Is there Objective Morality?

[Kylie]

Not quite. I wrote that a condition, not a point, renders the act immoral.

And why not the point at which that condition is reached?

 

[durangodawood]

I have two proposals

The first is as there have been no dragons ever found in Australia we can work on the premise that dragons do not exist in that country.

If anyone would like to reject that premise by presenting evidence for a dragon in Australia then we'd all be keen to investigate. Otherwise the premise stands.

The second is that as there are no objective facts that can be found that are non measurable, then we can work on the premise that objective facts that cannot be measured do not exist.

If anyone would like to reject that premise by presenting one that cannot be measured then we'd all be keen to investigate. Otherwise that premise stands as well.

No you have to turn over every single rock in Australia, at the same time. Including that huge one the tourists like.

 

[Moral Orel]

But then the claim just hangs there as a unknown, as does the dismissal.

So does a lot of things. We don't and can't know much. No big deal.

Much better to put a stake in its heart by offering a simple disproof.... if one exists.

Much better to not believe things we can't offer any reason to believe.

If bunch of smart people cant think up a single example of a non measurable objective fact, I'm inclined to think - at least provisionally - none exist

Shifting the Burden of Proof in action. No one can prove God does not exist, therefore you're inclined to think He does? Of course not. Fallacies get called out, not entertained. It wastes everyone's time disproving things that no one can give a reason to believe.

 

[Moral Orel]

I have two proposals

The first is as there have been no dragons ever found in Australia we can work on the premise that dragons do not exist in that country.

If anyone would like to reject that premise by presenting evidence for a dragon in Australia then we'd all be keen to investigate. Otherwise the premise stands.

The second is that as there are no objective facts that can be found that are non measurable, then we can work on the premise that objective facts that cannot be measured do not exist.

If anyone would like to reject that premise by presenting one that cannot be measured then we'd all be keen to investigate. Otherwise that premise stands as well.

Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy

 

[Moral Orel]

"Like"? Of course, "like" would be a matter of taste, no? Glad I scored (at least once) with the chocolate ice cream group instead of those detestable Brussels sprouts.

Sadly, I noticed you're guilty of it too, though... I read your post too hastily.

No, the claim that is not self-evident must be argued with evidence and reason to be true by the claimant.

You don't get to just declare things "self-evident" to free yourself from the burden of proof either.

 

[stevevw]

Ah, but we can still compare two points along the scale and determine the difference between them in an objective sense. We can measure the amount of water in the glass at two different times and very accurately state the difference in the amount between them.

Yes but only because we have an objective measure of the entire glass. We can compare those points against the the total mills in the glass to determine their % or difference is volumn. But without that objective anchor we would not know what the 2 different points represented.

We can measure the difference in light levels at two different times as night falls and very accurately state the difference between them.

Once again only in relation to what is dark and light. We have to know what light and dark are to then compare variations of light and dark. So light and dark are the objective anchor points at each ends of the scale. Anything in between can be objectively determined such as its 20% of daylight or 45% darker ect.

They say that the midday sun is at the point of most light and then it deminishes after that towards sunset. But even under some physical measures there can be objectives that don't vary like that water boils at 212 degree Fahrenheit.

Can you do the same with morality?

not in the same way as measuring physical objects. But that doesn't mean there are no moral truths or that they cannot be measured in a different way. For example:

There are different measuring points for what type of killing is being done such as Genocide, 1st degree murder down to killing in self defense and attempted murder, accidental homicide ect. We could also say that genocide is worse than say 1st degree murder which in turn is worse than killing a crazed gunman to save a childs life.

So the severity changes. In that sense there is a sort of scale, measuring system going on. But thats to be expected as we should be able to reason out what is better/best moral behaviours than other behaviours and we need to have some objective anchor poing to do that.

So they are all comparing the same thing because they are all about taking lives? Again, you are reducing it to the amount of damage that is done. But that can't really give you the objective morality, can it?

Reducing the amount of damage is part of it but not all of why something is a moral truth. We would expect that part of a moral truth would be to minimize damage to humans if possible. (Maximizing life).

After all, you've refused to tell me if it is a greater moral good to shoot down the airliner with 200 people in order to save the 1000 people who will be killed if you don't.

