Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

But there are no moral facts or objective truths in morality. That is what the data is telling us.

What data.

 

[VirOptimus]

What data.

All of it.

 

[dóxatotheó]

So, tell me, if a person says that they think premarital sex is okay, are they objectively right or objectively wrong?

People can be wrong on what they believe in does not mean they have an moral obligation to argue they are correct . If one believes murdering women is okay, we condemn that person. Since we condemn people, it shows that we presuppose an objective value.

The problem is that you are saying that it is talking about “what is really the case” when I have said that there is no “what is really the case” because morality is subjective!

There is never a kind of culture that had a totally different kind of values. Honesty, courage, cooperation, wisdom, and self-control has never thought to be evil, while things like lying, theft, murder, torture, and selfishness was never thought to be good. Some may have different definitions of them, but all agree on those points.

 

[dóxatotheó]

But there are no moral facts or objective truths in morality. That is what the data is telling us.

What lol? This is absurd. Morality doesn't depend on physical or natural science, but metaphysics, the study of reality or being. Right depends on what is (i.e. animal rights, human rights, etc).

 

[dóxatotheó]

False. People are more convinced by their personal emotions than they are by reason and logic. Hence objective morality.

Emotions are not universal, but are determined by morals and socialisation. Is exactly why its not objective. Secondly, human emotions is more abode from our awareness than morals.

 

[VirOptimus]

What lol? This is absurd. Morality doesn't depend on physical or natural science, but metaphysics, the study of reality or being. Right depends on what is (i.e. animal rights, human rights, etc).

I am a value nihilist.

 

[Moral Orel]

I know we've been through this before. But when someone is looking for ways to achieve a goal, I see no problem in saying: you should use this effective method. Or: you should discard that ineffective one.

Using the word "should" colloquially, I agree with you. I'd say the same sort of thing. But you had to go and call it "objectively true". So unless there's some reason that we're entitled to be un-miserable, it can't be objectively true.

 

[dóxatotheó]

I am a value nihilist.

Nihilism may be better understood as an aesthetic rather than a properly mature philosophical position

 

[VirOptimus]

Nihilism may be better understood as an aesthetic rather than a properly mature philosophical position

No.

Read up on value nihilism.

 

[stevevw]

All of it.

That doesn't make sense in light of what you and other skeptics are saying about what type of evidence can prove if morality is objective or subejctive.

You have continually asked me for physical type evidence for objective morality and have claimed there is none. Yet now you say there is objective evdience that morality is subjective and say its in the data. That doesnt make sense.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes but emotion is hardly a basis for truth or facts... But we all know that basing important decisions on feelings alone can lead to believing false claims. Its all a show. If you noticed the article doesnt deny facts and logic are not important.

None of this has anything to do with what I said in response to your claim that "Logic sways and argument". Logical arguments do not sway people as much as emotional appeals do.

The article is only saying that emotion can create feelings in the recipient that can sway them.

No. The article states that people are more likely to be swayed by emotion than they are to be swayed by logic.

 

[VirOptimus]

That doesn't make sense in light of what you and other skeptics are saying about what type of evidence can prove if morality is objective or subejctive.

You have continually asked me for physical type evidence for objective morality and have claimed there is none. Yet now you say there is objective evdience that morality is subjective and say its in the data. That doesnt make sense.

You really really dont understand the subject.

 

[Moral Orel]

Its not moving the goal points.

It is moving the goal posts. Here are the goal posts again:

But unlike moral values we don't enforce them onto others in normative ways.

I proved that we do in fact enforce our subjective opinion onto others using an everyday example that most anyone can relate to. Adding anything to the statement I quoted above is moving the goal posts.

Admit your claim is false, and then you can reformulate it if you wish.

 

[Moral Orel]

I know we've been through this before. But when someone is looking for ways to achieve a goal, I see no problem in saying: you should use this effective method. Or: you should discard that ineffective one.

Here's how subjective morality works. I acknowledge that the claim, "I ought to be happy" cannot be true. But at the same time the opposite claim, "I ought not be happy" cannot be true either. So because I want to be happy, I like being happy, and I prefer to be happy, I go ahead and assume "I ought to be happy" as a premise.

From that point I can build a complex morality based on outcomes, and consequences, utilizing empathy to normalize my behavior when interacting with other people and when trying to affect the behavior of others. And all of the moral statements I make in regards to this would be objectively true if "I ought to be happy" is objectively true.

Because it can't be objectively true and the only reason I assume it is true is because I prefer that it be true, morality is subjective. But I'm still going to do all of that stuff because I do in fact want to be happy, not because I actually ought to be happy.

 

[Kylie]

People can be wrong on what they believe in does not mean they have an moral obligation to argue they are correct . If one believes murdering women is okay, we condemn that person. Since we condemn people, it shows that we presuppose an objective value.

I've said countless times that we get our morals from the society in which we live, and we live in a society which is damaged when people go around murdering. If we lived in a different way (such as if we were mostly solitary creatures rather than social creatures), we would likely have different moral viewpoints.

