Is there Objective Morality?

[essentialsaltes]

So science does not say that there ought to be less carbon emissions?

It does not.

This is one of the many misconceptions about climate change. There are two pieces of the issue.

One piece is that science has unambiguously determined that climate change is real and primarily due to the activities of mankind. Science can also predict with a certain amount of accuracy the consequences of climate change. 'If temperatures rise 2 degrees, the coastline of Florida will look like this.'

The other piece of the issue is what, if anything, society, individuals, corporations, and governments are going to do about it. This is not a scientific matter to be determined by experiment.

I ought to quit smoking for my health. Science says so.

No, this is what the science says:

The other piece is your choice about what, if anything, to do about it.

 

[IWalkAlone]

It does not.

This is one of the many misconceptions about climate change. There are two pieces of the issue.

One piece is that science has unambiguously determined that climate change is real and primarily due to the activities of mankind. Science can also predict with a certain amount of accuracy the consequences of climate change. 'If temperatures rise 2 degrees, the coastline of Florida will look like this.'

The other piece of the issue is what, if anything, society, individuals, corporations, and governments are going to do about it. This is not a scientific matter to be determined by experiment.



No, this is what the science says:

The other piece is your choice about what, if anything, to do about it.

Yes that is what science says. Your response denies scientific facts. Thanks for chatting. Im leaving now. Have a nice day.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Glad we could wrap up that distraction so quickly.

 

[o_mlly]

Which I've said you can nominate yourself.

That's not the way it works. It's your case, you nominate the specifics, not me.

 

[o_mlly]

Something which is subjective depends on what a person thinks about it. So if I decide that something is immoral then that makes it subjective. Something which is objective is objective whatever someone thinks about it. So it's immoral whatever I decide.

You can't 'objectively decide' that something is immoral. If you decide it's immoral then it's subjective.

Does that make sense to you?

No, that does not make sense.

That earth is spherical in shape is objectively true.
That Brad decides that the earth is spherical is subjectively true.

Brad's subjective decision does not render the objective fact to become merely a subjective opinion. It's the "blind squirrel finds nut" kinda logic.

 

[Belk]

A "want" is subjective. Each peoples wants are different. So you have no solid, consistent and truth basis to what a want is to measure things. Someoine may say I don't want to steal, but another may say I want to steal. Who is right or wrong. If there are no right and wrong then that leaves open "wanting to steal as being OK to do". That makes for a open slather society where people can steal from each other without reprise.

A "Want, opinion or preference" is not enough to be an independent measure beyond humans that these things are "Truthfully , Ültimately" and Objectively" wrong to be able to confidently and authoritively say these things are wrong.

Yes, wants are subjective. That is the entire point of the conversation is that if morality is subjective we should expect to see a subjective basis for it.

Yes it is because as explained above'if morals are subjective and theres no objective basis to say something is really wrong to do then people can live out their wants, likes, opinions about morality which could mean anything.

Yes. And as we have seen throughout history morality and ethics change depending on the culture.

Whereas if there are objective morals then at least we can say "No rape is wrong in itself not because you or I say so according to our wants but because its wrong in itself".

Argument from consequence. Morality does not become objective simply because we don't like the implications of it being subjective.

The point I am making is despite all the talk about morality being like "wants, likes, dislikes, opinions, feelings ect we still act like moral situiations matter to the point that we want to make them "Truths" and "objective" more than our subjective opinions and wants. So we act like morals are objective everyday.

You may act like morals are "Truths", I do not. You seem to be equating the idea of enforcement with objective.

Its impossoble to live morals subjectively and ground them at the same time.

I disagree. If you don't think that "We (collectively) don't want to be raped so we have ethics about rape" is not "grounded" then please give me your definition of "grounded" so we can understand the disconnect.

 

[Ken-1122]

But people still hold their subjective views about these demonstrated truths as though their personal views trump the objective facts.

Only the fringe at the level of absurdity do that. Those claiming the world is flat do not represent the normal of society. That which is objective is agreed upon by reasonable people.

Well I have been giving one right through this thread. For example in debates or discussions where we seek the truth of a matter we need to make the moral values of "Truth and Honesty" objective to be able to have a coherent intereaction

People often disagree on what constitutes truth and honesty, yet they have a coherent discussion anyway. Truth and honesty is NOT necessary to have a coherent discussion.

BUt this is based on the premise that everyone involved knows and believes Math is fact in the first place.

Untrue; all that is necessary is that they know what numbers represent. They can believe math is as flawed as the day is long, as long as they can count, I can prove additional equations.

