Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

Now your argument has lost me. Even if you can establish that truth and honesty are necessary in a debate to achieve a specific outcome, how does that make truth and honesty either moral or objective?

Because there is no choice but to uphold the moral values of "truth and honesty" as independent moral values when seeking the truth regardless of subjective views. Otherwise you cannot function in any situation seeking the truth and humans want and need to find the truth in debates and discussions.

So because this situation is a norm in human interactions that needs to be coherent "truth and honesty" must hold value in themselves.

I can see how it might make them necessary in very limited situations, but so what. It doesn't mean that they're always necessary, or even preferable.

Its not really limited situations because just about every human interaction is seeking a truth. But it doesnt matter as I only have to show that objective morals apply in 1 situation so I have chosen a specific one (seeking the truth of a matter in debates/discussions) to make it easier to prove objective morality.

It does matter that "truth and honesty" are necessary because otherwise humans cannot interact in these vital situations that help them function as humans.

So your argument doesn't establish that truth and honesty are moral traits, nor does it establish that they're objective. So what's your point?

So for your first objection "that Truth and Honesty are not morals" I have linked evidence before to others on this thread that they are moral values by independent support such as

Honesty or truthfulness is a facet of moral character that connotes positive and virtuous (moral) attributes such as integrity, truthfulness, straightforwardness, including straightforwardness of conduct, along with the absence of lying, cheating, theft, etc. Honesty also involves being trustworthy, loyal, fair, and sincere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honesty#:~:text=Honesty or truthfulness is a,loyal, fair, and sincere.

For your second objection you have acknowledged that the moral values of "truth and honesty" are necessary for that situation. So therefore I have shown how "truth and honesty" are morals and are necessary in a debate seeking the truth of a matter.

Just to make it clear the reason why "truth and honesty" are regarded as objective is because they are necessary to have that type of debate seeking truth. You and I could not have this debate we are having without respecting "truth and honesty" as independent moral values in themselves which are not subject to anyone making them unnecessary through personal views or opinions.

When you buy into my post about seeking the truth in this topic you are implicitly making "truth and honesty" objective because you want a coherent debate. You cannot challenge what I am saying unless you expect I am "Honest" and I don't lie. But you can only expect that if you make "truth and honesty" valuable in themselves as morals which stand alone to rule and guide our debate.

So the moral values of "truth and honesty" being objective is a self-evident fact through the lived morality of yourself and me or anyone participating in a debate/discussion seeking the truth regardless of subjectivity.

Sure you can subjectively reject "truth and honesty" as necessary but you can't have a debate seeking truth. But the fact that people buy into debates seeking the truth all the time shows in reality everyone implicitly elevates "truth and honesty" as objective because they all want to have coherent debates. Thats the "lived morality" as a practical example.

Thats the best way I can explain this as I understand it. I may be wrong but it seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[o_mlly]

So your argument that everybody will agree on the immorality of rape is obviously wrong, because everybody doesn't agree.

That's not, nor has it ever been my argument. It would help the exchanges to move forward if you'd read the posts before throwing in strawmen.

I haven't had time to read all the prior posts ...

 

[o_mlly]

So you've asked for an example when the act would be considered good. And I've given you one. If the woman was perhaps in the throws of divorce and found out that her husband had had sex with her while sleeping then she might well report him and he might well be convicted. But if she's in a loving relationship and finds she's pregnant, then she may well be ecstatically happy.

So, in your imagined and bizarre "good" rape case, how could it be that a couple in a "loving relationship" were simultaneously "in the throws of divorce"? Or, if that "loving relationship" was with someone other than her husband, then is she "ecstatically happy" that she's pregnant or that she was raped?
You've got some serious non sequiturs to work out here. Do try to not make this anymore bizarre then it already is in working these kinks out.

 

[o_mlly]

Still waiting for you to show us how to objectively measure morality.

I assume you have nothing further to offer.

 

[stevevw]

Due to time constraints I'm going to focus on just parts of your post.

What you're describing as intuition others would call bias, and people rely upon this intuition/bias because unsurprisingly it tends to confirm their preexisting beliefs. So yes, it seems as if intuition is a reliable means of judging what's true, when in fact it's probably the exact opposite, it's a deep-seated means of avoiding what's true, or at least avoiding admitting that one doesn't know what's true.
Now we as humans tend to remember the times when our intuition was right, and forget all the times when our intuition was wrong. And then voila, our view of intuition becomes self-reinforcing. We intuitively think that our intuition is reliable.

It's not.

