Is there Objective Morality?

[Moral Orel]

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".

C is true if and only if "You ought to get what you want" is true.

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

That premise isn't subjective. It is an objective fact that I want chocolate ice cream right now.

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.

Now I'm afraid you just aren't making sense to me. Premises and conclusions are just alleged facts. You're presenting the justification for the conclusion with the premises, and you aren't presenting the justification for the premises. That's the only difference.

 

[Moral Orel]

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

??? Ceasing to exist is either "really good" or "really bad". A suicidal person claims it's the former, you claim it's the latter. How do you prove you're right?

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.

I asserted no such thing. Note the use of quotation marks.

If we think they're irrational, then they are demented. That doesn't follow.

I'm okay saying they're abnormal, in that their belief is highly uncommon. You've got to show that they made an incorrect choice based on having a desire for the incorrect thing. Why should we do whatever human nature compels us to do?

 

[partinobodycular]

Well, it's been interesting, but once my posts start to get deleted I know that it's time to move on. No hard feelings. It just harkens back to CAF's flag police, and that's not a situation that I want to be in.

So bye

 

[essentialsaltes]

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

Yep, some people prefer to live and some people prefer to die. Depending on their preferences, actions can be considered good or bad by them. (Because there certainly doesn't seem to be any objective standard that determines that it is one and not the other.)

 

[o_mlly]

I'm okay saying they're abnormal, in that their belief is highly uncommon. You've got to show that they made an incorrect choice based on having a desire for the incorrect thing. Why should we do whatever human nature compels us to do?

Some people are color blind. Does that mean that human nature evolved that normal humans are color blind? No. Some people are born with 47 chromosomes. Does that mean human nature evolved that normal humans would have 47 chromosomes? No. Claiming that outliers, the accidents of nature, such as the demented are evidence against the norm is nonsense.

Now, if you deny the existence of human nature, as I stated earlier, then we're done.

Yep, some people prefer to live and some people prefer to die. Depending on their preferences, actions can be considered good or bad by them. (Because there certainly doesn't seem to be any objective standard that determines that it is one and not the other.)

I repeat: if those people are demented (irrational) then see above. If they are rational then they chose what was really good for them and the argument stands. You can argue with the rightness of their reasoning but not the argument; it still stands.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Some people are color blind. Does that mean that human nature evolved that normal humans are color blind? No. Some people are born with 47 chromosomes. Does that mean human nature evolved that normal humans would have 47 chromosomes? No. Claiming that outliers, the accidents of nature, such as the demented are evidence against the norm is nonsense.

Now, if you deny the existence of human nature, as I stated earlier, then we're done.

The logical conclusion then is that if some peoples' evolved innate moral sense is wrong or broken (sociopaths, for example) that doesn't mean that the evolved innate moral sense doesn't exist in the majority.

 

[Bradskii]

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?

I've already said that I will accept that some of my views are wrong (and it's still interesting that you feel you can tell a man that he has dome something wrong when the wife will insist that he hasn't).

But this is the coupe de grace for anyone maintaining that morality is objective. If all morality is objective then it is not credible that your views on any moral matter just happen to align exactly with every single objective moral acts. You'd be in fact saying that you know the answer to all moral problems. There must be moral acts that are objectively right which you think are wrong. Or vice versa.

What are they?

 

[o_mlly]

The logical conclusion then is that if some peoples' evolved innate moral sense is wrong or broken (sociopaths, for example) that doesn't mean that the evolved innate moral sense doesn't exist in the majority.

Parsing your sentence is a bit of a problem. So, I removed the double negative in the consequent (which does not change the meaning) to read:

If some peoples' evolved innate moral sense is wrong or broken (sociopaths, for example) then that doesn't mean that the evolved innate moral sense doesn't exist in the majority.​

And, I agree.

I've already said that I will accept that some of my views are wrong (and it's still interesting that you feel you can tell a man that he has dome something wrong when the wife will insist that he hasn't).

But this is the coupe de grace for anyone maintaining that morality is objective. If all morality is objective then it is not credible that your views on any moral matter just happen to align exactly with every single objective moral acts. You'd be in fact saying that you know the answer to all moral problems. There must be moral acts that are objectively right which you think are wrong. Or vice versa.

What are they?

I had even more difficulty parsing through the paragraphs in this post. I'll just skip the first paragraph pending some clarification of the point you are making.

