Is there an objective morality?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

partinobodycular

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
1,856
780
partinowherecular
✟86,416.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
What? This is a bad case of word salad.
Quite possibly, I'll be the first to admit that my reasoning doesn't always translate into coherent arguments. Clarity is a gift that I don't have in abundance.

I did.
This is not the legal forum. You'll have to ask Bradski. He's the expert on legalisms as it relate to sex acts between non-consenting adults.

That's not an answer, that's a deflection.

If rape is only subjectively immoral then there exists a rational person who can demonstrate a "good" rape.

:confounded: That's me cringing again.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,699
10,601
71
Bondi
✟248,952.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Why do you keep trying to run away from giving us the "good" rape case. Your first effort just doesn't make sense.

It made enough sense for you to come to a decision regarding it's morality. And that is was, incredibly, objectively bad.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,699
10,601
71
Bondi
✟248,952.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It's often said in forums such as this that the bible doesn't actually say 'do not kill'. The command is better translated as 'do not murder'. And the difference is obviously important, because killing someone could be done in a variety of circumstances, some justified and some not.

So the trolley problem doesn't ask 'should you murder this person to save five?' Because we understand the term murder to be used for an act that is considered wrong in the first instance. But murder is defined as killing 'with malice aforethought' (with no malice aforethought it's 'unlawful killing').

But as regards rape, there have been moves, fairly recently I think, where the grey areas have been removed. To the point where malice is not included and it has been defined simply as sexual intercourse without consent.

So o_mlly has picked a bad example to use as an example of objective morality because almost all reasonable people would say that a drunken married couple having sex - without her consent (the very definition of rape), is perfectly acceptable (hands up all those that haven't been in that position). Assuming of course that the wife would have readily agreed should she have been able to. So whether it's 'wrong' is entirely up to the subjective view of the woman.

What o_mlly has been doing is looking for an example of an act that we would all agree is wrong and then, and therefore, declaring it to be objectively wrong (and, as we have seen, suggesting that anyone who argues against that must think that the rape is acceptable). He would have been better served by asking if having sex with a woman (or man) against their will could be acceptable in any way.

But note the term 'against their will'. It is crashingly obvious that the act is wrong or not depending on how the person feels about it. It's wrong if she thinks it's wrong and acceptable if she thinks it's OK. When o_mlly asks if rape is acceptable, then what he is asking is whether having sexual intercourse when the woman doesn't want to is ok. If the woman is personally against it (and it doesn't matter if it's a gang of strangers or her husband) then it's wrong. If she's ok with it, it's not wrong. That makes it relative.

And I might note that whether it's a premise or a conclusion put forward promoting objective morality, the question is always asked in some form: 'Surely you agree with this?'

I'm actually being asked my opinion as to whether something is objective?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,699
10,601
71
Bondi
✟248,952.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
How is making a truth claim a fact like that of science. Though its different was in a belief about something both morality and belief are immaterial.

A 'truth claim' is simply stating a fact. My car is red.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,699
10,601
71
Bondi
✟248,952.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
But that you prescribe them as good and bad points to an objective measure. Otherwise their just preferences and we know from preferences that people have a varied preference despite living the same experience.

You're right. They are preferences. Most people prefer to live in a stable society. So that which ensures it's stability we term 'good'.
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

Well-Known Member
May 20, 2021
1,900
259
Private
✟66,497.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It made enough sense for you to come to a decision regarding it's morality. And that is was, incredibly, objectively bad.
I wrote:

If she was raped then the act was objectively bad.

Sexual assault on an unconscious woman is not rape. The law is some jurisdictions may state for expediency that the assault will be treated as a "technical rape" which in its very definition means it's not rape as "attempted murder" is not murder. All jurisdictions do not call a sexual assault on an unconscious woman a rape which proves the point. Even your cohort partinobodycular disagrees with your tortured example of a "good" rape. So, do get back to us when you've got a "good" rape case?

What o_mlly has been doing is looking for an example of an act that we would all agree is wrong ...
At last. I suspect you probably still have most of your own teeth.

