Is there Objective Morality?

[zippy2006]

The more important meaning of "objective" is in the epistemological sense. In that sense, objective means facts-based and discovered by an objective method of cognition.

Can you expand on this? You used the term being defined in your definition, so I’m still not sure what you mean by 'objective'.

 

[Aussie Pete]

No, this does not appear to be the case.

It IS the case. It is a recognised illness.

"Gender dysphoria is the feeling of discomfort or distress that might occur in people whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth or sex-related physical characteristics. Transgender and gender-nonconforming people might experience gender dysphoria at some point in their lives."


"Dysphoria is a state of generalized unhappiness, restlessness, dissatisfaction, or frustration, and it can be a symptom of several mental health conditions."

 

[durangodawood]

Well, no. You yourself gave two forms of binding morality. I gave one in post #3. None of these were related to God. In fact, you are the one who brought up God, not me.

Youre right. That was me.

There was no inference. Where were your premises? Where was your inferential reasoning? There was none. It was just an assertion.

We've all seen it before. Dont want to re invent the wheel. If I seems interesting to do so, I might.

We’re talking about God because you brought him up in post #30.

Yes that was me. I did it because I think its misleading to label a faith based divine origin morality "objective".

 

[variant]

See post #2.

Feel free to demonstrate that value differences are always resolvable. Please show your work. I'll wait.

 

[Astrid]

Feel free to demonstrate that value differences are always resolvable. Please show your work. I'll wait.

You will develop dysphagia if you do.

 

[zippy2006]

We've all seen it before.

Yes, and in #33 I said:

Similarly, your claim that, "It's not demonstrable either way," is a pure assertion. It is proposed as objective. It assumes a context (of Protestant fideism). We can presume that the mere assertion would yield to justification upon request. But even if I ask for justification, you provide it, and I remain unconvinced, it does not follow that the claim is unjustified, untrue, or non-objective.​

Yes that was me. I did it because I think its misleading to label a faith based divine origin morality "objective".

And I explained why I disagree, given a particular definition of objectivity.

The religious person has also "seen it all before." As noted, there is a parallel in the way you asserted something you believe is defensible and the way a religious person asserts things they believe to be defensible.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, and in #33 I said:

Similarly, your claim that, "It's not demonstrable either way," is a pure assertion. It is proposed as objective. It assumes a context (of Protestant fideism). We can presume that the mere assertion would yield to justification upon request. But even if I ask for justification, you provide it, and I remain unconvinced, it does not follow that the claim is unjustified, untrue, or non-objective....​

I agree. Justifications dont make reality. They just outline what is reasonable to believe.

 

[Larniavc]

It IS the case. It is a recognised illness.

"Gender dysphoria is the feeling of discomfort or distress that might occur in people whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth or sex-related physical characteristics. Transgender and gender-nonconforming people might experience gender dysphoria at some point in their lives."


"Dysphoria is a state of generalized unhappiness, restlessness, dissatisfaction, or frustration, and it can be a symptom of several mental health conditions."

Can. In the same way that obsessive worry that one will go to Hell can be a symptom of several mental health conditions.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Can you expand on this? You used the term being defined in your definition, so I’m still not sure what you mean by 'objective'.

Existents exist independent of conscious activity (this is the metaphysical sense of concept "objective". consciousness perceives and identifies the facts of reality, it does not create them. knowledge of reality is gained by looking outward at the objects of consciousness and identifying them in terms of what they are and not what one might like them to be (this is the epistemological corollary to the metaphysical meaning of the concept "objective".

The root of objectivity is the primacy of existence principle which identifies the fact that the objects of consciousness have metaphysical primacy over the subject of consciousness. An object is anything which one is aware of or considers. The subject is the conscious knower. The subject is dependent on some object in order to be conscious. The objects exist independently of the conscious activity by which one is aware of them. Objectivity, in the epistemological sense, is the volitional adherence to the primacy of existence in all acts of cognition.

