Is there Objective Morality?

[VirOptimus]

We can't really say whose authority as the morals stand on their own authority as humans make them.

Humans make the morals? Or what do you mean?

 

[Bradskii]

...morals stand on their own authority as humans make them.

I really have to give this thread up.

 

[VirOptimus]

I really have to give this thread up.

I think its incredibly funny.

 

[Bradskii]

I think its incredibly funny.

It's like a slo mo car wreck.

 

[stevevw]

Excuses, excuses.

No one ever has to say, "It depends on the details," when it comes to measuring the diameter of the moon, the density of a block of metal, or any number of other objective things.

Yes they do all the time. What about the Flat Earth Society, consciousness, QM. What about "Trumps" election as it was pointed out to me where some believed he won the election even though it was objectively clear he din't in reality. These have objective determinations but still people see them differently based on their opinion, views, feelings.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes they do all the time. What about the Flat Earth Society, consciousness, QM. What about "Trumps" election as it was pointed out to me where some believed he won the election even though it was objectively clear he din't in reality. These have objective determinations but still people see them differently based on their opinion, views, feelings.

But you havent showed any support for morals existing independently from moral agents.

 

[stevevw]

Of course there is a better way to behave; but that is not the question! The question is which behavior is worse? Why can't you just answer the question?

Because I just answered it. Both acts are wrong and worst. We should not have to choose which moral is worse between them unless we are in a moral situation where they clash. BUt I cannot think of one.

Like I said each act (stealing and assaulting) can be determined as morally right or wrong in the situations they happen in. They should not be compared in that way. You can compare say as Bradskii has exampled different degrees of killing. But that is comparing the same moral with itself and not other moral situations.

If I am in a situation where stealing is involved what relevance has the degree of assaulting a child got to do with the fact that I am experiencing a "Stealing situation". While in the stealing situation "Stealing" is the worst behaviour. While in the child assault situation "Assault" is the worst choice behaviour. Stealing doesnt come into it and we would be totalling out of synch with reasoning why assault is the least best behaviour to do.

We could intuitively say child assault is worse. But then we would have to reason if this is the case. And I think any rational conclusion would be as I mentioned that each situation needs to be judged for itself and not compared in a way that collerates two completely different moral scenarios.

 

[stevevw]

But you havent showed any support for morals existing independently from moral agents.

Ok let me ask a question. Do you think that we can make rational and logical arguements for truths/facts/realness epistemically.

 

[VirOptimus]

Because I just answered it. Both acts are wrong and worst. We should not have to choose which moral is worse between them unless we are in a moral situation where they clash. BUt I cannot think of one.

Like I said each act (stealing and assaulting) can be determined as morally right or wrong in the situations they happen in. They should not be compared in that way. You can compare say as Bradskii has exampled different degrees of killing. But that is comparing the same moral with itself and not other moral situations.

If I am in a situation where stealing is involved what relevance has the degree of assaulting a child got to do with the fact that I am experiencing a "Stealing situation". While in the stealing situation "Stealing" is the worst behaviour. While in the child assault situation "Assault" is the worst choice behaviour. Stealing doesnt come into it and we would be totalling out of synch with reasoning why assault is the least best behaviour to do.

We could intuitively say child assault is worse. But then we would have to reason if this is the case. And I think any rational conclusion would be as I mentioned that each situation needs to be judged for itself and not compared in a way that collerates two completely different moral scenarios.

As you say that morals are knowable and that one can reason what is the "objective right" I'll give you a few scenarios, feel free to answer all or some of them and explain what is objectivly morally right or wrong in them and why;

*capital punishment

*spanking children

*infidelity

*having sex with a fish

*driving on the wrong side of the road

*taking drugs

*being a nazi

*worshipping the devil

*working on a sunday

*abortion

*stealing all of Bill Gates money and giving it to the poor

 

[VirOptimus]

Ok let me ask a question. Do you think that we can make rational and logical arguements for truths/facts/realness epistemically.

About metaphysics, no.

Or rather, one can make arguments about everything. It does not however make them "true".

 

[food4thought]

No time to sift through 79 pages, so forgive me if this has already been covered, please.

Without resorting to dictionary definitions (except for "true"), here are my understanding on how "true" (necessary to properly define other words), "objective", and "moral" are defined:
True: corresponding to reality as it exists
Objective: true regardless of one's perspective or circumstance
Moral: that which defines one's sense of right and wrong

As with all things human, the answer to the thread's question is complex. Absolute objectivity is often impossible for humans to achieve due to our limitations of knowledge, but there are certain things that we can say are objective. Gravity is objectively real, regardless of whether one knows (or agrees with) the theories of it's properties or not, regardless of whether one seems to have defied it by flying in some contraption, or whether he is in deep space and not feeling it's effects. Gravity just IS. Whatever you may think you know, jumping off the Empire State building without some contraption or intervention to break your fall is not going to end well for you.

