Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

That's a valid point. Something could be harmless now but might have harmfull effects later on. Or vice versa. I've no problem with that. But again, if no harm is done then it's not wrong and cannot be described as immoral. Feel free to give any example you can think of that will prove that to be incorrect.

You just acknowledged that harm can be done when a morally right action is done. That already undermines your claim. If we can harm someone for example (grounding your kid) as a disciplinary measure.

Say your son (anyones son) takes your keys and then takes your car out for a drive with his friends for a joy ride. You find out and as a consequence you ground your him as a disciplinary measure to teach him responsibility. To the teenage son he sees this as a harm to his life, his social life, his freedom. He doesnt see the big picture. But the discipline is deemed morally good because it does teach a good lesson in how to be responsible in life which will later be a benefit and even save lives.

It also happens the other way around. Lets say the dad doesnt care and doesnt discipline the son. The son is happy that he has escaped any consequences for the previous bad behaviour. So he feels no harm has been done to him. As a result they go and do the same the following day but this time they and his friends end up in an accident and in hospital. But unfortunately one of the friends was killed.

 

[Bradskii]

Well ultimately to ground morality you need a transcedent source...

It really has me beat has to why there is an argument about this. All the Christian needs to say is that he or she (obviously) believes that God exists so therefore morality is objective. No problem. Thanks for the heads-up. Not that we needed it. It's a given. It cannot be any other way. It's like debating whether the resurrection took place.

We're well over a thousand posts in the thread and as far as I can remember, that's the first time that anyone has said anything about 'a transcendent source'. And hmm...I wonder what that might refer to. Why not simply and plainly say that you cannot have subjective morality without God?

 

[stevevw]

It really has me beat has to why there is an argument about this. All the Christian needs to say is that he or she (obviously) believes that God exists so therefore morality is objective. No problem. Thanks for the heads-up. Not that we needed it. It's a given. It cannot be any other way. It's like debating whether the resurrection took place.

We're well over a thousand posts in the thread and as far as I can remember, that's the first time that anyone has said anything about 'a transcendent source'. And hmm...I wonder what that might refer to. Why not simply and plainly say that you cannot have subjective morality without God?

I been there and done that. It doesnt work. It ends up there is no evidence for God and therefore there is no evidence for objective morality.

 

[Bradskii]

You just acknowledged that harm can be done when a morally right action is done.

I didn't say that. What I did say is that something that appears to be right at the time might turn out to be wrong further down the track. And vice versa. So your argument holds and I have no problem with it. Grounding the son is harming him in a certain way (let's say denying him his freedom) but overall is a good thing because it emphasises his need for self control.

So if an act is morally right then the overall result will be positive, even though there will be a short term condition which we might well agree is wrong.

So the 'rule' if you like is quite straightforward. But there will be problems agreeing between short term pain and long term gain. I accept that. But it's a decision that would need to be looked at in isolation for every individual act. The main problem being that some Christians might say that something might appear to be entirely without harm but...who knows what the future outcome will be (sometimes invoking 'who can know the mind of God').

My answer to that is that if we can't see a bad outcome then it's not wrong. Which is not to say that we might turn out to have been mistaken. But the only cards that we can play are the ones that we have been dealt.

 

[Bradskii]

I been there and done that. It doesnt work. It ends up there is no evidence for God and therefore there is no evidence for objective morality.

Well, we're not trying to prove anything here. Just give our reasons for the positions we hold. And can I suggest that your position is based on your belief on the existence of God.

How can that be argued against?

 

[stevevw]

If morality was absolute, then you'd have an argument. We'd be moving towards that absolute truth. We'd use that as our 'gold standard'. But if a moral problem has an absolute answer then it's not relative to the circumstances and what we individually think of the matter is irrelevant.

Objective morality still has a sort of absolute truth but it’s only for the matter it is being measured for and doesn’t make an universal rule out of that specific context that it was established in. That’s why objective morality can change with context. At no time does it allow for individual human subjective/relative views or opinions. There is always an independent moral right or wrong thing to do in each situation beyond humans.

I think it’s rather the other way around. The individual’s thoughts on morality are not relevant because a moral truth is determined by intuition, logic and rationality to determine what is the best moral action in each context. So for objective morality "the context" plays an important role rather than the person.

I think what you are getting confused about is how a greater moral can trump another moral in any specific context. You are assuming that the moral truth that was trumped creates a new moral standard for that moral. IE we should lie to save a life. The context has now caused the moral truth of saving a life to trump not lying. But that doesnt make lying OK now for all other situations. It only applies to the context it was reasoned for.

But we have decided that it's context dependent.

I acknowledged that it was context dependent if you want to measure different degrees of the same moral act like murder i.e. 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter or in your scenario 2 different degrees of rape in two different situations.

