Is there Objective Morality?

[VirOptimus]

OK when I say society I mean the people. Yes morality can only happen between human beings. But as a society we have chosen to have a subjective/relative system in place when it comes to morality.

? How can "we" chose something else?

Becuase there are no objectives then it usually falls back on those in powerful positions to dictate morality/ethics. We have seen this from the State enforcing its view on society and even down to corporations forcing their moral/ethical view onto its employees.

Indeed. See which states and entities who propose "objective morals", ISIS, Iran, the Taliban, etc.

If thats the case then how was right and wrong determined.

Determined by who? By which standard?

 

[stevevw]

Its you who says that we "intrinsicly" know moral truths, not me. You are arguing against yourself here.

Actually I was pointing out that the idea that because there are different moral views that doesnt mena there is an objective moral to be found. If we translate that over to science it would mean "Because we cannot find Dark Matter it follows there is no Dark Matter".

No, its very different. Have you ever studied anthropology or history?

Sort of but whats that got to do with this.

No, thats also false.

Why is it fasle. It makes sense that if hypothetically we discovered that the Fetus was human life that people would think twice before an abortion. If its determined as human life then they are actually killing a human which we have already established is morally wrong.

Besides, abortion opponents are mostly against abortion on religious grounds, not some kind of defnition of "life".

But its the religious belief that makes the life valuable and precious that their position is based on. Whether its by a law, right, or a value "Life" is given value status by the way humans revere it.

And you still cant support that "life" has an objective value.

I think I have. Like I said it is not subjective views who determine life is objectively valuable but human intuition and reasoning. Our starting point is our intuition. Our intuition usually gets things right morally. Rationality and logic are used to verify our intuition. We can then weed out the better/best ways we can behave morally.

Because we have a basis "Human Life" we can then measure what behaviour is coducive of human life and helping humans to interact thus doing what they do to be humans. Because moral truths are reasoned and logically determined they are not subjective but independent from peoples views and objective.

 

[VirOptimus]

Actually I was pointing out that the idea that because there are different moral views that doesnt mena there is an objective moral to be found. If we translate that over to science it would mean "Because we cannot find Dark Matter it follows there is no Dark Matter".

But you say we intrinicly know this "objective morals", if we did then we should think alike but we dont.

Sort of but whats that got to do with this.

Because morality is very very different though cultures and time.

Why is it fasle. It makes sense that if hypothetically we discovered that the Fetus was human life that people would think twice before an abortion. If its determined as human life then they are actually killing a human which we have already established is morally wrong. But its the religious belief that makes the life valuable and precious that their position is based on. Whether its by a law, right, or a value "Life" is given value status by the way humans revere it.

"We" have not establisghed that killing an humna being is "objectivly wrong". Se capital punishment f.ex.

If humans give it value, then its not "objective".

I think I have. Like I said it is not subjective views who determine life is objectively valuable but human intuition and reasoning. Our starting point is our intuition. Our intuition usually gets things right morally. Rationality and logic are used to verify our intuition. We can then weed out the better/best ways we can behave morally.

Thats not how it works, and we "intuivly" think very different things depending on upbringing, culture and time.

Because we have a basis "Human Life" we can then measure what behaviour is coducive of human life and helping humans to interact thus doing what they do to be humans. Because moral truths are reasoned and logically determined they are not subjective but independent from peoples views and objective.

This is just word salad. And we dont have a "objective basis" in human life.

 

[stevevw]

? How can "we" chose something else?

There are many ways, uprisings, rebellions, revolutions, protests. But the strange thing is this is happening around the world and even more so in a divided way along politically and morally with identity politics. There are different groups you can join depending on your view of things.

Indeed. See which states and entities who propose "objective morals", ISIS, Iran, the Taliban, etc.

But under a subjective system they would not be regarded as being morally wrong, rather just having a different view of things.

Just because some group claim objective morality even in the name of religion doesnt mean thats objective morality and not subjective morality deguised as objective morality. Objective morality/truth is suppose to be the best way we can behave morally. None of what ISIS or the like do is remotely near the best behaviour.

Their bad behaviour can be reasoned as not best behaviour in a number of ways, socialy, psychologically, biologically, theologically, epistemically. It all converges on treating life as valuable. Killing innocent women and children ain't treating life as valuable.

Determined by who? By which standard?

already explained above

 

[VirOptimus]

There are many ways, uprisings, rebellions, revolutions, protests. But the strange thing is this is happening around the world and even more so in a divided way along politically and morally with identity politics. There are different groups you can join depending on your view of things.

Then why do "objective morality" matter?

But under a subjective system they would not be regarded as being morally wrong, rather just having a different view of things.

Why on earth do you keep saying the same things over and over. Just because you dont belive in "objective morals" in no way keep you from arguing morality. Learn the basics.

Just because some group claim objective morality even in the name of religion doesnt mean thats objective morality and not subjective morality deguised as objective morality. Objective morality/truth is suppose to be the best way we can behave morally. None of what ISIS or the like do is remotely near the best behaviour.