This obviously has far-reaching implications for any system of thought. One's stance on this issue determines the truth or falsehood of one's system. Any notion, idea, or principle which assumes the metaphysical primacy of consciousness is false. All statements of truth or knowledge implicitly affirm the primacy of existence since it would be absurd to say that one's statement is true because one wants it to be. The primacy of existence is an axiom.

 

[Astrid]

Existents exist independent of conscious activity (this is the metaphysical sense of concept "objective". consciousness perceives and identifies the facts of reality, it does not create them. knowledge of reality is gained by looking outward at the objects of consciousness and identifying them in terms of what they are and not what one might like them to be (this is the epistemological corollary to the metaphysical meaning of the concept "objective".

The root of objectivity is the primacy of existence principle which identifies the fact that the objects of consciousness have metaphysical primacy over the subject of consciousness. An object is anything which one is aware of or considers. The subject is the conscious knower. The subject is dependent on some object in order to be conscious. The objects exist independently of the conscious activity by which one is aware of them. Objectivity, in the epistemological sense, is the volitional adherence to the primacy of existence in all acts of cognition.

This obviously has far-reaching implications for any system of thought. One's stance on this issue determines the truth or falsehood of one's system. Any notion, idea, or principle which assumes the metaphysical primacy of consciousness is false. All statements of truth or knowledge implicitly affirm the primacy of existence since it would be absurd to say that one's statement is true because one wants it to be. The primacy of existence is an axiom.

Now try saying that in plain English

 

[Soyeong]

In the thread on mortal force there was a side-discussion about objective morality (for example, see this post). Is there such a thing as objective morality? If so, what is it? If not, why not?

Anyone who answers the question needs to give their definitions of “objective” and “morality.” Once they have set out their definitions they should go on to explain why they believe there is or is not an objective morality. Some starter definitions of objectivity can be found at Merriam-Webster and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

If you want to critique someone’s position you should begin by telling them 1) Whether their conclusion accords with their definitions, 2) Whether you agree with their definitions, and 3) Why you believe their argument is sound or unsound.

Objective morality is a standard of behavior that we ought to live in accordance with it regardless of human opinion, and as such, objective morality is redundant, while subjective morality is an oxymoron. Something can not be true regardless of human opinion while at the same time being subjective to human opinion. There is no way a first person can go from having a personal preference for certain behaviors to establishing that a second person has a moral obligation to act in accordance with the preferences of the first person regardless of the preferences of the second person. One person or group having behaviors that they prefer is not morality without the ought. People can suggest different standards to judge behaviors, such the greatest good for the greatest number or people, or survival of the fittest, but there is nothing that establishes which standard others ought to live by on subjective grounds.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Now try saying that in plain English

Objectivity: wishing doesn't make things so. Subjectivity: wishing does make things so. I can't put it any more simply than this.

You asked me to expand so I tried to give you a detailed response. This is philosophy 101. The issue of primacy is the very first issue in philosophy. It is at the base of all knowledge since knowledge is the knowledge of some subject about some object.

 

[Astrid]

Objectivity: wishing doesn't make things so. Subjectivity: wishing does make things so. I can't put it any more simply than this.

You asked me to expand so I tried to give you a detailed response. This is philosophy 101. The issue of primacy is the very first issue in philosophy. It is at the base of all knowledge since knowledge is the knowledge of some subject about some object.

I feel it's well to eschew obscurantism.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I feel it's well to eschew obscurantism.

Is that what you think is going on with my definition?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Can. In the same way that obsessive worry that one will go to Hell can be a symptom of several mental health conditions.

The average person is bombarded with "you must trust the science". That is used to promote measures to reduce global warming, to promote the use of vaccines and to promote the idea that we evolved from slime in a puddle somewhere. Yet when it comes to human biology, suddenly science is no longer relevant. Not only is it OK for children to choose their gender, in some places it is a criminal offence to try and talk them out of it. It's not only the gender confused who are mentally ill. It is the nut jobs who facilitate their fantasies.