But that is different as you are comparing the same moral wrongs degree of wrongness. Comparing the degree of a wrong is acknowledging that there needs to be an objective wrong to measure the degree of wrong against. That is the issue I keep coming up against that when I apply subjective morality to situations like they are opinions or preferences it doesn’t match what we find in lived moral situations.

Let's go back to the trolley problem. If problems like this are context dependent - that is, we cannot say sacrificing one person is wrong until we know the circumstances, then the circumstances will guide our decision as regards the morality of the act (and we've decided that moral problems are context defined). That means that the number of people that we might save has an objective value. Which is nonsensical.

I don't think it works that way either. There may be other circumstances that need to be taken into consideration. We could go on with scenarios and I am not saying I have the right moral action to every situation. I am saying that we should be able to find an objective moral right or wrong act. It just may not be apparent right away in every situation.

But nevertheless the point is for objective morality it’s not about the degree of wrong about the same wrong but that a wrong has been done or not in the first place. Either way we can say a wrong has been done in the trolly problem whether its 1 life or 5. So all we can do is use logic and rational thinking to establish the best moral act to do. But the fact that all that matters shows that there must be an objective truth to matter about and measure to.

Imagine deciding if cageing chickens is morally acceptable. If there was an absolute morality then there'd be a specific size of cage that is the morally acceptable one. Which is likewise nonsensical. Unless you know the dimensions? [/quote] But saying that it’s too hard or would take a lot of research or it may not be known right now but we may be able to come close in the future doesn’t mean there is no objective truth to be found. If we said the same for measuring the universe that we would assume that there was no objective size or non-size to the universe to be found.

Notwithstanding that if there was an objective value to all moral problems, then how would we know what it is? Revelation? Whose revelation? Yours? Or do you need to pick someone or some group of people that you think has the answer? Can we personally decide, that is - give our subjective opinion, as to who has the objective answer?

All that doesn’t negate that there are objective morals or that there is no morally right or wrong way to behave in moral situations.

No human determines moral truths. As mentioned it’s about intuition in that we act like there are certain morally right and wrong ways to act. So with logic and rational thought we can determine or come very close to determining or have the potential to determine the moral truth.

 

[Bradskii]

But saying that it’s too hard or would take a lot of research or it may not be known right now but we may be able to come close in the future doesn’t mean there is no objective truth to be found.

I'm not saying that it's too hard. I'm saying that there is no answer that doesn't depend on our personal opinions on the welfare of chooks.

 

[stevevw]

I'm not saying that it's too hard. I'm saying that there is no answer that doesn't depend on our personal opinions on the welfare of chooks.

Well thats an objective claim itself which defeats your arguement right away. We could potentially find out what is the best setup for the welfare of keeping chooks that is outside humans such as the right size c ages or that no cages is best or that not keeping chooks in the first place is best. All we need to do is investigate this and find out.

Then no human can come along and say I personally think a cage the size of x is best or that keeping chooks at all is good ect ect.

 

[stevevw]

Well, we're not trying to prove anything here. Just give our reasons for the positions we hold.

See I think this is not really the case that people are not trying to prove anything. Its a case of lived reality vs verbal claims. People act like something really matters and that they want to prove they are right. So I think its a bot more than a casual "Just giving reasons for the position we hold"

And can I suggest that your position is based on your belief on the existence of God. How can that be argued against?

Thats why I don't use God as the reason as there is no arguemnet that can be used to prove or disprove this. ITs a useless arguement for defending moral objectives.

But did you notice your little self contradiction there. You claim that my position is based on a belief in God and yet you also say that this cannot be argued against. Yet you and I have been arguing/debating like you said for over 1,000 posts about whether morality is subjective or objective.

Sounds like we have been having an arguement/debate about objective morality to me. So there must be some arguements to be concerned about if we have been engaging that way for so many posts.

 

[stevevw]

I didn't say that. What I did say is that something that appears to be right at the time might turn out to be wrong further down the track. And vice versa. So your argument holds and I have no problem with it. Grounding the son is harming him in a certain way (let's say denying him his freedom) but overall is a good thing because it emphasises his need for self control.

So if an act is morally right then the overall result will be positive, even though there will be a short term condition which we might well agree is wrong.

I have 2 issues with this logic.
1) You are treating this now like there is some objective measure beyond the kid that someone is using. Thats is sneaking an objective morality in.
2) you said that under subjective morality with your rape example that it was the person who the act was being committed on was who determined if the act was good or bad according to their self percieved idea of whether they were harmed or not. If they say they were not harmed then there was no moral wrong. Likewise if they say they were harmed then there is a moral wrong.

So in this case the dad is determining the kids moral views which is denying the teen his right to his moral views. It sort of negates subjetcive morality based on harm and supports what I was saying that using "harm" as the basis for measuring morality is also a subjective basis.