Actually you have got intuition a bit wrong I think. Intuition is not really a biased view of reality. Its a tested and assessed detrmination of our experiences of reality and morality. People are constantly checking, comparing and rationalising experiences and then coming to conclusions subconsciously.

So when situations come up that is counter to our sense of reality we react like it doesn't fit or make sense in that context. And most peoples intuitive determinations are very similar like we all have this ability to sense whats real and what not. In the moral sense real is (moral realism) which is morality is real/truth outside peoples head. So if it was based on personal bias we would all come to different determinations.

So combined with rationality and logic we can be fairly justified in our determined beliefs about reality and morality. Like I said we cannot prove the reality we experience is not some simulation so we rely on our intuition to conclude what we see is real and not a simulation until something defeats that belief. The same with morality. We are justified to believe that what we intuitively experience is real until something defeats that. Otherwise we cannot function in that reality.

Intuition
Moral values and duties are simply self-evidence and intuitive.
If we see a child getting tortured, we don’t think that is how other people see the world and we should move on. No, we all think that must be stopped and justice must be done.
But why, because the idea of moral facts and duties are real and objective, is self-evident and is our intuitive starting point.

This should also be obvious because we do this with every other topic.
For example, we do not assume scepticism for our experience of the physical world unless we are given reason to. It is possible you are a butterfly dreaming you are human but there’s no good evidence to suggest that.

So why accept a skeptical attack on intuition if there is no evidence to support it. Possibility is not probability likewise we do not doubt the intuitive trust of our 5 senses unless we have a good reason to think that one of them has failed us.

So why should we doubt intuitive sense of moral facts unless we are given good reason by moral non-realist to do so. The burden is on the skeptic who wants to argue moral realism is false.

Unless they can give us a good reason that female mutiliation is not objectively wrong that our moral intuitions should be doubted their argument is dead in the water. The skeptic has to mount an argument, not just assume the moral realist must bear the burden of proof and lack any reason to hold to their position.

Intuitions are used as Evidence in Philosophy
Emotions are actually not dumb responses that always need to be ignored or even corrected by rational faculties. They are appraisals of what you have just experienced or thought of – in this sense, they are also a form of information processing. Intuition or gut feelings are also the result of a lot of processing that happens in the brain.
Many take the division between analytic and intuitive thinking to mean that the two types of processing (or “thinking styles”) are opposites, working in a see-saw manner. However, a recent meta-analysis has shown that analytic and intuitive thinking are typically not correlated and could happen at the same time.
Is it rational to trust your gut feelings? A neuroscientist explains

As the above article points out, intuition is a reliable first insight into what is real and true. We then use rationality and logic to confirm things. So when we see a child being abused our first thought is that doesn't sit right. We don't just walk on by thinking "oh thats OK its just subjective morality in action". We know somethings wrong even though we don't even know why that child is being abused which shows subjective morality doesn't come into it.

Put it this way if our intuition is good enough to justify belief that our physical reality is real and not some simulation then its good enough for justifying belief that our moral experience is real and true.

This is where you and I are completely different, I make no such assumption. I am in fact an epistemological solipsist. I try very hard not to make unnecessary assumptions, although in the quest to have meaningful conversations with others a certain degree of assumption is unavoidable. However, I try to keep it to a minimum.

I don't make assumptions either. What I have said is not off the top of my head but rationally and logically determined. Its self-evident and thats why I am confident that this is a reasonable conclusion.

My point...stop relying on your intuition. Stop letting it be self-reinforcing. Always question it, and when doing so always be careful to avoid confirmation bias. This doesn't mean stop being a Christian, it simply means that you should differentiate between what you can know to be true, and what you've simply been conditioned to believe is true.

If you can do that. If you can stop deceiving yourself about what you "know", then you may have a whole different perspective on what it means to walk by faith. It doesn't mean to self-deceive yourself.

Anyway, enough preaching. You're smart enough to figure this out on your own, so forget that I said anything.

I appreciate your input. But as you can see by elaborating on how I have determined my position on this is not only by intuition but also rationality, logic and necessity. But intuition in itself is not as unreliable or biased as you think. Its a good initial way of sensing whats real and true.

 

[VirOptimus]

Actually you have got intuition a bit wrong I think. Intuition is not really a biased view of reality. Its a tested and assessed detrmination of our experiences of reality and morality. People are constantly checking, comparing and rationalising things and then coming to conclusions subconsciously.