As to the second paragraph, it does not follow from a claim that morality is objective that I would know all things moral and immoral -- only that those things are all objectively knowable. The gap between what is ontological and epistemology still holds for morality as well.

"I don't want to go on a rant here but ... Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." (Dennis Miller)​

 

[o_mlly]

I asserted no such thing. Note the use of quotation marks.

?

Some folks seek suicide ... which would be "really bad for them".

 

[Bradskii]

As to the second paragraph, it does not follow from a claim that morality is objective that I would know all things moral and immoral -- only that those things are all objectively knowable.

I didn't ask if you knew all things moral and immoral. I'm asking you for any example where something is, in your term, objectively moral, with which you disagree. And if a fellow Christian disagrees with your position, how do we know who is right?

 

[essentialsaltes]

If they are rational then they chose what was really good for them

Astonishing. They choose what they think is good for them, and I choose what I think is good for me. It seems like we're in agreement that the matter is subjective.

 

[Bradskii]

Astonishing. They choose what they think is good for them, and I choose what I think is good for me. It seems like we're in agreement that the matter is subjective.

It beats me as well. If I were to say 'If they are rational then they chose what was really good for them - therefore it's subjective' or I suggested that 'morality is a construct of the rational mind - therefore it's subjective' then no-one would bat an eyelid. But these are comments being used against subjectivity.

Go figure...

 

[Kylie]

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

Look, if you're just going to be silly, don't bother responding at all.

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[Moral Orel]

Some people are color blind. Does that mean that human nature evolved that normal humans are color blind? No. Some people are born with 47 chromosomes. Does that mean human nature evolved that normal humans would have 47 chromosomes? No. Claiming that outliers, the accidents of nature, such as the demented are evidence against the norm is nonsense.

Now, if you deny the existence of human nature, as I stated earlier, then we're done.

Why did you type this? I agreed it's not normal. Something isn't correct just because its the norm though. So why should we go along with what is normal? Why shouldn't we resist what nature compels us to do?

 

[stevevw]

Moral truth does not mean objective moral truth.

Why not. A truth is something that can be regarded as fact.

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

But killing is a moral issue. Even without the law we can reason that someone killing an innocent person with intent is worse (more severe) a wrong then killing in self defense.

People acting like human lives have value only means it has subjective value to humans.

No it doesnt. Throughout society and nations the value of human life has been reflected in objective terms. In laws, ethical codes, constitutions, Human Rights conventions. These are based on values we make objective and not open to subjective change. They are based on the value of human life being a natural right.

Remember; that which is objective is beyond human beliefs.

Yeah but that doesn't mean humans cannot reason a truth.

Try messing with a cub and see how valuable your human life is to a bear.

Bears don't have morals.

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.

So if you are saying that morals have improved or progressed towards something better then that can only happen if there is an objective basis to measure the improvement or progress.

Under subjective morality it is only about personal preferences and opinions. these things cannot progress towards something betetr. They are just different for what they were before.

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?

It is if we can reason that human life is valuable. Because the rational and logical thinking is what determines the facts or truths of the matter which then help us determine what is the best way to behave morally by measuring what behaviour supports human "Life" being valuable.

Obviously we can say straight off that killing humans for no good reason is objectively wrong. Abusing children instead of caring for their needs is objectively wrong. Some things may be harder to determine than others but that doesn't mean there is a better/best way to behave we can find.

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[stevevw]

And thus man became the sole metric by which all things moral are measured.

That which leads to our continued existence is good, and that which doesn't is bad.

And we call this metric...evolution.

I'm interersted that you use the term metric and use evolution as the measure of what is good and bad. I don't think it follows that anything that helps with survival is morally good as we can then ask why is human survival good and what exactly counts as good. If its only to ensure survival then that logically means any act that helps survival is good including acts we now consider immoral like rape, killing and stealing.

To say that evolution is how morality came about is to limit everything to physical interactions and disregard the non physical. That is why evolution struggles with the social sciences and ideas like consciousness and morality and making humans agents of they own lives and evolution.

Therefore some human behaviour and thinking is not about adaptive evolution but something beyond that. A higher purpose and meaning.

 

[stevevw]

So what!!!

They intuitively know that puppies are cute too. That doesn't make "cuteness" an objective trait.

"Intuitive" doesn't equal "objective".

