Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

So you admit; truth and honest can be ignored?

I never said that "truth and honest" cannot be ignored. I said that they cannot be ignored if you want to have a coherent and meaning discussion in finding the truth of a matter. So you can ignore "truth and honest" but don't expect to have a coherent debate in finding the truth.

The point I was making with lived morality is that people want to find the truth and they don't stop and say I am going to ignore the moral values of "truth and honest". They implicitly value them like they are objective because they want to find the truth and know you cannot do that without treating them as necessarily valuable.

Anything that is objective cannot be ignored by sentient beings. The tree on my front lawn can’t be ignored; it’s existence is objective. It doesn’t matter if your are blind, a beast of the field, a bird in the air if you stand next to my tree, you will be unable to see the sky, if you walk across my lawn, you will be forced to walk around my tree because it's existence is based outside of human or any sentient being's thought. In order for morality to be objective, the same will apply; it has to be recognized by all sentient beings; be it animals, the sociopath, or anyone just in denial; everyone and everything will be forced to acknowledge.

As I have said before morals are not physical/material things so they have no direct physical form like a tree. But even so people do ignore physical things. Like the flat earth society ignore that the earth is round when shown evidence. Or how some ignore that the Nazi killed the Jews in 2nd WW when there is evidence from witnesses and film footage.

But even invisible things like gravity which only has indirect evidence can be ignored when people ignore the fact of math and try to rip someone off by short changing them. It’s the same with morality. It cannot be seen but it has indirect consequences similar to math. People can ignore the moral law not to steal and yet will face the reality of being charged or being ostracized by their friends socially.

If rape (for example) were objectively immoral, this would be as obvious to the sociopath as it would be to the most righteous among us.

That is not a sociopath. They are quite the opposite. Here are some of the traits of a psychopath
superficial charm, poor judgment, incapacity for love, lack of remorse or shame, impulsivity, pathological lying, manipulative behavior, poor self-control, promiscuous sexual behavior, juvenile delinquency, and criminal versatility, among others.1,2
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/hidden-suffering-psychopath

So they would be the least people to think rape is wrong especially of they have a propensity for sexual promiscuity.

If truth and honesty were objective, it would be impossible to ignore the immorality of dishonesty, and untruth, because it would be based outside of human thought.

Then why do peopl,e ignore scientific facts that are outside human thought like people who think the earth is flat when there is objective evidence it is round.

 

[Bradskii]

People can ignore the moral law not to steal and yet will face the reality of being charged or being ostracized by their friends socially.

Oh, so close to getting it, Steve. So close...

 

[o_mlly]

Okay, ...

As in, "OK, the arguments are valid and I agree that rape as defined is objectively immoral"?

... let me ask you a question.

If morality is objective as you claim, then by what measure do we determine if one thing is more or less moral than another thing? How do we determine the moral value of something? If it's objective as you say, then this should be easy for you to answer.

The thread does not debate the degrees of morality or immorality but only the subjectivity or the objectivity in the determination of a human act to be one or the other. Your question would, however, be an interesting new thread. Have we agreed that morality is objective?

 

[o_mlly]

All you have done is try to find an act that we all would consider immoral. And then claim that it's objectively wrong.

If rape is objectively wrong then why the need to define it as 'non spousal'? Are you suggesting that it's context specific?

It appears a basic logic lesson is in order.

B: All swans are white.
O: Here is a black swan.
B: But I want all swans to be white so I won't look at your black swan.
O: G'day.

 

[VirOptimus]

As in, "OK, the arguments are valid and I agree that rape as defined is objectively immoral"?

The thread does not debate the degrees of morality or immorality but only the subjectivity or the objectivity in the determination of a human act to be one or the other. Your question would, however, be an interesting new thread. Have we agreed that morality is objective?

Where is this ”objective morality”?

How do we find it?

Why would it matter?

 

[stevevw]

So we agree that it's always context dependent.

Yes

Let's simplify it. There are an infinite number of reasons why someone might lie. So whether one considers it wrong will be context dependent. From a little white lie to prevent someone's feeling being hurt or to save a life to cheating on a loved one. What you are now saying is that every single example from an infinite set of lies will be either objectively wrong or objectively acceptable. At at one single point it will change from one to the other.

Yes so long as in each case an objectively right things is determined beyond human subjective views and that’s all objective morality is (finding the best objective moral action to take which is not subject to human personal views in each circumstance.

