That shouldn't be a problem if morality really is objective, should it?
there is a core of moral truths we all know and recognise. Morals are not measured like mills in a glass though.
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.
Your not seeing the forest through the tree. "Light" itself is the basis for measurements of the light from the source and the light on the surface. Without that there is no light from a source or on the surface.
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:
- it really feels right
- most people would agree with you.
But that by itself isn't enough to make it objective.
Well the first thing to say is that the government treats them as objectively wrong. There is no room for subjective views that may think Genocide is OK. The law says 1st degree or manslaughter is objectively wrong to the point they will take away your freedom.
Second we intuitively know killing is wrong regardless of the circumstances. We act/react and treat it like its objectively wrong. Reasoning tells us that "Life"is valuable, important, precious. It doesnt matter whether its by evolution, religious belief, behavioural sciences "Life" is given value.
So we can reason that actions that cause killing are not the best way to behave morally because they threaten "life". Then its a case of more reasoning as to why genocide is regarded as a more horrific act then manslaughter or that killing in self defense is justified in the circumstances.
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?
Like I said I don't think morality is measured in scales or mills. But nonetheless can still be measured in a way. I go back to the killing example that even the law uses. There are grades, degrees of murder. One act of killing is judged as worse than the other.
You can even look at the different grades they have for all the acts that could have led to killing like assault causing grevious bodily harm, assualt with a deadly weapon ect. They are all geared around the threat of taking a "Life" so have different levels of severity placed on them.
Many of these acts have a moral associated with them. So we can determine grades of immoral acts. Genocide is worse then manslaughter but this is not as severe as 1st degree murder. The important thing is that each and every grade is determined to be a wrong in their own right. They are reasoned to be wrong according to the circumstances ie 1st degree murder has intent, disregard for life and manslaughter has no intent and usually accidental.
And how do you measure damage to Human life?
This is an areas Sam Harris is good at. He bases the measure in Human Wellbeing and makes the arguemnet for what behaviour would support that or not. Though we can use human existence and anything that helps that as the measure I think we don't have to define it that well and make any arguemnets for the basis of measurement as its self-evident.
We intuitively know that a cold hearted 1st degree murderer is worse than someone who accidently killed someone. There is no personal views in that one and anyone who claimed the other way around would be considered just wrong.
So intuition is our starting point but like the law and Sam Harris we can reason why some behaviours are better/best than others based on human "Life" being valuable.
So then it seems that it is just a case of counting how many people are left alive at the end of it, right?
You ay it likes its just a matter of money lol. If "LIfe" is the most important thing morally then using reasoning for this specific situation and knowing all the circumstances ahead of time it would be right to save as many lives as possible.
Funny that you speak of how objective morality needs an anchor point, yet you have failed to specify what that anchor point is.
I have given the anchor point many times. Perhaps its because you are thinking in terms of physical measuremnets like mills of water. BUt like I said morals are measured differently. They are not material themselves but can manifest in physical ways. Anyway you get a better idea above of the anchor point.
But what I was pointing out was you don't have to know the anchor point to know there needs to be an anchor point.
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.
But notice the word degrees. That implies an objective basis. So long as the degrees are not determined by subjective views then its consistent with objectivity. The important difference is every point/degree is measured against an objective and not a personal view.
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.
You have just made a case against morality being subjective.
Likewise, there are some moral issues that I think are morally good that other people think are morally bad (like euthanasia).
But we don't act like our preferences for Star Trek episodes when it comes to morality. Morals really matter to the point we protest, get outraged, want to stop the behaviour like its really morally wrong.