If we knew in hindsight that the terrorist plane was definitely going to hit the WTC and kill a 1,000 people then we would be morally right to shoot down the plane to maximize human life. That would be consistent with a moral truth in that specific circumstance.

And which is morally worse, killing two people in self defense, or killing one person by accident? Can you clearly express how much worse the worse option is than the other option? (I bet you're going to evade this by saying it all depends on the circumstances. So I will cut off that escape for you now and tell you that you can invent whatever specific circumstances you want.)

No I would object on the grounds that you are making a logical fallacy. I have given you examples of how morality can vary and needs an objective anchor point already. Now you are wanting more of the same as though say "if I cannot show which is worse morally" then there is no objective morality. That doesn't follow.

You keep missing the point treating morality like it can be measured as right or wrong or in degrees of wrongness, means there has to be an objective morality.
This can only make sense if there is some objective anchor that all these variations are compared to. Otherwise just like with subjective morality its only about opinions, preferences and feelings.

 

[o_mlly]

I keep asking who can do this. I keep asking who determines that an act has reached a point when it has become immoral. Is it, as you said at one point 'a reasonable person'? Maybe you think that all reasonable people think alike. If they don't (and they obviously don't) then how do we determine who is right?

An act is not continuous; it occurs in a moment of time. The actor decides in the moment. Give us a real, in the concrete, human act and the morality of that act can be determined.

As to your imagined case, what are the moral principles that permit and limit the punishment of a 10 year old child for cursing her mother? The punishment ought be severe enough to change the child's misbehavior but limited so as to prevent damaging that child. The term of the moral punishment is more likely a range of times as opposed to a specific time. What is certain is that whatever time is assigned to the punishment term, that time is dependent on that particular child's psyche (immature, autistic, retarded, advanced, mature, etc.) known by that particular parent, that is, in the concrete.

 

[stevevw]

What objective evidence do you have that the decision to stop smacking is the result of a moral advancement rather than a moral decline? Perhaps it’s just the result of those who oppose smacking are in a position of power now and can now impose their subjective views on everybody else.

I think if we consider advancements in technology especially our understanding of mental illness and the psychological damage certain behaviours have. Therefore we could say we are in a better position to know about whether smacking is a right or wrong way to behave. The decision by many nations to ban smacking reflects that new understanding that there are better ways to behave when disciplining a child that smacking smacking them.

I think its an advancement as its based on rationality and logic and not abitrarily determined by subjective thinking. The change came as a reaction to smacking causing dysfunction and becoming a moral matter. This has been the response to reduce smacking as it causes these issues that have escalated things.

As mentioned morality is a rational enterprise so we should be able to reason out the best way to act morally. So now people are coming to understand that smacking doesnt work and are closer to the truth about what is the best way to discipline (bringup) children.

 

[o_mlly]

Except you are demanding that I prove a negative. The only way I can answer your challenge here is to examine every single thing that can possibly exist and demonstrate that it meets the measurability criteria.

No. Just evidence that which you claim, ie., to demonstrate the objective immorality of a human act, the harm caused by the act must be measurable. If that is not what you claim then feel free to rewrite exactly what it is that you claim.

If you had actually been paying attention to what I have constantly been saying throughout this entire thread, you would know already that my position on that is that the harm done is SUBJECTIVE. There are some people for whom that would be an event that haunts them for the rest of their lives. There are other people who will be able to deal with the emotional scars. There is no objective level of harm, since as a SUBJECTIVE thing, the amount of harm caused depends on the person who experienced it. My entire argument has been that since the harm can not be objectively measured, it is NOT an objective thing.

I have been paying attention but you continue to deflect. If the above is about the harm caused by rape then kindly explain how measuring the harm can change the objective fact that rape is immoral. Did the earth's moon not objectively exist for Aristotle because he could not measure the differences in earth's moon to the moons of Jupiter? Of course not.

 

[o_mlly]

I read your post too hastily.

Sadly, I noticed you're guilty of it too.

You don't get to just declare things "self-evident" to free yourself from the burden of proof either.

Never did that. If you think I did then you too can give up eating and drinking or jump off a roof high enough to disrupt your bodily integrity and then let us know how that went for you.

 

[Ken-1122]

I think if we consider advancements in technology especially our understanding of mental illness and the psychological damage certain behaviours have. Therefore we could say we are in a better position to know about whether smacking is a right or wrong way to behave. The decision by many nations to ban smacking reflects that new understanding that there are better ways to behave when disciplining a child that smacking smacking them.