So from your examples you mentioned it would be objectively right to lie to save someone from being killed. A person lying to the Nazi's as to the whereabouts of the Jews they are hiding is a common example. On the other hand it would be objectively wrong to lie to hurt someone. In each circumstance there is no human subjective choice but only an objective moral that determines beyond what is the best moral action. So anyone disputing these objective morals with subjective views is wrong.

What you keep mistaking objective morality for is absolute morality which doesn’t allow for changing circumstances.

Needless to say, I find that nonsensical. Arguing for objective morality is arguing for a black and white world where things are either right or wrong.

Then you have misunderstood objective morality and are mistaking it for absolute morality. IE

This article explains the difference well by using the opposites of objective and absolute morality to see the difference
The opposite of “objective” is “subjective.” The opposite of “absolute” is “relative.” Now very little reflection is needed to see that “relative” does not mean “subjective.” Just because one’s moral duties are relative to one’s circumstances doesn’t in any way imply that they are subjective, that there is not an objectively right or wrong thing to do in such a situation. So the distinction objective/subjective is not the same as absolute/relative.

“Absolute” means “regardless of the circumstances.” “Relative” means “varying with the circumstances.” We can agree, for example, that it is not absolutely wrong to kill another person. In some circumstances killing another person may be morally justified and even obligatory. To affirm that one’s moral duty varies with the circumstances is not to say that we have no objective moral duties to fulfill.

“Objective” means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.” “Subjective” means “just a matter of personal opinion.” If we do have objective moral duties, then in the various circumstances in which we find ourselves we are obligated or forbidden to do various actions, regardless of what we think.
“Objective” or “Absolute” Moral Values? | Reasonable Faith

Heres another article explaining the difference and uses Math as an anology in how certain math equations have varying

Moral Realism: Defined
The part relating to objective and absolute or (universal morality begins at the 4.45 minute mark. It mentions that

Moral realism (objective morality) doesn’t necessarily imply moral universalism (moral absolutism). Many assume if your an moral realist (objectivist) you have to be an absolute moralist and assume unbreakable moral laws. This is the view that some action is always wrong according to a general principle.

For example Just because I am a moral realist it doesn’t mean I'm going to think it is always wrong to kill. Circumstances can be seen to play a role for the moral realist (objective moralist) in interpreting moral actions. For example

The moral realist (objectivists) could say the morally right decision would depend on the circumstances. Not jus based on blantant and sweeping rules.
Just like in mathematics each pat of the equation determines the right solution. Each circumstance will play a role like part of an equation, in determining the morally right thing to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk88sZw4YhM

Lastly this article spells the difference out clearly
Rescher notes moral objectivity differs from moral absolutism. Absolutism is a moral doctrine that claims certain actions are always immoral regardless of the circumstances (Brink 90). Moral objectivity claims the ‘rightness’ of an act is reflective of “the act in question within a wider framework of relevant circumstances” (Rescher 396). Thus, moral objectivity is a doctrine adaptive to dynamic and complex social circumstances.

Thus objective morality takes circumstances into consideration when determining what is morally right or wrong. An example is given to clarify this
To demonstrate how important this difference is, presume a famine is taking place within a small village and one family is hoarding huge stocks of food, more than they could ever hope to consume. In response to these events a small group manages to break into the hoarders’ house and steal the stock of food, distributing it amongst the rest of the villagers and avert widespread starvation. How to morally judge this sequence of events? If the absolutist takes the act of stealing to be absolutely immoral, the action of this group would always be considered immoral regardless if countless lives were saved.

The objectivist does not follow this same dogmatic approach, as the objectivist “can insist that moral facts must vary as morally relevant circumstances vary” (Brink 91). This is a crucial distinction between moral objectivity and moral absolutism, as it shows objectivity takes morality as circumstantial, a key takeaway.

Adopting moral objectivity, not only refutes the problems or fallacies shown in moral relativism, but also avoids the frustrating inflexibilities of moral absolutism – essentially arriving at the best of both worlds.
https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/countering-moral-relativism/

And what gets me is that it's those who are religious claim the right to make that distinction.

I agree there are some dogmatic religions that have a form of absolute morality ISIS comes to mind. But religion does not determine morality. As mentioned we can argue objective morality without specifying any particular god. We only need to show that the source of moral law is based in a rational, perfectly good and necessary transcendent being.

