Is there Objective Morality?

[essentialsaltes]

The statement, "No one should rape" is deduced as a conclusion certain from the premises

These premises are assumed. Many people deny the first one. There is no way to objectively determine whether the assumption is warranted.

 

[durangodawood]

So do I.

Dont know about objectively immoral tho. Still trying to figure out the full meaning of that.

 

[o_mlly]

These premises are assumed. Many people deny the first one. There is no way to objectively determine whether the assumption is warranted.

Who are these "many people"? Do they have expertise in the field? Does the opinions of the "International Flat Earth Research Society" throw the spherical earth theory into the subjective realm?

 

[durangodawood]

Who are these "many people"? Do they have expertise in the field? Does the opinions of the "International Flat Earth Research Society" throw the spherical earth theory into the subjective realm?

I think the best you can do for objective morality is make statements like: humans are happier when they dont get raped and live in societies where rape is not allowed. If true, this can be demonstrated to some objective standard.

But I struggle to find a moral rule that has some objective existence on its own.

 

[o_mlly]

I think the best you can do for objective morality is make statements like: humans are happier when they dont get raped and live in societies where rape is not allowed. If true, this can be demonstrated to some objective standard.

No, that's the best you can do. While what you post is declarative and true, it is not prescriptive, ie. there is no ought in it.

Defeat my argument, if you can. I'm listening ...

 

[durangodawood]

No, that's the best you can do. While what you post is declarative and true, it is not prescriptive, ie. there is no ought in it.

Defeat my argument, if you can. I'm listening ...

Following on my post you quoted, would this be enough ought for you?...

"....therefore, if you value happiness, you ought not rape nor permit others to."

 

[essentialsaltes]

Who are these "many people"?

'Pro-lifers' for one.

Does the opinions of the "International Flat Earth Research Society" throw the spherical earth theory into the subjective realm?

No, because the shape of the earth is an objective fact in the world of objective reality. The shape of the earth does not depend on any human opinions.

But moral assumptions are not objective facts that one stubs one's toe against. They are assumptions that vary from person to person. Even if there was complete unanimity of opinion (which there isn't) this does not somehow promote morality into the realm of objective facts.

 

[o_mlly]

Following on my post you quoted, would this be enough ought for you?...

"....therefore, if you value happiness, you ought not rape nor permit others to."

Shoehorned that "ought" in, did you? The restatement is better ... now drop the conditional (it's a given for a rational, emotionally stable person) and you're getting even closer.

I have not made an argument that one is obliged to actively stop a rape. Do you have an argument for the claim?

 

[o_mlly]

'Pro-lifers' for one.

Spare me. That's nonsense.

No, because the shape of the earth is an objective fact in the world of objective reality. The shape of the earth does not depend on any human opinions.

Well, what's good for the goose ...

Because the immorality of rape is an objective fact in the world of objective reality. The immorality of rape does not depend on any human opinions.​

 

[essentialsaltes]

Well, what's good for the goose ...

Because the immorality of rape is an objective fact in the world of objective reality. The immorality of rape does not depend on any human opinions.​

Cameras can take a picture of the earth, and the roundness of it is an objective feature of the image.

Cameras can take a picture of a rape, but the wrongness of it is not an objective feature of the image.

We have no objective wrong-o-meters.

At best, your statement is question-begging.

 

[o_mlly]

Cameras can take a picture of the earth, and the roundness of it is an objective feature of the image.

Do you mean like this photo?

 

[durangodawood]

Shoehorned that "ought" in, did you?....

Not sure what you mean. Does the ought not belong there?

 

[o_mlly]

Not sure what you mean. Does the ought not belong there?

It ought to be enough for me.

 

[durangodawood]

Shoehorned that "ought" in, did you? The restatement is better ... now drop the conditional (it's a given for a rational, emotionally stable person) and you're getting even closer....

The conditional is needed to ground the ought in some objective context. I agree that its a given for typical humans. But its the objective basis that the ought comes from. The ought doesnt live in some contextless moral realm.

....I have not made an argument that one is obliged to actively stop a rape. Do you have an argument for the claim?

Dont want to distract too much. But the social ought (what we permit others to do) emerges from the same place as the personal one. In my words that was: "humans are happier when they dont get raped and live in societies where rape is not allowed" which you agreed was true. This means we ought to outlaw it. As how much personal risk you should assume in an intervention.... I dont know, and I didnt intend to open that topic.

 

[o_mlly]

But its the objective basis that the ought comes from. The ought doesnt live in some contextless moral realm.