So the 'rule' if you like is quite straightforward. But there will be problems agreeing between short term pain and long term gain. I accept that. But it's a decision that would need to be looked at in isolation for every individual act.

This is sounding an aweful lot like the way I described objective morality. The fact that the situation has to be looked at and compared and measured logical implies that there is some objective basis that the measuring is compared to.

The main problem being that some Christians might say that something might appear to be entirely without harm but...who knows what the future outcome will be (sometimes invoking 'who can know the mind of God').

I don't just think Christians but it can be anyone making arguements about what "Harm"really is. Thats because its a subjective measure and people see it differently.

My answer to that is that if we can't see a bad outcome then it's not wrong. Which is not to say that we might turn out to have been mistaken. But the only cards that we can play are the ones that we have been dealt.

But the word "SEE" is the key here. SEE as in peoples perception of whether "Harm" = good or bad. Thats what I have been saying so your more or less agreeing with my arguement ie "Harm" is also a subjective measure of morality and therefore doesnt really tell us what is truthfully right or wrong morally.


So therefore its all up for subjective determination. Because there is no objective measure besides what people think then "Harm"could represent anything by the way people "SEE" things. What one person sees as harm another says is not harm. Who knows.

 

[partinobodycular]

Well ultimately to ground morality you need a transcedent source and I don't think evolution created this.

I'm sorry, but I really do fail to see the need for a transcendent source. To me morality is simply our deep-seated predisposition toward socially beneficial behavior. Many social animals exhibit the exact same tendencies, but it's only us humans who possess both the desire and the capacity to try to explain them. And historically, whatever we can't explain via natural means, we try to explain via supernatural ones.

But in the case of morality no such supernatural explanation is required. Morals exist simply because they make human societies possible. There are still gaps in our knowledge for a transcendent source to fill, but explaining the existence of morality isn't one of them.

Overall evolution is just a natural process. The explanations that are attributed to it to account for morality are human proposed ideas and none are verified scientifically.

Remember, I'm an epistemological solipsist, so I can appreciate skepticism. But there's a point where skepticism turns into denial. For example, even if I question the nature of reality, I don't question the existence of reality. Neither do I question things such as the principle of sufficient reason, for if I question reason itself then what hope do I have of understanding anything? But reason tells me that if the world around me evolved, then morality probably evolved too. As did the human need to invoke God. But I see no sense in invoking the supernatural where simply the natural will do.

The point is a moral truth cannot be created by anything material because its not material.

As a solipsist I can appreciate the sentiment, but it's wrong to simply assume what the material world is and isn't capable of. What we refer to as "morality" may be nothing more than a fortuitous genetic adaptation, and our moral predispositions may have a purely physical cause. But once again some people feel the need to invoke the supernatural to explain what they think the natural can't.

Overall evolution is just a natural process... ... It never explains "Why" something is wrong (a proscription).

It absolutely does explain "Why" something is wrong, it's wrong because it leads to a dysfunctional society, and dysfunctional societies don't survive. So evolution has instilled us with an intuitive sense of right and wrong. Then left it up to us to explain why we feel that way.

Morality is more like Math laws that are just there.

Both math and morality are sets of descriptive laws. One set describes the rules by which reality functions, the other set describes the rules by which society functions, and evolution underpins both of them.

The context of a situation can influence the right moral actions because they matter.

Which means that in the right context murder and rape may be perfectly moral acts.

How does evolution do this when evolution has no mind, it has no reason and cannot owe a moral duty.

It does it simply through adherence to the mindless and inexorable law of cause and effect. Evolution doesn't reason out what the best course of action is, because it doesn't need to, it only has one metric by which to decide...will cause and effect lead to it's survival?

For example killing old people when there is not enough resources may be good for survival but its not good morally.

Actually, studies suggest that old people provide social groups with an evolutionary advantage. And evolutionarily speaking, for social groups, empathy is better than apathy. So as a general rule, killing people is a poor survival strategy. The rules don't need to work all of the time, just enough of the time to ensure a species' survival.

So your saying subjective morality is not the same as peoples "Likes and Dislikes".

I don't know why you keep bringing up subjective morality. But it really doesn't matter whether morality is subjective or not. All that evolution needs to do is select for empathy, and an instinctive need for social bonding. Those two traits will mollify, but not eliminate, our more antisocial tendencies, and instill in us an intuitive sense of morality. So although we're free to choose to kill and rape, for the most part our empathetic and social nature compels us not to.

 

[Bradskii]

Well thats an objective claim itself which defeats your arguement right away. We could potentially find out what is the best setup for the welfare of keeping chooks that is outside humans such as the right size c ages or that no cages is best or that not keeping chooks in the first place is best. All we need to do is investigate this and find out.