Now the debate reduces to the essence of objectivity in claims. If the claim that the earth is spherical is an objective claim (even though not all agree) why is that so? What is essentially different in the epistemology that determines a spherical earth and an immoral act? Both are based on evidence and reason.

Some claim that objectivity is reserved for claims that are only external to human beings themselves. When the subject becomes its own object, there is a greater possibility that bias might impregnate the knowledge. However, just because we can be more objective in observing things outside ourselves does not mean that we cannot objectively observe things about ourselves. Bias, a preference or an inclination, inhibits impartial judgment. If I know bias exists, I should be reasonably skeptical of any all-inclusive claims based on such knowledge. However, if all rational persons agree on a claim made regarding an observation about ourselves (as in the immorality of rape) then we know bias does not exist. An unbiased claim is an objective claim.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,577
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I would disagree. I think that many of our moral biases are formed extremely early in our childhood, both prior to, and through the point that we begin to gain an understanding of language. At this early stage in our development we naturally learn to characterize our experiences as simply being good or bad, and this is reinforced by the things in our environment. But this occurs very, very early in our childhood development, and it's only later that our more nuanced/individual biases begin to emerge.

But those core moral values are so universal simply because they form so early, when our capacity to reason about what's good or bad hasn't yet developed. Our more personal biases may be the result of a more individualized process that starts when we begin to consciously rationalize/categorize our experiences and not merely assimilate them.

So I think that our moral biases are part of that early process of childhood development, while our more individualized biases are the result of later experiences, and that both of them work together to guide our intuition.

Keep in mind, that I'm thinking this through on the fly, so it may not be well thought out at the moment. But hopefully it's coherent enough for you to follow.
I am not sure this all follows. For one when you say the core basics of morality develop very early what do you mean. Because moral intuition is so similar are you saying that everyone had a similar influence and upbringing. In fact research has shown that children don't learn about moral values and they have an innate knowledge of moral right and wrong. So if anything this points to as I have said that humans have a knowledge of morality like its some law of nature.

Also as mentioned intuition is something that forms through experience and not in the first 3 years of life when we are learning language. Intution comes with experiencing moral life and seeing how it pans out. If thats the case and morality is subjective similar to our "Likes and dislikes" for food then because people have such varied tastes for food the same logic would apply to morality.

But we don't see this. Instead we see an almost universal similarity where people intuitively react to moral situations in the same way.

The Moral Life of Babies
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
The Moral Life of Babies
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,577
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You're right. They are preferences. Most people prefer to live in a stable society. So that which ensures it's stability we term 'good'.
But the question is what do you mean by good, as "Good"is not really grounded in anything apart from preferences. So if someone has the preference for living the high life then it would be good to make lots of money and have lots of stuff that makes you happy.

As we have seen that can cause misery for others because there is not enough money and stuff to go around and not everyone is dealt the same cards in life or operates on a level playing field. Or someone may have apreference for actually getting high and will do whatevery to get high including harming others. Even if they believe that they are not harming others a case can be made for their behaviour influencing others negatively or supporting harmful consequences.

Then theres the extreme example of a person having a preference for sexyally abusing others.

There are lots of examples in how preferences for something don't equate to the type of good most people regard morality is. So it doesnt follow.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

partinobodycular

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
1,856
780
partinowherecular
✟86,416.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I am not sure this all follows. For one when you say the core basics of morality develop very early what do you mean. Because moral intuition is so similar are you saying that everyone had a similar influence and upbringing. In fact research has shown that children don't learn about moral values and they have an innate knowledge of moral right and wrong. So if anything this points to as I have said that humans have a knowledge of morality like its some law of nature.

I was definitely not dismissing a genetic component to either morality or intuition, in fact it's quite likely. I was simply attempting to point out that the reason that they're so universal is because they develop so early, and that might well include a genetic component. But even at an early age there are likely experiential factors involved in our developing sense of morality. For example maternal attachment seems to play a key role in early development, and may alter how one views their attachment and empathy for others.