So when situations come up that counter that determined sense of reality we act like it doesnt fit or make sense in that context. And most peoples intuitive determinations are very similar like we all have this ability to sense whats real and what not. In the moral sense real is moral realism which is morality is real/truth outside peoples head.

So combined with rationality and logic we can be fairly justified in our determined beliefs about reality and morality. Like I said we cannot prove the reality we experience is not some simulation so we rely on our intuition from our experiences of reality to conclude what we see is real and not a simulation until something defeats that belief. The same with morality. We are justified to believe that what we intuitive determine is real until something defeats that. Otherwise we cannot function in that reality.

Intuition
Moral values and duties are simply self-evidence and intuitive.
If we see a child getting tortured, we don’t think that is how other people see the world and we should move on. No, we all think that must be stopped and justice must be done.
But why, because the idea of moral facts and duties are real and objective, is self-evident and is our intuitive starting point.

This should also be obvious because we do this with every other topic.
For example, we do not assume scepticism for our experience of the physical world unless we are given reason to. It is possible you are a butterfly dreaming you are human but there’s no good evidence to suggest that.

So why accept a skeptical attack on intuition if there is no evidence to support it. Possibility is not probability likewise we do not doubt the intuitive trust of our 5 senses unless we have a good reason to think that one of them has failed us.

So why should we doubt intuitive sense of moral facts unless we are given good reason by moral non-realist to do so. The burden is on the skeptic who wants to argue moral realism is false.

Unless they can give us a good reason that female mutiliation is not objectively wrong that our moral intuitions should be doubted their argument is dead in the water. The skeptic has to mount an argument, not just assume the moral realist must bear the burden of proof and lack any reason to hold to their position.

Intuitions are used as Evidence in Philosophy
Emotions are actually not dumb responses that always need to be ignored or even corrected by rational faculties. They are appraisals of what you have just experienced or thought of – in this sense, they are also a form of information processing. Intuition or gut feelings are also the result of a lot of processing that happens in the brain.
Many take the division between analytic and intuitive thinking to mean that the two types of processing (or “thinking styles”) are opposites, working in a see-saw manner. However, a recent meta-analysis has shown that analytic and intuitive thinking are typically not correlated and could happen at the same time.
Is it rational to trust your gut feelings? A neuroscientist explains

As the above article points out, intuition is not an unreliable first insight into what is real and true. We then use rationality and logic to confirm things. So when we see a child being abuse our first thought is that doesnt sit right. We don't just continue to walk on thinking oh thats OK its just subjective morality in action.

So our intuitive raction is what causes us to stop and investigate. But its because our intuitive reaction is pretty much the same for everyone it doesnt have the hallmarks of bias but some deeply assessed belief that something is wrong. I don't make assumptions either. What I have said is not off the top of my head but rationally and logically determined. Its self-evident and thats why I am confident that this is a reasonable conclusion.

I appreciate your input. But as you can see by elaborating on how I have determined my position on this is not only by intuition but also rationality, logic and necessity.

Where is this "objective morality"?

What is it made off?

How do we find out what it is?

Why does it matter?

 

[Ken-1122]

But how do you tell its not truth and is exaggerated or a lie if you don't have 'Truth' and 'Honesty' as your guide or rule in your scenario.

Because you don’t need truth and honesty as a guide in order to recognize the difference between that which is truth vs false.

If you reject 'Truth' and 'Honesty' out of your scenario you would not be able to tell anything to do with the truth.

You don’t need to reject truth and honesty in order to occasionally lie or exaggerate; everybody lies and exaggerates every now and then; even those who value truth and honesty. Again; you asked for an example of how a discussion can remain coherent without being completely honest, and I provided you an example. So you can quit making those claims of truthfulness and honesty as being a necessary component for a coherent debate. Okay?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Where is this "objective morality"?

What is it made off?

How do we find out what it is?

Why does it matter?

Indeed. From Hogfather:

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
​

Not one particle of morality either.

 

[stevevw]

Where is this "objective morality"?

Hi VirOptimus, long time no debate I sort of missed you. To answer the first question "Where is this objective morality"? I think its important to clarify any assumptions that objective morals have to be something physical. They are not, they are immaterial. So supporting objective morality is going to be different to proving anything physical like the shape of the earth.

What is it made off?

As I mentioned they are immaterial so the evdience is about how they affect people, influence they behaviour.

How do we find out what it is?

Using intuition, rationality and logical arguements. We can test objective morality indirectly by how they affect people and the moral situations they experience. I have explained this in my posts to others if you want to see this.