I prefer my syllogism that establishes the foundation for the conclusion that is certain.

In my words that was: "humans are happier when they dont get raped and live in societies where rape is not allowed" which you agreed was true. This means we ought to outlaw it.

While I don't disagree with the conclusion to outlaw acts of rape, I don't see an argument to support it. But OK, where are you going with this line of thought? Are you simply claiming humans are generally happier when others respect their rights, eg., they don't get raped?

 

[zippy2006]

I dunno, I think I agree with you mostly, and I don't think there's much of an argument to be had here. Making distinctions by arbitrary differences is a non sequitur. When culture has no effect on the act itself, there's no rational reason to take it under consideration at all. We're on the same page with that.

Okay.

What I'm saying is that if "Only ancient Aztecs should cut off heads" is a moral statement relative to time and culture, then "Only trained professionals should perform CPR" is a moral statement relative to skill level. The first is arbitrary, we agree on that. You seem reluctant to acknowledge that the second is relative in the same sense as the first simply because it isn't arbitrary.

Haven’t we agreed that it is not relative in the same sense as the first, since the first distinction is arbitrary and the second is not?

If different groups have different rules to follow and yet these distinctions aren't arbitrary and follow from reason, then we have objective rules that are relative to who we are speaking about.

In post #365 I argued that using “relative” in such an unrestrained sense is not meaningful, and that on your understanding even absolute moralities would be relative.

My contention is that if you say, “My morality is relative,” your listener will assume you are a moral relativist. If you say, "My morality is relative to who we are speaking about," your listener will assume that you are making an arbitrary distinction on persons or groups. If you say, “My morality is relative to competence or knowledge,” then the listener may well understand you correctly, for you are appealing to non-arbitrary moral factors. But once you go on to explain, “This means that if you aren’t trained in CPR you shouldn’t administer CPR, or if you are not an open heart surgeon you should not do open heart surgeries,” what would your listener think? Would they think that you have made a useful distinction with the word “relative”? Isn’t all morality “relative” in that sense? I suppose I still don’t understand what a non-relative (absolute) morality is supposed to look like.

 

[Ken-1122]

I havnt said that as far as I recall.

You may not have said it, but your views appear very similar to some of those who do say it.

So let me know if I am wrong on this. Under subjective morality if two people are at a table and they have different moral views is each person entitled to their own moral view.

Each person will likely say the other is not entitled to his wrong moral view.

With all things being equal is there something that states when a person cannot have that view.

There may be, but the other person will not respect that which is in place if he doesn’t agree with it; this is regardless of subjective or objective morality.

Does the idea of subjective morality mean that its a personal view of the person. Does that personal moral view say anything about the ultimate truth of morality outside the person or does this view only apply to the person.

Morality does not exist outside of sentient beings; so what do you mean by outside of the person?

If the persons personal view on morality doesn't say anything about ultimate morality

does that mean any personal subjective moral view is just like an expression of likes and dislikes for food.

My dislike of certain foods does not affect other people; my views of morality does so the two can’t be compared.

If that is the case does that mean if two people sitting at the table had different views on chocolate where one person likes chocoalte and the other doesnt are each person entitled to their likes or dislikes for chocolate. If subjective moral views are 'likes and dislikes' and not really about moral values then does that mean under subjective morality there is no moral right and wrong for society in an ultimate truthful kind of way.

Subjective morality is not about likes vs dislikes, it’s about right vs wrong, and moral values.

 

[Ken-1122]

So we agree that universally acts of Dkaih and Saobi are objectively immoral.

I did not say they were objectively immoral, I said they were immoral. Do you know the difference?

 

[TheWhat?]

The fact that we have empathy and a conscious does not make the moral principles of right and wrong(morality) objective, the principles are still subjective and vary from person to person, even the origin of moral principles objectively exists.

Human nature can vary only so much before it is no longer human, and it is not subjective. The claim that the moral senses are subjective is like saying eyesight is subjective -- one's perception is "in the mind" but if it is subject to opinion we are perhaps better off blind.

If we require morality to solve moral problems, and all problems are defined by an objective reality, it follows that all optimal solutions following from all moral problems defined by an objective reality, are also defined by the same objective reality. If all optimal solutions to all moral problems are defined objectively, and we can call this set of solutions an objective morality, then why wouldn't it exist? We may not be able to access it, directly, but its existence is not outside the realm of possibility.

 

[Ken-1122]

See post #419.

Post #419 is you misrepresenting what I actually said. Again; what makes one objective and the other subjective?