So can we agree that most people begin with a common set of intuitive feelings/morals, and that the reason that they're so universal is because they develop so early?

Also as mentioned intuition is something that forms through experience and not in the first 3 years of life when we are learning language.

Again I would agree. I was simply using the development of language as a point of demarcation between the emergence of our more universal intuitions and that of our more individual intuitions. Learning language is a process who's final form begins to emerge after the age of three.

https://www.verywellfamily.com/how-do-children-learn-language-1449116

  • Beyond 3 years: As they grow, children continue to expand their vocabulary and develop more complex language. Their language use doesn’t completely resemble adult language until around the age of eleven.
Also, this isn't to imply that language and reasoning are the only reasons that our intuitions diverge, but it's definitely a major factor because it allows us to formulate, exchange, and express ideas, which likely plays a key role in the development of our biases, and hence our intuition. However, experiences are probably still the major factor in why our intuitions diverge.

Intution comes with experiencing moral life and seeing how it pans out. If thats the case and morality is subjective similar to our "Likes and dislikes" for food then because people have such varied tastes for food the same logic would apply to morality.

No, as we've hopefully already agreed, our core intuition about such things as morality emerges before the age of three, which is why it's so universal. Our later experiences serve to augment and individualize our intuition, but we tend to call those later modifications biases, not morals. Intuition is simply a surreptitious way of revealing what we already believe. It's not some uncanny ability to discern some deeper truth.

But we don't see this. Instead we see an almost universal similarity where people intuitively react to moral situations in the same way.

Again I agree, but as we seem to have established, this universality is due to the fact that our core intuitions emerge quite early in our childhood development, if not before, so it's no surprise that they're similar. It's little different than our similarity in learning to walk or talk. Being amazed by this similarity is like being amazed that everybody has two hands and two eyes. Childhood development is a universal process that gives rise to a common set of traits, and one of those traits is morality.

But this doesn't make it objective, it just makes it common.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,699
10,601
71
Bondi
✟248,952.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
But the question is what do you mean by good, as "Good"is not really grounded in anything apart from preferences.

Exactly right. I think a few people have been trying to get that across.

There are two reasons why we might call something good. The first, which I've attempted to explain in a few posts is 'that which works'. So stealing is wrong because if everyone stole than then society falls apart. Or rather, it couldn't have got started in the first place. So we have called stealing wrong.

The second is a result of our empathy. So we can put ourselves in someone else's position and think 'I wouldn't want that to happen to me - it would be wrong as far as I'm concerned, so the fact that it's happening to her must also be wrong'. And 99% of the time we'd be right. But the fact that we agree obviously doesn't make it objective.

Just imagine a scenario where you see someone in a situation that you would consider bad. And you attempt to help, but she says she's fine. The situation she is in, as far as she is concerned, is what she wants (it really doesn't matter what the situation is). So is what she is experiencing good or bad? In your opinion it's bad. In her's it's good.

Who decides? You? I'd suggest not. You'd need to find out what she feels about it. If it's a negative experience for her, it's bad. If it's a positive experience, it's good.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,699
10,601
71
Bondi
✟248,952.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It can also be that we need the moral value of "Truth and Honesty" to find the truth of a matter. Its a logical and self-evident fact/truth.

It's context driven. Do you honestly say that the family is hiding in tbe basement? Do you tell the truth? And that's not a hypothetical question - I'd like to know.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Please read the thread title. The answer is binary; its "Yes" or "No". Like the question, "Is the light on or off?" But you avoid answering the question, asking, "Well, how bright is the light?"

No. You have claimed the light is on, I have claimed the light is off. I have just asked you, "How do you propose we measure that the light is on? What measure shall we use?"