The important point is that objective morlaity is not absolute morality which is a fix and inflexible morality. Even the Christian God was not fixed in his morality and there were times when killing was a morally good and just thing to do.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[stevevw]

It's true, evolution doesn't really distinguish between good and bad, other than to categorize things according to their survivability. If it survives it's good and if it doesn't it's bad. It's we humans who then apply the terms "morally good" or "morally bad" as if there's some higher standard to which we can appeal to justify those terms.

So therefore you are admitting that the idea of morality is an illusion and there is nothing that can truly make or measure moral right and wrong beyond human thinking. So in fact there really are not morals apart from the self created ideas we have tricked ourselfs into thinking are morals.

But the standard to which we're appealing is simply our past, and what has proven over time to be most beneficial to our survival. Societies survive because they're more efficient than the alternatives, and the sense of morality survives because it's the most efficient way to build societies. But there's nothing intrinsically good or bad about things, it's just that "morality" is a way for us to understand intuitively what's most beneficial for us as a society. Our sense of morality has evolved because it helps us survive. It gets us to do what our lesser animal instincts wouldn't or couldn't compel us to do.

That is still admitting that actual morality (the measure of something being morally right or wrong and virtious or not) is an illusion. We are not really measuring morality but efficency and other behaviour that enhances survivability which is really dictated by the environment we live in.

So if in the future the conditions change where survivability might mean killing off, raping or lying to people then this will also be deemed as good because there is no basis for moral right and wrong to begin with. Its only what works for survival. I don't think its a case of looking back to the past to see what works as evolution doesnt work that way. It is dictated by environmental conditions which have no reason to put first as far as what is morally best.

The thing is as population geneticist Michael Lynch has pointed out humans (eukaryotes) are concerned we are the least successful group of species which have more extinction rates and harmful mutations accumulating that all living things with prokaryotes being far more sucessful in multiplying, spreading and surviving. It seems humans are heading for extinction and probably will be the cause of the extinction of all life and the earth itself.
Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

It's our innate morality that distinguishes us from other animals, but its origins are just as mundane and natural as the color of our eyes and the number of our toes.

Maybe thats why humans are so destructive because we detemine what is good and that is often selfish and a form of speciesism.

So if you're looking for a source for morality, it's evolution.

See you make a pretty objective claim there but have not support. Like I said evolution can only explain how morality may have come about. But it cannot explain why something is morlaly good or bad. If its just a chemical process like determining the colour of our eyes then that says nothing about morality as an immaterial thing. Morality cannot be equated to chemical reactions of adapting genes for survival because it more than that.

Indeed, evolution is just a natural process. One which we in our efforts to explain have invoked the divine. We've created God to fill in the gaps of our ignorance, and for that we may well owe Him a debt of gratitude. There may never come a time when we can completely abandon Him, but if He exists, then we should strive to understand Him and not simply invoke Him to mask our ignorance.

The thing humans do act like there are objective morals and objective morality has to come from outside humans. So evolution is not enough to explain morality as that is all within humans. Morality may be like some natural law that we intuitively know of but it cannot be something we made. More likely a truth we discover gradually that are real values that apply to our lived experiences regardless of subjective human thinking.

For argument sake let’s say that morality is merely the product of evolution. The question still remains why we ought to behave in a way that will benefit the survival of our species. Whence does our moral obligation to do what is good for humans come?

Our nature can serve as a proximate foundation for such obligation. Since by nature we are ordered to do good and our nature determined that good for us. But without a transcenental being of some sort beyond humans as an ultimate source for that nature the dictates of our evolved nature ultimately wouldn’t express the intelligence or will of any rational being superior to humans.

If that’s the case, we would have to say that which morally binds us is the by-product of random and chaotic non-rational process.
So unless someone is willing to say moral obligation doesn’t exist one should reject the idea that evolution is sufficient to explain morality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQGxraj3ULg

 

[stevevw]

Oh, so close to getting it, Steve. So close...

lol. So in the context of that quote which you actually quote mined me for lol the explanation is fat from what you are thinking.

I was explaining how morality is explained and supported differently to how science verifies the physical world. My point was people can even ignore physical evidence from science but that doesnt mean there are no objective evidence from science.

Then I said

It’s the same with morality. It cannot be seen but it has indirect consequences similar to math. People can ignore the moral law not to steal and yet will face the reality of being charged or being ostracized by their friends socially.