But a quick example would be the debate we are having. As soon as you choose to reply to my post with an arguement for subjective/relative morality and I reply you will assume that certain moral duties will be present in our debate. Such as I ought not misrepresent your arguements and pretend to refute them. I cannot use logical fallacies and I should be honest and not lie.

You will prescibe moral duties such as those mentioned and that they should be abided by.

But thats my point. Why should they be abided by if morals are subjective. If they are subjective you or I or anyone can just disregard being "Honest" and finding the "Truth" because these morals are now unnecessary and can be discarded.

The point is you and I want to have an honest debate to find the truth of this matter because we ask questions and argue like we want to know the truth. It is reflected in the way people act in debates.

So peoples behaviour is self-evident that certain morals have objective value because they treat them this way. We are implicitly apply and uphold "Honesty" and "truth" as necessary morals to rule and guide people in debates finding the truth. So theses morals are not subject to personal opinions. Its like they are a law, like we need oxygen to breath. Its necessary otherwise you cannot function.

Of course you can reject these morals but if you do we would have to end our debate because we could no longer determine the truth and I could just make stuff up. But because humans engage in discussions seeking the truth everyday we have to treat morals like "Honesty"and "Truth" as objective.

Why does it matter?

It matters for the reasons I just explained. Humans want and need to have coherent and meaningful debates/discussions to find the truth of a matter like we are doing. Otherwise humans cannot function in any meaningful way.

 

[VirOptimus]

Hi VirOptimus, long time no debate I sort of missed you. To answer the first question "Where is this objective morality"? I think its important to clarify any assumptions that objective morals have to be something physical. They are not, they are immaterial. So supporting objective morality is going to be different to proving anything physical like the shape of the earth.

As I mentioned they are immaterial so the evdience is about how they affect people, influence they behaviour.

Using intuition, rationality and logical arguements. We can test objective morality indirectly by how they affect people and the moral situations they experience. I have explained this in my posts to others if you want to see this.

But a quick example would be the debate we are having. As soon as you choose to reply to my post with an arguement for subjective/relative morality and I reply you will assume that certain moral duties will be present in our debate. Such as I ought not misrepresent your arguements and pretend to refute them. I cannot use logical fallacies and I should be honest and not lie.

You will prescibe moral duties such as those mentioned and that they should be abided by.

But thats my point. Why should they be abided by if morals are subjective. If they are subjective you or I or anyone can just disregard being "Honest" and finding the "Truth" because these morals are now unnecessary and can be discarded.

The point is you and I want to have an honest debate to find the truth of this matter because we ask questions and argue like we want to know the truth. It is reflected in the way people act in debates. So peoples behaviour is self-evident that certain morals have objective value because they treat thenm this way. We are implicitly applying and upholding "Honesty" and "truth" as necessary morals to rule and guide people in debates finding the truth. So theses morals are not subject to personal opinions.

Of course you can reject these morals but if you do we would have to end our debate because we could no longer determine the truth and I could just make stuff up. But because humans engage in discussions seeking the truth everyday we have to treat morals like "Honesty"and "Truth" as objective.
It matters for the reasons I just explained. Humans want and need to have coherent and meaningful debates/discussions to find the truth of a matter like we are doing. Otherwise humans cannot function in any meaningful way.

So, you cant give meaningful answers to any of the questions.

Support what this "immaterial" is, and how do humans interact with it?

There is no evidence or data supporting anything "immaterial" affecting anyone. Thats just religion and not philosophy.

If morals are not objective (I dont think subjective or objetive are meaningful terms but thats besides the point) then all morals has to be supported by arguments and see, thats how the world functions. And also, morals should be changing through time and space, and see, thats what we see.

You have not supported "objective morals" in any way or form.

Its just, as usual, religion.

 

[stevevw]

Because you don’t need truth and honesty as a guide in order to recognize the difference between that which is truth vs false.

Of course you do. How can you recognise a lie in a debate if there is no such thing as a lie because you dicard "honesty" as an objective moral value and rule. You no longer have any destinction between a lie and the truth. You cannot ask questions to determine the truth because you don't know if what the person told you was a truth or a lie. It would just be mumblings to each other of meaningless blah blah blah.

You don’t need to reject truth and honesty in order to occasionally lie or exaggerate; everybody lies and exaggerates every now and then; even those who value truth and honesty.

But how do you know that people have exaggerated or lied when you cannot use "Honesty"and "Truth" in your debate. The idea of making "Honesty"and "Truth" as necessary moral values is that they become the guide to expose the lies and truth. But without them there is no spotlight exposing 'Lies" from "Truth".