But what Math is measuring are facts about nature that were already there and the Math just reveals how accurate Nature is and not humans. But nevertheless all this method of calculation says nothing about whether Math is a fact. It only describes how Maths works.

My point is, math is a human invention; without mankind there would be no math because it doesn’t have an actual existence outside of mankind.

 

[partinobodycular]

Well I have been giving one right through this thread. For example in debates or discussions where we seek the truth of a matter we need to make the moral values of "Truth and Honesty" objective to be able to have a coherent intereaction.

After giving this some additional thought I've concluded that there's only one thing that's necessary in order to have a productive debate, and it isn't truth or honesty...it's rationality.

We've all been in debates wherein one or both sides are completely incapable of listening to reason. In fact it seems as though most debates fall into this category. In such cases it quickly becomes apparent that having a productive debate simply isn't possible. Because one or both sides will simply dismiss all counterarguments out-of-hand, while continuing to repeat their original premise as if it's unassailable.

One might argue that truth and honesty are necessary components of rationality, but that simply isn't the case, and stevevw has given us the perfect example. When asked if the transcendent cause to which he was referring was God, he chose to sidestep the question by emphasizing that he had never actually made that claim, although it's blatantly obvious that he thinks that the transcendent cause is in fact God.

Now we could argue that sidestepping the question was a completely rational thing to do, because it avoided introducing an unnecessary and possibly irrelevant element to the discussion, with the potential to derail it, and send it off on an unrelated tangent.

So although sidestepping the question rather than answering it directly, wasn't the completely honest thing to do, it may have been the rational thing to do.

It's like your wife asking you if she's fat. Sometimes the honest answer isn't the rational answer.

 

[partinobodycular]

So if someone had the subjective view that "Truth and Honesty" don't matter or count in their debate they cannot have that debate with any coherence. So therefore these morals need to be made objective (untouchable by human views) for it to work properly.

FOLLOWUP:

Quite often truth and honesty lie in direct opposition to having a productive debate. Precisely because one or both sides may "honestly and truthfully" be so convinced that they're right that they become incapable of being rational. And once a participant becomes incapable of being rational a productive debate becomes impossible.

 

[Moral Orel]

OK well its actually the opposite so I don't know how that could be.

I directly quoted you saying "Under subjective morality...should". It is not the opposite. If you want to argue against your opposition you have to understand it first. If you're still saying things like "Under subjective morality...should" then you don't understand what you're arguing against.

 

[Bradskii]

That's not the way it works. It's your case, you nominate the specifics, not me.

It's not very often that someone complains when you tell them that they can formulate their own scenario in situations like this. As you seem unable or unwilling to do so, then ask away. I'll give you any aspect of said scenario you need to enable you to make a decision. Here's the scenario as it stands.

A young girl (let's say she's twelve) is being punished for swearing at her mother. Her father has told her she must go to her room in the basement and stay there for...let's say an hour. I don't see anyone having a problem with that. The size of the room and the heating and ventilation and furnishings are all as you'd expect in a young girl's room. There is access to the basement toilet If you have any question, then I'm here to help, but I'll assume you'd find the father's actions reasonable (feel free to confirm that)

Now the girl is kept in the exact same room, fed and watered, for 10 years. I'll assume that you'll find that objectively bad (feel free to confirm that).

When did it become objectively bad?

 

[Bradskii]

That earth is spherical in shape is objectively true.
That Brad decides that the earth is spherical is subjectively true.

One doesn't decide if a fact is true or not. You can decide to accept the evidence for one proposal over another and you might then believe one way or another. But you can't decide what the actual shape is.

 

[Kylie]

OK sorry I didnt realize that you were waiting. I must have missed that post. What were the 2 acts that you asked as to which was the most moral again.

Any two acts that have different morality.

For example, which is morally worse, stealing a chocolate bar, or hitting a child? If you claim that morality is objective, you should be able to clearly define which is worse and by how much (for example, is the worse act twice as bad as the other? Three times?).

 

[Kylie]

Disappointing, to say the least.

Your inability to answer this question is indeed disappointing.

 

[Ken-1122]

If you kill all the healthcare workers who would take care of you? If you steal you will go to prison. You can objectively decide that its immoral to kill your doctors and steal. Likewise if God exists you can objectively decide that its just as morally wrong to disobey him because its he who gives you life and can take it away.

To objectively decide sounds like a contradiction in terms. Objective means not based on human thought, to decide is based strictly on human thought. Am I missing something here?

 

[stevevw]

I'm not asking to describe objective morality. I'm asking you where this 'grounding' comes from. So again...