So do you get the context now. In otherwords just because people ignore objective morals doesn't mean there are no objective morals. So I don't think it was what you were thinking.

 

[Ken-1122]

I never said that "truth and honest" cannot be ignored. I said that they cannot be ignored if you want to have a coherent and meaning discussion in finding the truth of a matter. So you can ignore "truth and honest" but don't expect to have a coherent debate in finding the truth.

The point I was making with lived morality is that people want to find the truth and they don't stop and say I am going to ignore the moral values of "truth and honest". They implicitly value them like they are objective because they want to find the truth and know you cannot do that without treating them as necessarily valuable.

But when it comes to morality, often truth and honesty is not always the right thing to do. With some people, the right thing to do is to lie to them and be dishonest with them. If truth and honesty were objective, it would always be right to be honest but real life situations don’t always work out that way.

As I have said before morals are not physical/material things so they have no direct physical form like a tree. But even so people do ignore physical things. Like the flat earth society ignore that the earth is round when shown evidence. Or how some ignore that the Nazi killed the Jews in 2nd WW when there is evidence from witnesses and film footage.

The shape of the Earth can be demonstrated and proven; all you gotta do is take the person to outer space, and they will see with their own eyes the shape of the Earth.
With historical events like WW-2, though the event may not always be able to be demonstrated today, at one time they could be demonstrated by simply being there when it happened. But with morality, there was never any objective evidence concerning moral/immoral actions.

But even invisible things like gravity which only has indirect evidence can be ignored when people ignore the fact of math and try to rip someone off by short changing them. It’s the same with morality. It cannot be seen but it has indirect consequences similar to math. People can ignore the moral law not to steal and yet will face the reality of being charged or being ostracized by their friends socially.

Gravity can be demonstrated by holding something and then dropping it. Ripping someone off with incorrect change is not to ignore math, it is to demonstrate incorrect math.

That is not a sociopath. They are quite the opposite. Here are some of the traits of a psychopath
superficial charm, poor judgment, incapacity for love, lack of remorse or shame, impulsivity, pathological lying, manipulative behavior, poor self-control, promiscuous sexual behavior, juvenile delinquency, and criminal versatility, among others.1,2
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/hidden-suffering-psychopath

So they would be the least people to think rape is wrong especially of they have a propensity for sexual promiscuity.

A sociopath is a person with antisocial behavior. Rape is often seen as antisocial.

Then why do peopl,e ignore scientific facts that are outside human thought like people who think the earth is flat when there is objective evidence it is round.

The same way someone can ignore the fact that there is a tree on my front lawn! All they gotta do is refuse to look at my lawn, and they will not see the tree. All someone has to do to deny scientific facts is refuse to look at the scientific facts! To deny the shape of the Earth, all they gotta do is refuse to look at the shape of the Earth!

But my point is; if they are willing to look at the scientific evidence, if they are willing to travel to outer space to see the shape of the Earth, if they are willing to go to my house to look at my front lawn, they will see the objective evidence supporting these things. There is no objective evidence, there never has been when it comes to moral issues; that’s why morality is subjective not objective.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It appears a basic logic lesson is in order.

B: All swans are white.
O: Here is a black swan.
B: But I want all swans to be white so I won't look at your black swan.
O: G'day.

Except that what we're seeing is more like:

B: All swans with two feet are white.
O: Here is a swan with two feet. Do you agree that it is black?
B: No. Can you please demonstrate that it is black?
O: It is self-evident.
B: I don't see that at all.
O: But you agreed it had two feet!

 

[stevevw]

But when it comes to morality, often truth and honesty is not always the right thing to do. With some people, the right thing to do is to lie to them and be dishonest with them.

Your changing the goal post of my arguemnet. I was talking about a specific examples and have stated that many times (talk about ignoring things). The example was "seeking the truth of a matter". So "truth and honesty" are necessary moral values for seeking the truth of a matter in a discussion/debate. You are changing the scenario of my arguemnet.

Actually thats a good example of what I am talking about "misrepresenting someons arguement". I cannot claim you are doing that if we dont agree to uphold and value "truth and honesty" in our discussion and our debate would become incoherent and have to end.

If truth and honesty were objective, it would always be right to be honest but real life situations don’t always work out that way.

No thats what called absolute morality. Please refer to the links in my post to Bradskii here #926 at bottom of page.