There are some worries that are justified. If you see a tornado bearing down on your car, you are right to be concerned. It's not dysphoria. It's reality. The fear of hell is justified. Some people go outside their homes to watch a tornado. Others go and hide in the shelter. Who is the smart one?

 

[Larniavc]

The fear of hell is justified.

Not for me. And that’s what is important, here: the things we find important are subjective and to insist that other people only worry about the things YOU find important is the very height of hubris (and a cardinal symptom of obsessive compulsive personality disorder).

 

[Astrid]

The average person is bombarded with "you must trust the science". That is used to promote measures to reduce global warming, to promote the use of vaccines and to promote the idea that we evolved from slime in a puddle somewhere. Yet when it comes to human biology, suddenly science is no longer relevant. Not only is it OK for children to choose their gender, in some places it is a criminal offence to try and talk them out of it. It's not only the gender confused who are mentally ill. It is the nut jobs who facilitate their fantasies.

There are some worries that are justified. If you see a tornado bearing down on your car, you are right to be concerned. It's not dysphoria. It's reality. The fear of hell is justified. Some people go outside their homes to watch a tornado. Others go and hide in the shelter. Who is the smart one?

This picture illustrates the Islamic belief of what
awaits me for having gone about in public with
my hair uncovered.
Is terror of this future justified?

Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Muhammad_and_%22shameless_women%22_in_Hell.jpg/290px-Muhammad_and_%22shameless_women%22_in_Hell.jpg

 

[Aussie Pete]

This picture illustrates the Islamic belief of what
awaits me for having gone about in public with
my hair uncovered.
Is terror of this future justified?

Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Muhammad_and_%22shameless_women%22_in_Hell.jpg/290px-Muhammad_and_%22shameless_women%22_in_Hell.jpg

For Christians, no. We may suffer and be killed because of our faith, but we have a far better life to come. For unbelievers, it is going to be worse than anything they can imagine. I can't imagine China becoming a Muslim country. That would put the communist party out of business. So you should be safe in Hong Kong. For now.

I don't know when God will say "enough" to the people on the earth. Life is getting more and more difficult for most people. Everything seems against us. The weather, disease, political upheaval and unrest and governments becoming more and more authoritarian. There are water shortages in many countries. China is becoming more aggressive while the USA is declining in power and influence.

This is a great time to receive Christ as Saviour and Lord. I'm 70 and I need Jesus more than I did 50 years ago when I was first saved. He's never let me down, even in times of terrible trouble, illness and when all seemed lost. I owe Him my life, literally. Lord Jesus will defeat everyone and everything that resists His rule and reign. Everyone will call Him Lord one day. Why not now, by choice, instead of later, because you must?

 

[Astrid]

For Christians, no. We may suffer and be killed because of our faith, but we have a far better life to come. For unbelievers, it is going to be worse than anything they can imagine. I can't imagine China becoming a Muslim country. That would put the communist party out of business. So you should be safe in Hong Kong. For now.

I don't know when God will say "enough" to the people on the earth. Life is getting more and more difficult for most people. Everything seems against us. The weather, disease, political upheaval and unrest and governments becoming more and more authoritarian. There are water shortages in many countries. China is becoming more aggressive while the USA is declining in power and influence.

This is a great time to receive Christ as Saviour and Lord. I'm 70 and I need Jesus more than I did 50 years ago when I was first saved. He's never let me down, even in times of terrible trouble, illness and when all seemed lost. I owe Him my life, literally. Lord Jesus will defeat everyone and everything that resists His rule and reign. Everyone will call Him Lord one day. Why not now, by choice, instead of later, because you must?

If the Muslims are right then I get to hang by my
hair in eternal fire.
You think you are right, and I get something else.
Is there a Pascal- wager to cover both?

 

[Whyayeman]

Ooh! Interesting.

I have always felt that there is an objective morality - and I am well aware of the absurdity of this. So I will read on, quietly...