And you can say that ISIS is wrong by which "objective" standard? Prove this.

Their bad behaviour can be reasoned as not best behaviour in a number of ways, socialy, psychologically, biologically, theologically, epistemically. It all converges on treating life as valuable. Killing innocent women and children ain't treating life as valuable.

Saying that life is valuable is not supporting that its "objective". Its just your view.

already explained above

No you havent.

 

[Kylie]

there is a core of moral truths we all know and recognise. Morals are not measured like mills in a glass though.

I agree that most people share the same moral truths, but that's not because we are somehow magically sensing some objective nature of the universe.

It's because we have been raised in a society that uses those moral guidelines as its basis.

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.

The light can be measured objectively in terms of colour, which can be precisely given as a wavelength measured in nanometers. For example, if you measure the wavelength of light to be 700 nanometers, you know it's some shade of red. If you measure 413 nanometers, you know it's more around a bluish violet colour.

The amount of light that is emitted from a light source is measured objectively in lumens, and the light that hits a particular surface is measured objectively in terms of lux.

These are objective measures and can quite handily deal with shades of grey, if you'll pardon the pun. Your argument would seem to have us reduce to saying either, "Yes, there is light," or, "No, there isn't light," and nothing more.

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.

So what? The US government once said it was okay to own slaves. Did that mean it was objectively right back then?

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.

I take it you're a vegan then?

So we can reason that actions that cause killing are not the best way to behave morally because they threaten "life".

Which is perfectly explained by the societal cause I mentioned earlier.

Also, if you were correct, then we wouldn't have those untouched tribes who kill any intruders. Remember that North Sentinel Island tribe who killed that missionary? Why didn't they intuitively know that it would be wrong to kill him?

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.

More horrific? And how do you determine that if there is no measure of how horrific manslaughter/killing in self defense is so you can compare it to how horrific genocide is?

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.

Then how is it measured? In what units is it measured in?

Or are you just talking about a subjective gut feeling? I mean, that would explain why different people assign different moral values to the same thing, right? Like abortion?

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.

Again, this can be explained perfectly with a SUBJECTIBE morality that is shared by most people.

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.

Careful there. You changed the subject in the middle of the sentence, and it comes across as you saying that genocide is not as severe as first 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 I'm not arguing about that. No one is saying that we generally consider murder with intent to be worse than murder that was unintentional. But that doesn't make it objective, it just makes it a shred subjective viewpoint.

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.

Does he define what the base unit's value is?

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.

Again, you always have to go to the extreme situations to make your point. If your point really was right, you could use much more mundane examples and still have everyone agreeing with. Why don't you try saying, "We intuitively know that knocking a delicate glass bauble off the Christmas tree and breaking it is worse than someone who stole a chocolate bar".

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.

Hate to break it to you, but if it's based on your intuition, it's subjective.

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.

So all lives are of equal value?

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.

Funny, I don't recall you ever saying, "This is the anchor point by which we will objectively determine morality." Could you tell me what it is?

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.

Nah, doesn't work like that.

You can't say that degrees mean it's objective and then in the very next sentence admit that they can be based on subjective views.

You have just made a case against morality being subjective.

Care to explain how?

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.

Yeah, because moral issues generally affect other people.

You better believe me, if someone decided a certain episode of Star Trek was so bad that it should never be seen and all copies destroyed, there'd be serious outcry. And the effect morality has on other people is much greater (but still subjective).

 

[stevevw]

But you say we intrinicly know this "objective morals", if we did then we should think alike but we dont.

What do you mean think alike. Just because there may be an objective moral doesn't mean we all will think the same like robots. We all have things happen to us that may cause us to want to surpress or deny the truth.

So we will all be in various stages of being able to live with truth. That means some acknowledge the truth, others live a lie or avoid situations that expose the truth. There will appear to be variations of how people fan live with the truth. But the simple fact is none can live without the truth.

Because morality is very very different though cultures and time.

Is it though. I think it may be more about peoples understanding at those times and in those cultures rather than the moral itself. For example Eskimos use to leave their baby out in the cold to die. People use to think this was barbaric and an opposing moral view to most people. But it was discovered that it was because when resources were low and there were many mouths to feed that it was decided this was the best thing for saving all the lives they already had.

So in fact their moral view was the same as the west. They regarded life so important and precious that they were willing to sacrifice their baby to save as many lives as possible. This is in line with the wests in that "Life" is important and precious.

"We" have not establisghed that killing an humna being is "objectivly wrong". Se capital punishment f.ex.

I never said killing a human been is objectively wrong in all circumstances. In some cases it is objective right to kill someone.

If humans give it value, then its not "objective".

But the value isnt measures by subjectivity. Its measured by rationality and logic. This makes it independent of the humans subject.

Thats not how it works, and we "intuivly" think very different things depending on upbringing, culture and time.