The shape of the Earth can be demonstrated and proven; all you gotta do is take the person to outer space, and they will see with their own eyes the shape of the Earth.

Those who support a Flat earth have been shown verified footage of the earth from space and they still think the earth is flat.

Members of the Flat Earth Society claim to believe the Earth is flat. Walking around on the planet's surface, it looks and feels flat, so they deem all evidence to the contrary, such as satellite photos of Earth as a sphere, to be fabrications of a "round Earth conspiracy" orchestrated by NASA and other government agencies.
https://www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.html

With historical events like WW-2, though the event may not always be able to be demonstrated today, at one time they could be demonstrated by simply being there when it happened. [/quote] But there is footage just like with satellite photo of the round earth that people can see which are old and genuine photoes of that and and events. Still people disagree and have the view it didnt happen.
Holocaust revisionists claim the survivors of the Holocaust lied about their experiences, that Allied soldiers who liberated the camps exaggerated what they saw, that the films and photos of Nazi atrocities-even those captured from the Nazis themselves- were made up later, that captured Nazi documents were forged, and that confessions made by the accused were coerced.
What is Holocaust Denial?

Its a bit like the Covid-19 deniers. Its a government conspiracy and there is no virus.

But with morality, there was never any objective evidence concerning moral/immoral actions.

Yet you make an objective claim that there is no evidence of objective morlaity. My point was you keep demanding the same type of evidence that science uses to prove objective events yet morality is no proven this same way and even then people still deny physical objective events which doesnt prove there were not physical objective events. Your using a logical fallacy.

I have shown that in a situation where people are seeking the truth of a matter that "truth and honesty"
are necessary moral values that cannot be denied by subjective views and stand independent of peoples opinions about whether they are subjective. Thus it is self-evident they are objective.

Gravity can be demonstrated by holding something and then dropping it. Ripping someone off with incorrect change is not to ignore math, it is to demonstrate incorrect math.

Yes they can be demonstrated but like the flat earth and holocaust deniers people still deny gravity and the logic of Math.

A sociopath is a person with antisocial behavior. Rape is often seen as antisocial.

BUt you said a sociopath would know that rape is wrong and not commit rape.

The same way someone can ignore the fact that there is a tree on my front lawn! All they gotta do is refuse to look at my lawn, and they will not see the tree. All someone has to do to deny scientific facts is refuse to look at the scientific facts! To deny the shape of the Earth, all they gotta do is refuse to look at the shape of the Earth!

Like I have linked above people do see the evidence but they still can see things differently. They have their own way of thinking and seeing things even though the facts are right in front of them. They just deny them because they have determined another truth in their head even though its wrong objectively.

Thats the same for morality. I think you will find if you investigated you will find that most people view morality much the same regardless of culture or society. When you peel back why people have different views of morality I think you will find there are reasons they have determined that motivate their different view. Often it is because they don't want to be held to some law or rule and want the freedom to do their own thing.

Sometimes it’s because of personal reasons which are usually biased because of self-interest etc. Then there are genuine differences through reasoning but a lot of why it is different is because of not understanding the facts of the situation. When they do understand the facts they often come to the same moral view as others.

But my point is; if they are willing to look at the scientific evidence, if they are willing to travel to outer space to see the shape of the Earth, if they are willing to go to my house to look at my front lawn, they will see the objective evidence supporting these things. There is no objective evidence, there never has been when it comes to moral issues; that’s why morality is subjective not objective.

You are refuting yourself by making an objective claim there are no objective morals because there is no evdience while doing the same yourself.[/QUOTE]

 

[Ken-1122]

Your changing the goal post of my arguemnet. I was talking about a specific examples and have stated that many times (talk about ignoring things). The example was "seeking the truth of a matter". So "truth and honesty" are necessary moral values for seeking the truth of a matter in a discussion/debate. You are changing the scenario of my arguemnet.

Actually thats a good example of what I am talking about "misrepresenting someons arguement". I cannot claim you are doing that if we dont agree to uphold and value "truth and honesty" in our discussion and our debate would become incoherent and have to end.

Even though I agree truth and honesty are necessary in a debate, that is my subjective view; as is yours…… unless you have some objective proof. So how about it; can you prove truth and honesty is necessary in order to get to the truth of a debate? Or do you recognize this is just your subjective opinion. And by the way; to be truthful and honest in no way means you will get to the truth of an argument/debate.