You have repeatedly tried to get me to defend my position. Now I am asking you to defend yours and all you can do is make excuses.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

o_mlly

Well-Known Member
May 20, 2021
1,900
259
Private
✟66,497.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
No. You have claimed the light is on, I have claimed the light is off. I have just asked you, "How do you propose we measure that the light is on? What measure shall we use?"
We simply open our eyes (and mind) to see the light.
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

Well-Known Member
May 20, 2021
1,900
259
Private
✟66,497.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Just imagine a scenario where you see someone in a situation that you would consider bad. And you attempt to help, but she says she's fine.
She's at the Birkenhau camp in Auschwitz. She says, "I'm fine. The friendly camp counselors have just told me it's my turn to have a nice warm shower."
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,577
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It's context driven. Do you honestly say that the family is hiding in tbe basement? Do you tell the truth? And that's not a hypothetical question - I'd like to know.
Of course not but its not longer a mora situation about truth and lies. Its about life and death. So the moral value that life is precious or at least worth preserving steps in and takes over as the context for what the the objective thing to do. That is saving life so you have to lie to save lives. If you don't lie you will be complicit in killing the jews hiding in your basement.

So all objective morality is regardless of context because it can change with context at least most of the time as far as I have read. In each context an objectively right or wrong thing can be determined beyond human opinions and this is the best moral action to take.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,577
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Exactly right. I think a few people have been trying to get that across.
OK maybe its my way of communicating that is not getting the message across that I already know this. I keep repeating this link because I am pointing out that its got nothing to do with morality and there is no such thing as morality beyond whoever is expressing subjective feelings about what they think is morality. But thats an illusion. They may feel like its true but its not.

There are two reasons why we might call something good. The first, which I've attempted to explain in a few posts is 'that which works'. So stealing is wrong because if everyone stole than then society falls apart. Or rather, it couldn't have got started in the first place. So we have called stealing wrong.
Ok I think I pointed out that "whatever works" is not any real basis for moral good and bad. So we have a mismatch with morality. It what works doesnt provoke in us the same "what matters" as morality does.

'
The second is a result of our empathy. So we can put ourselves in someone else's position and think 'I wouldn't want that to happen to me - it would be wrong as far as I'm concerned, so the fact that it's happening to her must also be wrong'. And 99% of the time we'd be right. But the fact that we agree obviously doesn't make it objective.
Actually research is showing that empathy is not a good measure of morality because its mixed with emotions. We can choose who to be empathic with and this is usually people we are more prone to support. But empathy can also evoke hateful emotions where you want the opposte for a person.

Paul Bloom argues that empathy is actually a very poor moral guide. He compiles evidence from a range of sources to show that empathy can be innumerate, biased, parochial and inconsistent and can push us towards inaction at best and racism and violence at worst.
Empathy is crucial to being a good person, right? Think again

Just imagine a scenario where you see someone in a situation that you would consider bad. And you attempt to help, but she says she's fine. The situation she is in, as far as she is concerned, is what she wants (it really doesn't matter what the situation is). So is what she is experiencing good or bad? In your opinion it's bad. In her's it's good.
Theres not enough information to go on. Not even sure its a moral situation.

Who decides? You? I'd suggest not. You'd need to find out what she feels about it. If it's a negative experience for her, it's bad. If it's a positive experience, it's good.
Ok I get what you mean. Yes how she feels about a situation is important. But that is different to whether a moral wrong has been done. The two don't line up.

I am having trouble equating a positive or negative experience with a morally good or bad thing. Can you be a bit more specific.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Of course not but its not longer a mora situation about truth and lies. Its about life and death. So the moral value that life is precious or at least worth preserving steps in and takes over as the context for what the the objective thing to do. That is saving life so you have to lie to save lives. If you don't lie you will be complicit in killing the jews hiding in your basement.

So all objective morality is regardless of context because it can change with context at least most of the time as far as I have read. In each context an objectively right or wrong thing can be determined beyond human opinions and this is the best moral action to take.
That which is objective does not change because life is at stake, or for whatever reason you deem necessary. One thing that is objective cannot override something else that is objective; that would be as absurd as saying the objective existence of the tree on my front lawn is overridden by the objective need for sunshine on my lawn thus there is no shade under my tree. If it can be changed when you deem it necessary, that is by definition subjective.
 
Upvote 0