Again; you asked for an example of how a discussion can remain coherent without being completely honest, and I provided you an example.

You keep misrepresenting what I said. (which is a good example of how "Honesty" is an important rule).

So you can quit making those claims of truthfulness and honesty as being a necessary component for a coherent debate. Okay?

They are necessary because how can you find that the person lied in your example if you don't have "Honesty" and "Truth" as the rule and guide. You want to find out if the person who exaggerated in your example was justified to do so or was trying to gain something or hurt someone with those exaggerations and lies. Or that they were just trying to make an important point about fairness.

So to do that just like in a court we need to question the suspect, shine a light on their story and find the truth. You can't do that without respecting and making "Honesty"and "Truth" a rule and measuring stick to find those lies and highlight the truth.

So its not about someone getting away with lying in your example but being able to expose those lies by using "Honesty" and "Truth" as the rule and gudie that measures what people say.

 

[o_mlly]

Not one particle of morality either.

Not even one graviton either.

 

[VirOptimus]

Not even one graviton either.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[partinobodycular]

Because there is no choice but to uphold the moral values of "truth and honesty" as independent moral values when seeking the truth regardless of subjective views. Otherwise you cannot function in any situation seeking the truth and humans want and need to find the truth in debates and discussions.

Whoa...stop...back up.

You're demonstrably wrong. In perhaps society's greatest example of debate and the search for the truth, at least one side is often, not just encouraged to lie, but actually required to lie. In a court of law the defense attorney is encouraged to present the evidence in a manner that best serves to demonstrate their client's innocence, even if that means being deceptive in the presentation of that evidence...even to the extent of outright lying.

And the defense attorney is required to lie about the guilt of their client even if they know for a fact that their client is guilty.

All this in a forum who's very purpose is to find the truth.

But this isn't only true in a court of law, it's true in many formal debates. For example, when I was in school I was assigned to give a debate on the topic of euthanasia. Unfortunately, I was assigned the task of arguing against it, although I'm actually a staunch supporter of it. So I was forced to be, what I considered to be, intentionally deceptive in my arguments and the presentation of the evidence. This can even mean presenting evidence that one believes to be a complete lie.

Again, all this in a forum who's express purpose is to find the truth.

So no, your argument isn't valid.

I agree with your argument only to the extent that it may be possible to set the parameters of a debate in such a way as to make truth and honesty a necessary condition to achieve the stated goal. However, as demonstrated above, in most instances truth and honesty are not required in a debate seeking the truth.

Now for the sake of brevity I'll end this post here without addressing any of your other points.

 

[o_mlly]

So you've asked for an example when the act would be considered good. And I've given you one. If the woman was perhaps in the throws of divorce and found out that her husband had had sex with her while sleeping then she might well report him and he might well be convicted. But if she's in a loving relationship and finds she's pregnant, then she may well be ecstatically happy.

Eliminating your red herring about being married and divorcing from the victim's profile and applying the same moral logic, we have:

Fred slips the "date rape" drug into Wendy's drink and then Fred and his friends take turns raping Wendy. The police round up the rapists and charge them with the crime. But wait, Wendy found out she's pregnant and she is ecstatic. The police should immediately drop the charges and let those non-rapists go free to non-rape again.
​

Do you really want to push that narrative as a "good" rape?

 

[o_mlly]

What does that have to do with anything?

Ask Tinker.

 

[VirOptimus]

Ask Tinker.

No, I understand his point.

Yours I dont, so again. What does that have to do with anything?

 

[partinobodycular]

So combined with rationality and logic we can be fairly justified in our determined beliefs about reality and morality. Like I said we cannot prove the reality we experience is not some simulation so we rely on our intuition to conclude what we see is real and not a simulation until something defeats that belief.

I'm sorry, but your conclusion that reality isn't a simulation is simply an assumption based upon a bias. This assumption/bias then gets interpreted as intuition.

Please don't fool yourself into thinking that you don't make assumptions, your entire worldview is based on them, as are most people's.

This doesn't mean that your assumptions aren't correct, but as they lack definitive proof, they're still assumptions.

 

[partinobodycular]

That's not, nor has it ever been my argument. It would help the exchanges to move forward if you'd read the posts before throwing in strawmen.

I do believe that I've read them all, but for the sake of better clarity perhaps we should make a fresh start.

Do you believe that there's an age, below which a sexual act constitutes rape, even if it's consensual?

If so, what age?

 

[o_mlly]

No, I understand his point.

Yours I dont, so again. What does that have to do with anything?

What's his point?