No thats what called absolute morality. Please refer to the links in my post to Bradskii here #926 at bottom of page.

It would also be objective mortality if it actually existed. Absolute morality is a thing because there are people who actually might believe this way. For objective morality it would have to be that way for everyone; which it is not.

Those who support a Flat earth have been shown verified footage of the earth from space and they still think the earth is flat.

Footage can be altered; I’m not talking about that. Objective proof would involve taking the person up in a space craft with a window, allowing them to see themselves leave earth and get to a distance where the entire earth is visible with their own two eyes. This would be undeniable proof (unless they refuse to believe their own two eyes)

But there is footage just like with satellite photo of the round earth that people can see which are old and genuine photoes of that and and events. Still people disagree and have the view it didnt happen.

Again; I’m talking about being there to witness it with their own two eyes. The objective evidence was there, they just weren’t around to see it.

Yet you make an objective claim that there is no evidence of objective morlaity.

My claim is subjective; not objective.

My point was you keep demanding the same type of evidence that science uses to prove objective events yet morality is no proven this same way

That’s why morality isn’t objective; because you can’t use objective measures to prove it.

and even then people still deny physical objective events which doesnt prove there were not physical objective events. Your using a logical fallacy.

Only people who do not look at the objective evidence deny objective events.

Yes they can be demonstrated but like the flat earth and holocaust deniers people still deny gravity and the logic of Math.

How do people deny gravity? Do they know what gravity is?

BUt you said a sociopath would know that rape is wrong

IF morality were objective; but it is not.

Like I have linked above people do see the evidence but they still can see things differently. They have their own way of thinking and seeing things even though the facts are right in front of them. They just deny them because they have determined another truth in their head even though its wrong objectively.

How? Please explain how someone can stand 250,000 miles away from Earth and call it flat? Explain how someone can look at scientific proof and deny it? Please explain how someone can stand next to the tree on my front lawn and say it does not exist?

 

[o_mlly]

Except that what we're seeing is more like:

B: All swans with two feet are white.
O: Here is a swan with two feet. Do you agree that it is black?
B: No. Can you please demonstrate that it is black?
O: It is self-evident.
B: I don't see that at all.
O: But you agreed it had two feet!

? I'd suggest a switch to decaffeinated may be in order. What is remarkable in your effort is that it violates all 5 rules of a syllogistic argument. Congrats!

 

[Kylie]

As in, "OK, the arguments are valid and I agree that rape as defined is objectively immoral"?

No. As in okay, I see there is no sense in trying to explain it to you because you keep misrepresenting my position, just as you are doing here.

The thread does not debate the degrees of morality or immorality but only the subjectivity or the objectivity in the determination of a human act to be one or the other. Your question would, however, be an interesting new thread. Have we agreed that morality is objective?

Stop making excuses. Having an objective MEASURE for morality is essential if any claim of objective morality is to be entertained. Don't make excuses as to why this thread isn't the place for it. The discussion about how any objective morality is to be measured belongs here. Now, answer the question.

 

[essentialsaltes]

? I'd suggest a switch to decaffeinated may be in order. What is remarkable in your effort is that it violates all 5 rules of a syllogistic argument. Congrats!

While we can objectively determine whether an object is white or black under standard lighting conditions, without reference to human opinions, when asked to demonstrate the same for moral judgments, you have had no answer. Just petulant demands for agreement.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

Morality is subjective.

Rom 14:22
22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God.
Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves.

 

[partinobodycular]

First, let me say that I love when an argument is both logical and well presented, and yours certainly is as far as I'm concerned. I just happen to have a few disagreements with some of the stickier points.

So therefore you are admitting that the idea of morality is an illusion and there is nothing that can truly make or measure moral right and wrong beyond human thinking. So in fact there really are not morals apart from the self created ideas we have tricked ourselfs into thinking are morals.

I wouldn't really call it an illusion, but you're right, I have a problem with calling it objective.

For instance, in your example of having a coherent debate objectivity is dependent upon all parties having the same intended outcome. Absent that agreement there's no way to determine the best possible course of action.

Now to me this too makes "morality" illusory. Because it's dependent upon the viewpoint of the participants. If they agree about the preferred outcome, then the means by which to achieve that outcome are objective. If they don't, then it's not.

It's that dependence upon the viewpoint of the participants that makes it subjective.