Are we talking about information you personally receive in a supernatural way? Do you mean God? Is this revelation? If it is, how do you know it's accurate? If it is, what do we say when someone else says they have it but their opinion on a moral matter is completely different?

If you know what's right or wrong because you have some way of knowing, then if we have any moral problem whatsoever then we can simply ask you. You become the oracle. So if you have some way, then I want to know about it.

If you don't, then your personal views on any moral problem are just as valid as mine. So let us know how you access this grounding. Tell us how you know what is right and wrong.

The ground has to be outside people. So like the grounding for say the fact that 2+2=4 is outside people. Someone can have a personal opinion that 2+2=5 but we can point to the Math fact that this is factually wrong.

So it is with moral facts. BUt in this case they can be seen as realisms. Lived moral situations will have a moral objective that needs to be upheld otherwise the situation is impossible to live out. Or people will act in a way that is morally objective and trying to use a subjective view instead is counterintuitive and unreal to apply. Its the fact that the subjective is impossible to apply and that these morals act like laws that make them objective.

So we cannot point to any specific thing and say thats objective morality. But we can point to these indepedent moral truths/facts that we seem to need, have to apply like laws in specific moral situations. That is why I have been going on about how we cannot find the truth of a matter without making the "Truth" like a moral law. The fact the "TRuth"because a necessary moral is the evidence. Its self-evident. You don't make "truth" an independent moral objective and then you cannot seek the truth.

Lastly the idea that there are no objective morals because they cannot be shown with some knock down evidence is a logical fallacy. Many scientific theories and claims don't have any clear evidence to point to yet this does not mean it is not a fact. Take the beginning of the universe. Take beginning of life on earth. What about consciousness.

 

[stevevw]

Correct.



Correct.



Yes, yes, we get it. Wants are subjective. That's our whole point.

But we all know we all do have wants. But nobody seems to have this hypothetical independent measure beyond humans.

By definition, my assertion that "morality is subjective" is not going to meet your requirement that morality must be objective. Nevertheless, our wants and opinions is what we got, and there's no one to tell us we can't act on our beliefs -- obviously we all do so all the time. And the backers of objective morality have been unable to show us how to access this hypothetical independent measure beyond humans. So it's not as though you have any solid 'grounding' to stand on either. Assuming it's there, out there somewhere, doesn't bring it into existence.

Ye heres the strange thing. Most the the experts, the ones who should know the most about morality seem to support objective morality being something real. And heres the even more strange thing. Most of those who deny objective morality still don't think the supporters of objective morality are delussional in believing there are objective morals. They think that its rational to think there are objective morals. So how is that so.

If you turn the tables and say that it is our wants that determine when someone is morally wrong we would say this was a strange and counterintuitive position to take. So even a negative arguemnet shows that subjective morality is unreal. WE cannot go around telling people they are wrong based on wants and opinions. Applied to food tastes it would be like telling people they are wrong for liking peas and right for liking chocolate.

 

[Bradskii]

The ground has to be outside people.

OK. So to repeat...Are we talking about information you personally receive in a supernatural way? Do you mean God? Is this revelation? If it is, how do you know it's accurate? If it is, what do we say when someone else says they have it but their opinion on a moral matter is completely different?

Answer the questions please.

 

[IWalkAlone]

To objectively decide sounds like a contradiction in terms. Objective means not based on human thought, to decide is based strictly on human thought. Am I missing something here?

You are missing the definition of objective. Notice the word judgment. You can make an objective judgment, IOW decide something.



adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

 

[stevevw]

OK. So to repeat...Are we talking about information you personally receive in a supernatural way? Do you mean God? Is this revelation? If it is, how do you know it's accurate? If it is, what do we say when someone else says they have it but their opinion on a moral matter is completely different?

Answer the questions please.

I have answered it several times but it seems to go over your head. Its self evident because its real and thats what makes it a truth beyond humans and gives it grounding. To say that we need water to live is self evdient and is grounding in the fact that without water we die.

So it is with abstract ideas like moral values. The "Truth" is like water for humans engaging in finding the truth of a matter. Humans need to find the truth of a matter to be humans. Its just a moral realism. Its the fact that "Truth" is an indepedent moral standard that we appeal to like a law and use like a law that makes its a law.

Its in the way that "Truth" is made into an objective moral thus giving it grounding outside humans. Its like Humans become the crown witnesses for objective morality. Then humans cannot through their subjective views deminish the "Truth" otherwise they cannot partake in that noraml human activity without ang meaning and coherence.