There is never a kind of culture that had a totally different kind of values. Honesty, courage, cooperation, wisdom, and self-control has never thought to be evil, while things like lying, theft, murder, torture, and selfishness was never thought to be good. Some may have different definitions of them, but all agree on those points.

There are plenty of cultures who thought being gay was morally wrong, and plenty of cultures who have no problem with it. There are plenty of cultures who think women being equal to men was morally wrong, and plenty of cultures who embrace gender equality.

So you'll forgive me if I don't accept your claim here.

 

[durangodawood]

...So because I want to be happy, I like being happy, and I prefer to be happy, I go ahead and assume "I ought to be happy" as a premise....

Ha. We are so close.

For my sense of objectively derived morality I just need to make one change. It would go like this:
So because I want to be happy, I like being happy, and I prefer to be happy, I go ahead and decide "I am going to be happy" as a goal....

Your "ought" is just an unnecessary seasoning of duty or correctness.

 

[stevevw]

None of this has anything to do with what I said in response to your claim that "Logic sways and argument". Logical arguments do not sway people as much as emotional appeals do.

No. The article states that people are more likely to be swayed by emotion than they are to be swayed by logic.

I am not sure what your point is. I was talking about how when debating it is reasoning and logic that will determine the facts. The facts help find out what is really happening which then help us to determine moral truths. How does appealing to feelings help that process.

 

[stevevw]

It is moving the goal posts. Here are the goal posts again:

I proved that we do in fact enforce our subjective opinion onto others using an everyday example that most anyone can relate to. Adding anything to the statement I quoted above is moving the goal posts.

Admit your claim is false, and then you can reformulate it if you wish.

Normative ethics is about what is morlaly right and wrong and means making rules that force people into a certain behaviour.

When you asked your wife to change radio channel this was a request and doesnt work in the same was a moral norm does. It didnt set a moral standard that she must follow each and every time. It doesn't set a standard that her behaviour was wrong.

 

[VirOptimus]

The point I am making is that when it comes to morality we condemn and protest other people’s moral behaviour as being objectively wrong. In doing that a person is claiming their moral truth should be a truth that applies to others in an objective way.

No, we dont protest at as its "objectivly wrong", why do you keep insisting on this when its a lie?

As has been shown to you, one can have moral stances without saying they are "objectivly right".

Read Nietzsche.

So you’re agreeing that morality functions in a way where people think moral behaviour is either right or wrong.

Morality is about roght and wrong, yes. But that does not mean that its "objective". Whats right for me may be wrong for you.

Yes so we can reason moral facts/truths like we can Math. We can say 2+2=4 and not 5 factually. Just like we can say torturing a child for fun is wrong factually. If someone says torturing a child for fun is morally good that would be like saying 2+2=5.

Math is a formal logical system. Its not like morals at all (or for that matter, data and facts).

Your analogy is just plain, well, wrong and uninformed.

No but its part of finding the facts/objectives. Data breaks things down into manageable bits so we can determine the facts more easily. Data is not subjective, only bits of info that can be used.
You seem to think all human thinking is subjective. We also have critical thinking which allows use to use tools which help us reason and find facts that are outside subjective thinking. Any scientific evidence has to be determined by humans. That doesn’t mean its subjective.

Again, I thing objective/subjective is meaningless terms. Learn what value nihilism is.

So now you are appealing to ad populum logical fallacy. There is a quick and easy way to show that this is wrong. Ask any of those on this forum does torturing a child for fun need a morally right or wrong answer.

You dont understand what not thinking morality is objective means.

And why the emotional arguments if morality now is objective? Shouldnt you use logic and data?

If they say yes then it proves my point. If they say no then they are saying that torturing children for fun is morally OK because we can never say that its wrong. So its self-evident that morality has and needs a right and wrong answer otherwise there is no morality at all.

You really really dont understand the basics of moral philosophy.

Put simply it’s about out right and wrong behaviour. Actually not just actions but intentions about right and wrong behaviour.

And who gets to decide whats right/wrong? By which authority? Can you answer this one and for all.

Then why do these important Declarations and HR Articles for which they hold up as truths for entire nations and the world for that matter which are clearly based and justified on certain unalienable, self-evident and intrinsic values and rights for humans ie,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Human rights are universal and inalienable; indivisible; interdependent and interrelated. They are universal because everyone is born with and possesses the same rights,
They are upheld by the rule of law and strengthened through legitimate claims for duty-bearers to be accountable to international standards.
Human Rights Principles

Again, learn the history behind human rights and why they where codified.

And again, written by humans, by definition not objective.

 

[Moral Orel]

Normative ethics is about what is morlaly right and wrong and means making rules that force people into a certain behaviour.

When you asked your wife to change radio channel this was a request and doesnt work in the same was a moral norm does. It didnt set a moral standard that she must follow each and every time. It doesn't set a standard that her behaviour was wrong.

Yes, it did. She is never to turn the radio to the R&B station when I am in the car.