Moral is a bit more complex, actually, as there are situations where the motive for an act can greatly influence the morality of it. Lying is a great wrong, but if I do so to protect an escaped child sex slave from the person who would bring them back into slavery, and likely do horrible things to them once he has them in custody, then my lie would be justifiable. The same could be said for taking another person's life. Using a scalpel to cut open a human being could be very good or very bad morally depending on whether one is performing surgery or seeking to just watch someone bleed out and die for one's perverse pleasure. Putting a needle in a baby's eye could be very good or horribly wrong depending on whether you are a doctor performing retina surgery or a sadist wanting to see the baby suffer and cry.

Yet there are things that, like gravity, just ARE wrong. Regardless of the perspective of the individual performing the act, the objective moral "wrongness" of having sex with a 3 year old just IS wrong. If I must explain in any detailed way why this is wrong, please shut off your computer now, and contact a mental health center immediately. Even if one could make up a possible situation where doing such a thing would be "less wrong" than not doing so (imagine an even more demented version of the movie Saw), the act itself is completely indefensible as being good and right. There are just some things that are absolutely, objectively, wrong in any sane moral sense.

Sane. That is the problem. How does one define "sane" and "insane"? In the 50's, same sex attraction was diagnosed as a mental problem, but today it is embraced and celebrated. How does one define what is morally sane, and morally insane? The boundaries of sanity are constantly shifting in psychology, yet who is to say whether the psychologists themselves are sane? I give you Freud. 'Nuff said.

The question, really, is not whether there actually IS objective morality, but rather who get's to define the boundaries? Who could possibly be qualified to determine such things? Such a person, themselves, would have to be completely sane. Having complete knowledge of how actions, beliefs, and motives affect the course of lives and human history would also be necessary, wouldn't it? Right and wrong are not always apparent until long after the act, belief, or motive is actuated, are they? So being able to see how things play out all through history would be quite helpful wouldn't it? I wonder Who could possibly be qualified? A name keeps coming to my mind, but, of course, there are many who think He either did not ever exist, or that our knowledge of Him is inaccurate and flawed. Oh well, I'm sure that the consequences for choosing our own way and rejecting the only Being qualified to determine objective morality won't be too horrible, right? Right?!? Oh, wait, the news is coming on...

 

[stevevw]

As you say that morals are knowable and that one can reason what is the "objective right" I'll give you a few scenarios, feel free to answer all or some of them and explain what is objectivly morally right or wrong in them and why;

I must say I sort of feel priveledged to engage like this.

*capital punishment

There are cultural influences which influence whether people are for or against capital punishment. Some think the ultimate punishment should be given (an eye for an eye). But none of this changes the fact that there can be a moral objective such as "life" itself and the moral truth and all behaviours are measured against that.

So that is why to execute or not to execute is a moral situation that matters. We think/act like there is some objective truth determination and not just left to opinions.

*spanking children

Thats a worm hole into the Bible.

*infidelity

This I think is an interesting one as far as social morality. I always say if subjective morality is only about opinions and preferences then a mate who sleeps with your wife is not really doing anything wrong. Hes just acting out his moral opinion.

*having sex with a fish

That one is just strange. Theres some psychology or psychiatrics going on there.

*driving on the wrong side of the road

Not a moral situation usually as different countries drive on different sides of the road. But the obvious one is driving on the wrong side of the road because of another behaviour that may be more directly linkd to morality. Then I think we can determine a moral truth.

*taking drugs

This is also an interesting social moral. Some say addictive personalities can be inherited epigenetically and I think this is true to a degree. But once again isnt the moral truth here "Life" as the basis for why addition matters as an issue. There may be mitigating circumstances so it can get complex. But ultimately addiction is about destroying life and we can reason thats not good on a number of levels through epistemics, religion, evolution, that life should be an objective to survive, stay alive, exist.

*being a nazi

One of the defences for the Nazi defendents was they were only following orders. Yet an International prosecution found that this was not justification and that they had committed horrible immoral acts. So this was an objective position taken because under relativism the Nazi's would not have been doing anything wrong. From their relative position they thought it was a good idea.

*worshipping the devil

*working on a sunday

*abortion

Abortion is another interesting social moral that changing as we become more aware of the life of a Fetus. In recent years the Abortion rate has been coming down. This has coincided with new technology showing the Fetus, its heart beat, brain developement, ability to react to pain ect. Once again primarily its about "Life" mattering to humans. So we can start with the Moral Objective that "Life" matters morally.

*stealing all of Bill Gates money and giving it to the poor

Ultalitarians love this one and I agree there is a lot of good sense in this. So I think any objective right way to behave will have some elemet of this.

 

[stevevw]

About metaphysics, no.

Or rather, one can make arguments about everything. It does not however make them "true".

