Is there Objective Morality?

[food4thought]

Here's something I think both sides of this debate can agree upon: human nature is fundamentally flawed. There are different levels, but, basically, every human being on earth is slightly (at least) insane morally and rationally.
Thoughts?

 

[VirOptimus]

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

Ok, then how do we measure beauty? Justice? If values can be facts then they can be measured, quantified. So show me how you do that.

 

[VirOptimus]

Here's something I think both sides of this debate can agree upon: human nature is fundamentally flawed. There are different levels, but basically every human being on earth is slightly (at least) insane morally and rationally.
Thoughts?

Flawed according to whom?

 

[food4thought]

Flawed according to whom?

Good question. You obviously know how I would answer this question as a Christian... but how would you answer it?

 

[VirOptimus]

Good question. You obviously know how I would answer this question as a Christian... but how would you answer it?

I wouldnt as I dont agree.

 

[food4thought]

I wouldnt as I dont agree.

Really? Way to dodge the question. Very well done! But, the question remains... how do you determine whether humans in general, or individually, are flawed?

 

[VirOptimus]

Really? Way to dodge the question. Very well done! But, the question remains... how do you determine whether humans in general, or individually, are flawed?

"Flawed" is a value judgement, how do a not-flawed human look and act?

 

[stevevw]

Ok, then how do we measure beauty? Justice? If values can be facts then they can be measured, quantified. So show me how you do that.

Do people appeal to "Justice". If they do then there is the measure. Its peoples own behaviour that makes "Justice" an independent moral truth.

People cry out for justice like it really matters more than our subjective tastes or having no value at all. They want justice to stand beyond peoples personal opinions. So people lock "Justice" into some law or guide that we need to use for "Justice" to really count. Otherwise there is no justice or some arbitrary justice and we know that is counter intuitive.

Beauty is different I think. This is not a moral but is a good example of subjective feelings from the subject but not really saying anything about whether something is really beautiful or not. Though some may argue that beauty can be objectified such as an evenly symetric face seems more attractive.

 

[food4thought]

"Flawed" is a value judgement, how do a not-flawed human look and act?

So you make no value judgments? Interesting. How does that work itself out if I think it's a good idea to repeatedly smack you in the face? Are you ok with that?

 

[food4thought]

Not threatening (of course not!), just asking a legitimate question, friend! I wouldn't do such a thing... but there are people who would, if they could. Not because you deserve, or don't, deserve it... but because they like to do it.

 

[stevevw]

I really have to give this thread up.

Me too, I feel I'm going around in circles.

 

[VirOptimus]

So you make no value judgments? Interesting. How does that work itself out if I think it's a good idea to repeatedly smack you in the face? Are you ok with that?

If I was, that would be a value judgement, if I wasnt, that would also be a value-judgement. None of them ”objective”.

 

[VirOptimus]

Do people appeal to "Justice". If they do then there is the measure. Its peoples own behaviour that makes "Justice" an independent moral truth.

People cry out for justice like it really matters more than our subjective tastes or having no value at all. They want justice to stand beyond peoples personal opinions. So people lock "Justice" into some law or guide that we need to use for "Justice" to really count. Otherwise there is no justice or some arbitrary justice and we know that is counter intuitive.

Beauty is different I think. This is not a moral but is a good example of subjective feelings from the subject but not really saying anything about whether something is really beautiful or not. Though some may argue that beauty can be objectified such as an evenly symetric face seems more attractive.

No, thats not how values work.

 

[food4thought]

If I was, that would be a value judgement, if I wasnt, that would also be a value-judgement. None of them ”objective”.

But this is not theory! People do violent things to others on a daily basis, for any number of reasons... are you ok with that, even if it is done to you or someone close to you?

 

[stevevw]

So the objective right wrong in capital punishment and abortion is...?
What I think doesnt matter if morals are "objective".

Why, of course it matters because if there are objective morals it means there is a measure of what is right and wrong and therefore we know something isnt right. There was a breach of moral obligation by your friend. We react some way because it matters morally.

It would be more the case that your friend sleeping with your wife didnt matter if morals were subjective or there were no moral values because there is no measure of right and wrong. But unless you were uncaring or didnt have a conscience wee react to these situations like a moral wrong has been done beyond our subjective selves.

It is counter intuitive that we think "thats OK no wrong done, my friend was only expressing his preferences and feelings morally". That would seem strange to think.

 

[food4thought]

Ok, I'm going to just move on, knowing that you would ABSOLUTELY NOT be ok with some random person violently attacking you. So, we can reasonably say that humans in general have a value that people doing violent things to people for the heck of it is wrong. Can we agree on that, or do I have to keep pestering you for an answer you obviously know you can't give in this discussion?

 

[VirOptimus]

Ok, I'm going to just move on, knowing that you would ABSOLUTELY NOT be ok with some random person violently attacking you. So, we can reasonably say that humans in general have a value that people doing violent things to people for the heck of it is wrong. Can we agree on that, or do I have to keep pestering you for an answer you obviously know you can't give in this discussion?

What I think isnt relevant, Im not an objective agent.

To show that something is objective is to show that its true whatever anyone thinks about it.

 

[VirOptimus]

Why, of course it matters because if there are objective morals it means there is a measure of what is right and wrong and therefore we know something isnt right. There was a breach of moral obligation by your friend. We react some way because it matters morally.

It would be more the case that your friend sleeping with your wife didnt matter if morals were subjective or there were no moral values because there is no measure of right and wrong. But unless you were uncaring or didnt have a conscience wee react to these situations like a moral wrong has been done beyond our subjective selves.

It is counter intuitive that we think "thats OK no wrong done, my friend was only expressing his preferences and feelings morally". That would seem strange to think.

Not believing in ”objective morality” is not the same as saying anyone can do whatever they want (which, in itself would be a moral stance).

You should really learn the basics of the different schools in moral philodophy.

 

[VirOptimus]

But this is not theory! People do violent things to others on a daily basis, for any number of reasons... are you ok with that, even if it is done to you or someone close to you?

Of course not, why would I?

 

[food4thought]

What I think isnt relevant, Im not an objective agent.

To show that something is objective is to show that its true whatever anyone thinks about it.

Got it. Even though pretty much everyone in all history has thought that people violently attacking them isn't ok, this still does not reach the level of "objective", because people are not objective. Even the vast majority of humans all through history does not constitute objective.

Not believing in ”objective morality” is not the same as saying anyone can do whatever they want (which, in itself would be a moral stance).

You should really learn the basics of the different schools in moral philodophy.

Ok. So according to your position, people are not capable of determining objective morality for themselves? Am I correctly understanding?

So, in your worldview, how do humans determine what social structures to live within in community? What laws should be enacted? What goals should be encouraged? Are there any things that our culture SHOULD value, and why? Why should we care? How do we keep people with bad (is there such a thing?) intentions from taking control of everybody? Because, really, it doesn't matter much who controls us, because nothing is objectively better than another thing, so who am I to say that other group with more tanks and guns than us should be resisted? We should just work at whatever those strong enough to control us tells us to do, for as long as the tell us to do it, and, if we have any time left in the day, sit on our couches (if the inevitably totalitarian government deems it worth giving us one), watch the state propaganda on however big a screen they are willing to give us, and let them feed us whatever they see fit to give us, in whatever structures they see fit to allow us to dwell in, for however long they deem convenient to let us live.

<Staff Edit>