Then no human can come along and say I personally think a cage the size of x is best or that keeping chooks at all is good ect ect.

I can't believe that you are seriously suggesting that.

 

[Bradskii]

See I think this is not really the case that people are not trying to prove anything. Its a case of lived reality vs verbal claims. People act like something really matters and that they want to prove they are right. So I think its a bot more than a casual "Just giving reasons for the position we hold" Thats why I don't use God as the reason as there is no arguemnet that can be used to prove or disprove this. ITs a useless arguement for defending moral objectives.

But did you notice your little self contradiction there. You claim that my position is based on a belief in God and yet you also say that this cannot be argued against. Yet you and I have been arguing/debating like you said for over 1,000 posts about whether morality is subjective or objective.

Sounds like we have been having an arguement/debate about objective morality to me. So there must be some arguements to be concerned about if we have been engaging that way for so many posts.

What I am arguing against is your secular interpretation of a religious belief.

 

[Bradskii]

This is sounding an aweful lot like the way I described objective morality. The fact that the situation has to be looked at and compared and measured logical implies that there is some objective basis that the measuring is compared to.

'Measured logically'? Who said that?

There are some acts that we will agree on as being wrong (or right). Some others we will disagree on. If a decision needs to be made (perhaps because the act will affect us both) then it will just be harder for each of us to persuade the other that the long term effects are good or bad. Quite often we will simply agree to disagree (like chook cages).

 

[o_mlly]

You really should have taken the fifth...

You really should stop strawmanning.

Officer: "Ma'am, do you feel like you were raped?"
Ma'am: "No! I was enjoying some bondage with my husband!"
Officer: 'Shucks, ma'am. It's just somebody called it in assuming that you were being assaulted'.

? Do you have a point? If, as a matter of fact, no rape then no need to examine the act. Next.

My point is that if the light really is on, then we should be able to measure it.

Likewise, if morality is objective, if you can say "Action A is more morally good than Action B," then you need some way of objectively measuring the morality of each in order to make that determination.

So I'm giving you the chance to demonstrate how this is done.

Only after the act is categorized as moral or immoral does the question of how good or how bad is the act become meaningful. For instance, murder is immoral. If the victim is one's sleeping mother then that murder is an even greater wrong. To give to the poor is a moral act. To give from one's substance rather than surplus is more commendable. Again, note that one cannot comment on how good or bad an act without first categorizing the act. Categorizing, not measuring, the act is this thread's topic.

I presume you pursue this point of measurement because you have a point to make on how measuring determines an act moral or immoral. I'm giving you a chance to explain how that is supposed to work.

 

[Bradskii]

If, as a matter of fact, no rape then no need to examine the act.

And who earlier made the call that the act was wrong? (Call for back up!). I think it was you. But who decided that no wrong had been done? I think it was the wife. It's entirely her call. Well done on calling the boys in blue just in case. But it's her decision.

kinda funny that if she was unconscious and some random guy was groping her then you wouldn't have called them as, according to you, she wasn't being sexually assaulted. But if she's just role playing with her husband then you do.

 

[o_mlly]

And who earlier made the call that the act was wrong? (Call for back up!). I think it was you. But who decided that no wrong had been done? I think it was the wife. It's entirely her call. Well done on calling the boys in blue just in case. But it's her decision.

kinda funny that if she was unconscious and some random guy was groping her then you wouldn't have called them as, according to you, she wasn't being sexually assaulted. But if she's just role playing with her husband then you do.

No, it was not me who called for backup. The one who made the initial call to the police was the same as the one who called for backup -- the one who was wronged, ie., the raped woman. If she was not raped then she never called the boys in blue.

I know this is just your bizarre imagination at work but you must keep it remotely real for others.

? Groping is a sexual assault. All rape is a sexual assault; all sexual assaults are not rape.

 

[Bradskii]

If she was not raped then she never called the boys in blue.

So...it was her decision? I'm glad we've cleared that up.

 

[o_mlly]

So...it was her decision? I'm glad we've cleared that up.

One does not "decide" a fact. I hope that clears it up for you.

 

[Bradskii]

One does not "decide" a fact. I hope that clears it up for you.

If she believes that she has cause for a police complaint then that is the fact of the matter. If she feels she does not, then that is also a fact. If she tells you honestly that she has decided that what happened wasn't wrong as far as she was concerned, then that's a fact. If she tells you that her decision was that it was wrong, then that's a fact.

She's going to decide which. As much as you'd like to determine which course she takes, you have no say. Whether she was asleep, drunk, role playing, married or not, tied up, whether she felt she had said no, but actually wanted it to happen or suggested yes and then changed her mind, whether there was more than one person involved - there's only one person who will decide that what happened was wrong or not as far as she was concerned.

And it's not you. You don't count.