Ah, so what is true. What is the measure of that "True" you mention. If there is no such thing as "True" or "Fact" then why even mention these values.

But I was more interested in philosophical and epistemological truths. Can we argue them as being justified beliefs and facts.

 

[VirOptimus]

Ah, so what is true. What is the measure of that "True" you mention. If there is no such thing as "True" or "Fact" then why even mention these values.

Facts are facts.

Values are never facts.

 

[VirOptimus]

I must say I sort of feel priveledged to engage like this.

There are cultural influences which influence whether people are for or against capital punishment. Some think the ultimate punishment should be given (an eye for an eye). But none of this changes the fact that there can be a moral objective such as "life" itself and the moral truth and all behaviours are measured against that.

So that is why to execute or not to execute is a moral situation that matters. We think/act like there is some objective truth determination and not just left to opinions.

Thats a worm hole into the Bible.

This I think is an interesting one as far as social morality. I always say if subjective morality is only about opinions and preferences then a mate who sleeps with your wife is not really doing anything wrong. Hes just acting out his moral opinion.

That one is just strange. Theres some psychology or psychiatrics going on there.

Not a moral situation usually as different countries drive on different sides of the road. But the obvious one is driving on the wrong side of the road because of another behaviour that may be more directly linkd to morality. Then I think we can determine a moral truth.

This is also an interesting social moral. Some say addictive personalities can be inherited epigenetically and I think this is true to a degree. But once again isnt the moral truth here "Life" as the basis for why addition matters as an issue. There may be mitigating circumstances so it can get complex. But ultimately addiction is about destroying life and we can reason thats not good on a number of levels through epistemics, religion, evolution, that life should be an objective to survive, stay alive, exist.

One of the defences for the Nazi defendents was they were only following orders. Yet an International prosecution found that this was not justification and that they had committed horrible immoral acts. So this was an objective position taken because under relativism the Nazi's would not have been doing anything wrong. From their relative position they thought it was a good idea.

Abortion is another interesting social moral that changing as we become more aware of the life of a Fetus. In recent years the Abortion rate has been coming down. This has coincided with new technology showing the Fetus, its heart beat, brain developement, ability to react to pain ect. Once again primarily its about "Life" mattering to humans. So we can start with the Moral Objective that "Life" matters morally.

Ultalitarians love this one and I agree there is a lot of good sense in this. So I think any objective right way to behave will have some elemet of this.

Try give us even one answer to what the objective right/wrong is.

 

[stevevw]

Facts are facts.

Values are never facts.

Whereas I think we can argue a value to be a fact. Just like a value of a math equation is a fact.

 

[stevevw]

Try give us even one answer to what the objective right/wrong is.

I though I did. Lets stick with one of each a political one and a social moral. The moral objective for moral matters relating to capital punishment is "Life". Therefore it is objectively wrong to kill an innocent person. The same as abortion. It is objectively wrong to take an innocent life.

As for infidelity this is an interesting one. Let me ask you how would you react if you friend slept with your wife.

 

[Ken-1122]

We could intuitively say child assault is worse. But then we would have to reason if this is the case.

If you have to apply reason in order to determine, you are being subjective; not objective.

And I think any rational conclusion would be as I mentioned that each situation needs to be judged for itself and not compared in a way that collerates two completely different moral scenarios.

Ahh so you have to judge each situation itself? If this moral situation were objective, you wouldn't have to subjectively judge, because the answer would be beyond human thoughts and judgments. You keep saying morality is objective, but when pressed, you respond with moral subjectivity.

 

[VirOptimus]

I though I did. Lets stick with one of each a political one and a social moral. The moral objective for moral matters relating to capital punishment is "Life". Therefore it is objectively wrong to kill an innocent person. The same as abortion. It is objectively wrong to take an innocent life.

So the objective right wrong in capital punishment and abortion is...?

As for infidelity this is an interesting one. Let me ask you how would you react if you friend slept with your wife.

What I think doesnt matter if morals are "objective".

 

[stevevw]

If you have to apply reason in order to determine, you are being subjective; not objective.

Of course not. Its no more subjective then reasoning that its silly to walk off that building because Gravity will cause you to fall.

Ahh so you have to judge each situation itself? If this moral situation were objective, you wouldn't have to subjectively judge, because the answer would be beyond human thoughts and judgments.

You keep saying this but its not beyond all peoples thoughts. Only their subjective thoughts. Their preferences and opinions. The rest of the brain is capable to then doing Math, making arguements, using logic to deetermine facts and truths. By testing your subjective views against what can be reasoned as best or better we can see that there are better ways to behave beyond our subjective veiws by the simple fact we have used rationality and logic rather than our own subjective thinking to reach the fact or truth.

You keep saying morality is objective, but when pressed, you respond with moral subjectivity.

But you have to reason and judge what it is beyond human subjective thinking. It doesnt just magically appear and happen.