Which is why I throw evolution into the mix, because it's independent of the participants. What they think doesn't matter. Now some people would choose to throw God into the discussion at this point, but to me, evolution works just as well, but without all the accompanying histrionics.

We are not really measuring morality but efficency and other behaviour that enhances survivability which is really dictated by the environment we live in.

Correct. There are certain behaviors that are evolutionarily beneficial. And these behaviors can change over time. The societies that best incorporate those behaviors are the most likely to survive, and from their own viewpoint at least, are also the most moral. Now they may attribute this survival to the grace of God, but it's simply evolution at work, and they're understandably conflating survivability with morality.

So if in the future the conditions change where survivability might mean killing off, raping or lying to people then this will also be deemed as good because there is no basis for moral right and wrong to begin with. Its only what works for survival.

Again...correct. However...even though one may well argue from that extreme, that doesn't mean that that extreme could ever actually occur. Evolutionarily it may simply not be feasible. But if it did occur, then "morality" would simply change to reflect it, and society would embrace the new norm.

I don't think its a case of looking back to the past to see what works as evolution doesnt work that way.

That's exactly how evolution works. What's moral now is determined by what was most beneficial in the past. But if it's not beneficial now, then it won't be moral tomorrow. History is replete with changing morality. "Evolutionarliy beneficial" is a constantly changing standard, although on human timescales it may not look that way.

The thing is as population geneticist Michael Lynch has pointed out humans (eukaryotes) are concerned we are the least successful group of species which have more extinction rates and harmful mutations accumulating that all living things with prokaryotes being far more sucessful in multiplying, spreading and surviving. It seems humans are heading for extinction and probably will be the cause of the extinction of all life and the earth itself.

This may be true. We may indeed be headed to extinction. But it's much more likely that Mr. Lynch is simply using the wrong metrics by which to determine survivability. Evolution doesn't really care what Michael Lynch thinks.

If its just a chemical process like determining the colour of our eyes then that says nothing about morality as an immaterial thing. Morality cannot be equated to chemical reactions of adapting genes for survival because it more than that.

Ah, that's part of the elegance of the human mind, it sees the mystical in the mundane, and perhaps it's better to leave it that way. Maybe it's best that we just continue to believe in the supernatural. Because that may be the only thing that'll prove Michael Lynch wrong. Time will tell I suppose. Meanwhile evolution will continue to do what it's always done, and we'll continue to argue about God, and truth, and morality. It's worked so far.

The thing humans do act like there are objective morals and objective morality has to come from outside humans. So evolution is not enough to explain morality as that is all within humans.

Yes, some humans do act as if morality comes from outside themselves, and I can't say that we're the lesser for it. In fact it's probably true. I simply question whether it comes from God, or just natural selection. But to me, logic suggests that it's the latter.

 

[o_mlly]

No. As in okay, I see there is no sense in trying to explain it to you because you keep misrepresenting my position, just as you are doing here.

? An interrogative does not declare anything. i merely asked you to clarify the "okay" which can mean agreement.

Stop making excuses. Having an objective MEASURE for morality is essential if any claim of objective morality is to be entertained. Don't make excuses as to why this thread isn't the place for it. The discussion about how any objective morality is to be measured belongs here. Now, answer the question.

Oh dear. I suspect yet another deflection on your part. The thread asks, "Is there Objective Morality?" I have answered the question and given arguments in support. Now show where the arguments are illogical and stop deflecting. It's been 312 posts and I have no answer yet.

While we can objectively determine whether an object is white or black under standard lighting conditions, without reference to human opinions, when asked to demonstrate the same for moral judgments, you have had no answer. Just petulant demands for agreement.

Apparently you cannot invalidate the two arguments either. Or do you claim that rape as defined can be moral in certain circumstances? Please do tell us those circumstances. Or do you believe it is moral to cause unnecessary suffering to others for your own pleasure?

 

[partinobodycular]

Or do you claim that rape as defined can be moral in certain circumstances? Please do tell us those circumstances.

In certain local cultures it's deemed perfectly moral to rape a female as punishment for violating the culture's moral codes.

Now you may argue that it's still immoral regardless of what the locals think, but that's just your opinion against theirs.

 

[o_mlly]

In certain local cultures it's deemed perfectly moral to rape a female as punishment for violating the culture's moral codes.

Now you may argue that it's still immoral regardless of what the locals think, but that's just your opinion against theirs.

Do you have citations to support? As I'm sure you know, legal does not mean moral.