Many of those nations have children behaving more violently, involved in more criminal behavior than in the past as well. This idea that it is okay for a cop who does not care about your child to use physical force on him for breaking the rules, but it is morally wrong for a parent who gave birth, raised, and cared for said child to use physical force is not a consensus among all psychologists; it’s just a common belief of the powers that be. But even if there were a consensus concerning this issue, since when are moral issues determined by psychologists? They are not; psychologists have subjective opinions just like everybody else. Psychologist claims are not an example of moral objectivity.

 

[durangodawood]

So does a lot of things. We don't and can't know much. No big deal.

This claim is germane to a hundred page discussion here. People care enough about this. If its easily sorted, its worth doing so.

Much better to not believe things we can't offer any reason to believe.

My sentiments exactly.

Shifting the Burden of Proof in action. No one can prove God does not exist, therefore you're inclined to think He does? Of course not. Fallacies get called out, not entertained. It wastes everyone's time disproving things that no one can give a reason to believe.

The burden to demonstrate a positive claim (x exists) is naturally much lighter than on a negative claim (there is no y). As a spectator (I didnt make either claim) I'd just like to see the positive claim supported with one single example. Thats a reasonable request.

 

[stevevw]

Many of those nations have children behaving more violently, involved in more criminal behavior than in the past as well. This idea that it is okay for a cop who does not care about your child to use physical force on him for breaking the rules, but it is morally wrong for a parent who gave birth, raised, and cared for said child to use physical force is not a consensus among all psychologists; it’s just a common belief of the powers that be.

Yes I agree and the problem is the system allows for the most powerful, influential to dictate what is right and wrong.

But even if there were a consensus concerning this issue, since when are moral issues determined by psychologists? They are not; psychologists have subjective opinions just like everybody else. Psychologist claims are not an example of moral objectivity.

The Psychologist is not determining the moral truth. They are only used to measure if there is any psychological harm done by smacking. So if smacking is determined by psychologists to cause psychological harm then that is one support for how that behaviour is not the best.

We can find other evidence that smacking is not right and when we can have a convergence of what we know and reason as the morally right way to act then we can determine a moral truth that smacking children is wrong.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes I agree and the problem is the system allows for the most powerful, influential to dictate what is right and wrong. The Psychologist is not determining the moral truth. They are only used to measure if there is any psychological harm done by smacking. So if smacking is determined by psychologists to cause psychological harm then that is one support for how that behaviour is not the best.

We can find other evidence that smacking is not right and when we can have a convergence of what we know and reason as the morally right way to act then we can determine a moral truth that smacking children is wrong.

The one with the biggest gun will always get to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong". Thats just how it works.

And as its legal and culturally accepted around the world to smack children its in no way a consensus that its "wrong".

 

[Moral Orel]

This claim is germane to a hundred page discussion here. People care enough about this. If its easily sorted, its worth doing so.

If folks can't support their own claims, then it's sufficient to point out that they believe things for no reason.

My sentiments exactly.

Then you hold no belief about either claim. What now?

If believing that objectivity requires measurability is necessary to believe morality is not objective, and you have no evidence that objectivity requires measurability, do you have any justification to believe morality is not objective? If you have no justification, then it's time to admit "I dunno".

The burden on a positive claim (x exists) is naturally much lighter than on a negative claim (there is no y). As a specatator (I didnt make either claim) I'd just like to see the positive claim supported with one single example. Thats a reasonable request.

I proved that no moral fact can ever be justified back in post 1821.

 

[Moral Orel]

If you think I did then you too can give up eating and drinking or jump off a roof high enough to disrupt your bodily integrity and then let us know how that went for you.

Okay, I wouldn't like that at all. Which of your claims does that prove?

 

[Ken-1122]

The Psychologist is not determining the moral truth. They are only used to measure if there is any psychological harm done by smacking.

How about the harm done by refusing to discipline? It's all subjective.

 

[Bradskii]

An act is not continuous; it occurs in a moment of time. The actor decides in the moment. Give us a real, in the concrete, human act and the morality of that act can be determined.

OK. So the person him or herself decides on whether the action is morally acceptable or immoral. Or do you decide? That's a bit vague. But I guess it's one or the other. Can you confirm?

