and that our current, common morality is based in His wisdom from the beginning.

...One could also argue that it's based in nature.

We can respect both POV's.

Substitute "science" for "morality" in the above opinion and, as stated previously, I'd agree. Either both come to knowledge that can only be subjective or neither do.

 

[VirOptimus]

Substitute "science" for "morality" in the above opinion and, as stated previously, I'd agree. Either both come to knowledge that can only be subjective or neither do.

What is the source for objective morality?

Where is it?

What is it made of?

What is the authority for this morality?

 

[Tinker Grey]

So if I don't do Y, that shows that either I never wanted X or that Y doesn't lead to X? I don't think so.

Naw, dude. If you don't do Y, you either didn't really want X (negation of P1) or getting X doesn't require Y (negation of P2).

 

[Moral Orel]

Naw, dude. If you don't do Y, you either didn't really want X (negation of P1) or getting X doesn't require Y (negation of P2).

So I say I want the physique of The Rock, and you say that if I woke up tomorrow all ripped and sexy I'd be upset about it?

 

[Moral Orel]

We ought to desire the things that we need to be human.

Why ought we do that? I happen to. Some people don't. How do we prove I'm doing right and they're doing wrong?

 

[Moral Orel]

If:
P1: You desire to have X
P2: Getting X requires Y
C: You ought/should/must/(are required to) do Y.

Now, if "you" don't do Y then we must conclude that either P1 or P2 is false. This is an ought but it has nothing to do with "moral" values, per se. One might use this sort of logic for a "moral" X (a thing that one desires).

'C' follows from the logic, but not because X is a "moral" thing.

X may or may not be moral, but it's beside the point.

Looking at the bolded part, if you're using "ought" and "should" interchangeably with "must" and "are required to" I think you're arguing against free will more than anything else. Much in the same way that I might say, "If I add a drop of red food coloring to this glass of water it ought to change the color of the water". It sounds like your argument is claiming we're a slave to our desires. Is that what you're getting at?

 

[o_mlly]

Why ought we do that? I happen to. Some people don't. How do we prove I'm doing right and they're doing wrong?

• We ought to want and seek whatever is really good for us.
• Man by nature desires to know.
• Everyone ought to want and seek knowledge.

A categorical prescription, one that is self-evidently true, is the injunction that we ought to want and seek whatever is really good for us. The self-evidence of the prescription is seen in that holding the opposite -- we ought to want and seek whatever is really bad for us -- is impossible.

Hume was correct in pointing out that from our knowledge of matters of fact about reality or real existence, and from that alone, we cannot validly reason to a true prescriptive conclusion—a judgment about what one ought or ought not to desire or do. Factual knowledge is represented solely in the second or minor premise—the one that asserts a certain fact about human nature; for example, that man by nature desires to know (as evidenced by those who have persevered in this lengthy thread).

The prescriptive conclusion, that everyone ought to want and seek knowledge, does not rest on that premise alone. It rests on that premise combined with the first and major premise.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Looking at the bolded part, if you're using "ought" and "should" interchangeably with "must" and "are required to" I think you're arguing against free will more than anything else. Much in the same way that I might say, "If I add a drop of red food coloring to this glass of water it ought to change the color of the water". It sounds like your argument is claiming we're a slave to our desires. Is that what you're getting at?

Not really. I'm arguing that oughts are a valid conclusion to certain syllogisms.

P1: You want X. (E.g., to start a car)
P2: It is necessary to turn the key
C: You ought to turn the key

The ought follows. But it follows from a subjective premise -- wanting. Given "you want"; given "it is necessary"; "you ought".

Oughts are justified in a conclusion if the premises are true. I'd argue that oughts are NOT justified in a premise. It may be true that a premise in this syllogism is from an ought in the conclusion of some preceding syllogism.

If the conclusion follows from the premises (valid syllogism) and the premises are true (sound syllogism), then oughts can be justified.

 

[stevevw]

Many think that life is valueble, that does not make it "objective".

I think the way we humans uphold human life as the peak of importances we can be justified to make it an objective. At the very least a guide in how to treat humans.

Biologist does not study moral philosophy.

I was pointing out how even in evolution "Life" is important. All areas of science as well as religions make the value of "LIfe" important to preserve and respect.

If it where "objective" there would be no reason to codify it.

Yes there would. Codifying is just writing an existing objective morals into law/code. It lets society know clearly what the standard of behaviour should be. Some laws are underpinned by morals like "Don't Kill" was an objective truth before it was made a law. People know the law before the law was written.

Indeed, and you still havent been able to support any moral facts or truths.

Not in the scientific way that a materialist wants.

I have made the arguement for moral realism. Thats all I can do. People then have to defeat that arguement and so far I havent seen anything that would cause me to doubt my moral intuitions and reasoning that morals are facts, truths, Real.

Better/best for who?

For humans, the ones who think morality matters. If they think it matters then it is right to find the truth of why it matters.

Who gets to decide?

Its decided by logic and rationality. That makes it independent of humans.

How can a better/best be objective when it governs moral subjects? Who has the authority?

The authority is in the weight and value placed in the moral value itself by humans. Humans made "Life" valuable so they live like its valuable which means they have held up that moral value as an objective law or fact. So theythe moral carries their its authority. It is valuable in and of itself.

No, thats patently false. Learn what moral pilosophy is, not your strawman.

You can't keep making unsupported replies to the argument that I have posted. You have made an objective claim in saying "that’s patently false" in fact you’re claiming it’s clear and without doubt that I am wrong and you are right and know the truth of this matter. So technically you are relying on a truth to hold up your rejection of moral "Truth".

I was pointing out that moral disagreement and wanted to improve moral values only makes sense if there is an objective morals to measure them against. To see how much has improved, to disagree to say there is a right and wrong answer. That means the right answer is the moral truth if people are arguing a truth.

We surely can argue about things that isnt objective.

As moral situations matter and we want to find the truth of the matter arguing and a case/proposition would mean there having to be facts, objectives to measure that evidence. If subjective morality is the same as peoples tastes for food I cannot see people arguing because it really matters what flavour is the right one somehow.

Which is the most beautiful car? Who is strongest in middle earth? Who would win in a fight, Darth Vader or Gandalf. All of this can be debated, and quite hotly too.

But all of those examples are implying some objective basis for what is "Beautiful", 'Strongest" and who will win the fight. There will be rationals for why they think one is better.

And I don't think you can really argue something like beauty. Thats a subjective abstract thing. I can't see that it really matters too much if people have different views on whats beautiful. If its subjective and there is no objective to find then why "argue" about beauty because then we are only talking about differences.

 

[Moral Orel]

The self-evidence of the prescription is seen in that holding the opposite -- we ought to want and seek whatever is really bad for us -- is impossible.

It isn't impossible. Some folks seek suicide, they seek to not exist, which would be "really bad for them". Why are they wrong?

 

[o_mlly]

It isn't impossible. Some folks seek suicide, they seek to not exist, which would be "really bad for them". Why are they wrong?

Do they think that suicide is really good for them? If so then the argument holds.

You or I may think their choice irrational (presuming normality in circumstances) as you apparently do by asserting (as I do) that suicide is "really bad for them". In that case the suicidal person is demented and we can dismiss their choice as abnormal and not indicative of human nature.