I never said it does. I said our intuition is a good first point of call to sense when something is morally wrong. So it doesn’t make morals objective itself but it gives a good indication for that a moral wrong. Though some argue that it is objectivity because everyone seems to intuitively know that the same core morals like don't rape, kill or steal, be kind to children rather than cruel, keep promises, don't deny justice ect.

Pointing to intuition as evidence for objectivity is misguided, and continuing to insist that it isn't, is self defeating, because repeating the same falsehoods over and over again doesn't make them true, it only makes you appear irrational.

The ironic thing is the experts who understand this topic including those who disagree with objective morality think moral realism (objective morality) is rational and think there are good reasons to be an objectivist.

Even philosophers who are committed to moral anti-realism think that there are some good reasons to be a moral realist. They don’t think that proponents of objective morality are just confused, rhetorically sneaky, or crypto-theists.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhiloso..._there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/

In fact research done shows that philosophers are more likely to believe a prosposition is it is based on intuition.

First, philosophers tend to believe propositions which they find intuitive. Second, philosophers offer error theories for intuitions that conflict with their theories. Finally, philosophers are more confident in rejecting theories to the extent that they have several (intuitive) counter examples involving diverse cases. I argue that these facts are better explained by philosophers' using intuitions as evidence than by any plausible contrary explanations.
Intuitions are Used as Evidence in Philosophy

Moral intuitions are based on previously processed thinking about our moral experiences and not some feeling or mystical sense. So our moral experience has been tested in the field to show us those moral truths. It is a good first point of recognition in that we sense when something is wrong. We can then investigate further to find the moral truth. But the moral truth often aligns with our moral intuition.

Intuitive decisions are often a product of previous intense and/or extensive explicit thinking.
Explainer: what is intuition?

But I think this article best explains moral intuition
Good intuitive thinking “rests upon a solid knowledge of the subject, a familiarity that gives intuition something to work with” [Bruner, 1960, pp. 56–57]. It involves a holistic perception of the problem, an “immediate apprehension or cognition” (p. 60) without awareness of how the solution was derived and the employment of shortcuts – but which often lead to later rechecking or attempts to verify conclusions. Hence intuitive and analytic thinking are complementary and can be seen as sequential. That is, intuitions involve a tentative ordering of a body of knowledge that leads to testing of validity through analytic thinking.2
Moral Development in the Early Years: When and How

Your argument from intuition has a glaring non sequitur, but I'll give you a chance to defend it. Why should we believe that an intuitive feeling is evidence of an objective truth?

Well I think mainly because its not just a feeling as explained above.

It can also be argued that we use our intuition in a similar way with our physical world. Our intuition of our physical world is experienced through our senses and we have no evdience that "It is what it is" because we cannot get outside our relaity to check.

Yet we live based on those senses like our reality "Is what it is" based only on our intuition of it only. So we are justified to believe that our intuition of the physical world (reality) is a true representation of reality and not some simulation or something.

So why can't our intuition of morality be the same. We get a sense of mroality from our experience and our intuition of morality is the result. I posted this arguement before and yet no one has addressed it but otnly made objections.

 

[stevevw]

You're absolutely right. I started out trying to follow this thread, but eventually it got away from me. So bear with me if I miss the broader context from time to time.


Yes, in the case of:

X + 2 = 4 it can be determined that X is indeed equal to 2. But outside of that equation "X" has no specific value at all. Therefore the numeric value of "X" is relative to the context.

If all we have is X + Y = Z then assigning a value to "X" is impossible. In fact independent of the other variables it has no numeric value at all.

That's the same way it is with morality. If one argues, as o_mlly just did, that good and bad are dependent upon their correlation with "human flourishing", then good and bad become "relative" to that metric.

Just as "X" has no intrinsic value of its own, human acts have no intrinsic value either.

The fact that one has to add a metric to human acts in order to determine their value, means that the value isn't intrinsic to the act itself.

I see it a bit different. Though "human flourishing" would be a part of any objective moral values the value is not just determined by that. A moral truth about "Life"being valuable will have all those qualities of "human flourishing", wellbeing, happiness, peace, survival, transcendence about it but none in themselves cause it to be objective.

It is objective because it is necessarily objective. Humans cannot be humans otherwise. Because we are capable of rationality and that moral situations matter in a way that we have to find the right answer.