 

[Kylie]

Yes but only because we have an objective measure of the entire glass. We can compare those points against the the total mills in the glass to determine their % or difference is volumn. But without that objective anchor we would not know what the 2 different points represented.

That shouldn't be a problem if morality really is objective, should it?

Once again only in relation to what is dark and light. We have to know what light and dark are to then compare variations of light and dark. So light and dark are the objective anchor points at each ends of the scale. Anything in between can be objectively determined such as its 20% of daylight or 45% darker ect.

They say that the midday sun is at the point of most light and then it deminishes after that towards sunset. But even under some physical measures there can be objectives that don't vary like that water boils at 212 degree Fahrenheit.

Unfortunately, that is not true.

We can measure the total amount of light that is being emitted by a particular light source, and we can measure the amount of light that is falling on a surface. Neither of these require something to which we can compare it.

not in the same way as measuring physical objects. But that doesn't mean there are no moral truths or that they cannot be measured in a different way. For example:

There are different measuring points for what type of killing is being done such as Genocide, 1st degree murder down to killing in self defense and attempted murder, accidental homicide ect. We could also say that genocide is worse than say 1st degree murder which in turn is worse than killing a crazed gunman to save a childs life.

And how exactly did you reach the conclusion that each of these is worse than the next? I see nothing objective there. Seems to me that you are just going with your subjective opinion and concluding that it's objective because:

1. it really feels right
2. most people would agree with you.

But that by itself isn't enough to make it objective.

So the severity changes. In that sense there is a sort of scale, measuring system going on. But thats to be expected as we should be able to reason out what is better/best moral behaviours than other behaviours and we need to have some objective anchor poing to do that.

So how do you measure the severity? You say there's a scale, and I'm happy to accept that, but you need to tell me more about it. What units is it measured in? How is it calibrated?

Reducing the amount of damage is part of it but not all of why something is a moral truth. We would expect that part of a moral truth would be to minimize damage to humans if possible. (Maximizing life).

And how do you measure damage to Human life?

If we knew in hindsight that the terrorist plane was definitely going to hit the WTC and kill a 1,000 people then we would be morally right to shoot down the plane to maximize human life. That would be consistent with a moral truth in that specific circumstance.

So then it seems that it is just a case of counting how many people are left alive at the end of it, right?

No I would object on the grounds that you are making a logical fallacy. I have given you examples of how morality can vary and needs an objective anchor point already. Now you are wanting more of the same as though say "if I cannot show which is worse morally" then there is no objective morality. That doesn't follow.

Funny that you speak of how objective morality needs an anchor point, yet you have failed to specify what that anchor point is.

You keep missing the point treating morality like it can be measured as right or wrong or in degrees of wrongness, means there has to be an objective morality.
This can only make sense if there is some objective anchor that all these variations are compared to. Otherwise just like with subjective morality its only about opinions, preferences and feelings.

No, the fact that we can see morality as having degrees of rightness or wrongness does not mean that it must be objective. It is entirely consistent with subjectivity as well.

For example, I view some episodes of Star Trek as being better than others. There, again, is that issue of degrees. But it is ludicrous to say that there needs to be some subjective anchor that we compare each episode to in order to determine how good a particular episode is. There are some episodes that I think are quite good that other people really don't like. Likewise, there are some moral issues that I think are morally good that other people think are morally bad (like euthanasia).

 

[Kylie]

No. Just evidence that which you claim, ie., to demonstrate the objective immorality of a human act, the harm caused by the act must be measurable. If that is not what you claim then feel free to rewrite exactly what it is that you claim.

If anything is objective, then it must be able to be precisely stated. If what is claimed to be objective is an amount (such as the amount of morality), then the amount of morality must be precisely stated, and in order to precisely state the amount, it must be measured. Without measurement, the precise amount is not know.

I have been paying attention but you continue to deflect. If the above is about the harm caused by rape then kindly explain how measuring the harm can change the objective fact that rape is immoral. Did the earth's moon not objectively exist for Aristotle because he could not measure the differences in earth's moon to the moons of Jupiter? Of course not.

You really have to learn to not just automatically try to fit everything into your preconceived ideas.

What you are asking is like me saying, "You think Star Wars is the best sci fi franchise? How does that work with the objective fact that Star Trek is the best franchise?"