But it has been found through reseach that we naturall believe and know right from wrong. So its not all based on culture and upbringing. Moral intuition is something gained through what we experience morally. How we see morality lived out. When you see it happen the same for 100 times I guess you dont need any measuring tapes or evidence to say that your intuition is a reliable first sense of moral wrong.

Thats how intuition works. Just like our intuition of the physical world. You experience when stepping outside your front door that you wont fly off into space or see a glitch in the matric that what you are experiencing is a true representation of how things are.

 

[VirOptimus]

What do you mean think alike. Just because there may be an objective moral doesn't mean we all will think the same like robots. We all have things happen to us that may cause us to want to surpress or deny the truth.

Why would we want to supress "the truth"? Where do this "truth" come from?

So we will all be in various stages of being able to live with truth. That means some acknowledge the truth, others live a lie or avoid situations that expose the truth. There will appear to be variations of how people fan live with the truth. But the simple fact is none can live without the truth.

This is just word salad. Define "the truth".

Is it though. I think it may be more about peoples understanding at those times and in those cultures rather than the moral itself. For example Eskimos use to leave their baby out in the cold to die. People use to think this was barbaric and an opposing moral view to most people. But it was discovered that it was because when resources were low and there were many mouths to feed that it was decided this was the best thing for saving all the lives they already had.

You still havent supported your assertion.

So in fact their moral view was the same as the west. They regarded life so important and precious that they were willing to sacrifice their baby to save as many lives as possible. This is in line with the wests in that "Life" is important and precious.

this still doenst support that "life" is an objective value.

I never said killing a human been is objectively wrong in all circumstances. In some cases it is objective right to kill someone.

And this is determined how? By what authority?

But the value isnt measures by subjectivity. Its measured by rationality and logic. This makes it independent of the humans subject.

How can you measure something by rationality andl logic? Plese, give us the metric.

But it has been found through reseach that we naturall believe and know right from wrong. So its not all based on culture and upbringing. Moral intuition is something gained through what we experience morally. How we see morality lived out. When you see it happen the same for 100 times I guess you dont need any measuring tapes or evidence to say that your intuition is a reliable first sense of moral wrong.

Then you can surely show me this research and that its seperate from culture and upbringing.

Its just a coincidence that people from the same culture and upbringing have similar moral values then?

Thats how intuition works. Just like our intuition of the physical world. You experience when stepping outside your front door that you wont fly off into space or see a glitch in the matric that what you are experiencing is a true representation of how things are.

No, thats not how "intuitution" works.

 

[o_mlly]

Because the existence of an object that can be measured by anyone is objective and morality is subjective.

My question to you: "Why is morality subjective?" Your answer: "Because ... morality is subjective." All I hear from you is that same clanging gong (btw, it's in need of a tune-up). Do let me know if you ever find an argument to support your ridiculous assertion. In the meantime, I suggest you take your own advice:

If you can't answer the question, just say so.

So you can quite rightly say that in your judgement, in your personal opinion, it is your belief that X is objectively wrong. Noting that it took around 4 attempts to get you to answer that relatively simple question, all I can say is that I have no problem with the answer.

I see there's no supply-chain problem with straw deliveries down under. Just what question does your strawman above answer?

The sighted squirrel who finds a nut is not remarkable. So, one can subjectively believe an objective truth. However, one can also subjectively believe an untruth. The "good rape" and the "flat earth" believers come to mind on the latter.

 

[essentialsaltes]

As far as I understand the reason why those with position and power are in the position to dictate what is right and wrong is because basically society has given that power over to them. Under a subjective moral system they have no choice.

Since this is, in fact, the case around the world, doesn't that imply that morality is subjective?

 

[stevevw]

Since this is, in fact, the case around the world, doesn't that imply that morality is subjective?

No that doesnt follow "that because it looks like many countries are controlled by powerful people that this equates to morality being relative/subjective". It could mean modern countries have citizens that want freedom, liberty, to choose. That usually creates a power vacumn that goes to whoever has the position, power, money to get in control.

I don't think an objective system can be implemented into modern society. Morals cannot be forced as people have free will. Objective morality has to be realized, reasoned. But selecting leaders, how we should behave has to be rationalized. We cannot just pick randomly based on our feelings and preferences.

 

[partinobodycular]

However, one can also subjectively believe an untruth. The "good rape" and the "flat earth" believers come to mind on the latter.

You missed one...objective morality. It's just as much a fallacy as the other two, and 100 pages of you arguing otherwise isn't going to change that.

 

[o_mlly]

You missed one...objective morality. It's just as much a fallacy as the other two, and 100 pages of you arguing otherwise isn't going to change that.

For the 38 or so non-believers in this thread, you're probably right. I post for those who make up the 25,000 or so views to this thread.

And you're also right to write that I have argued; the non-believers just assert. So, we don't need to add your assertion above that morality is subjective, we got plenty of those from the non-believers, what we need is an argument. Got one? The forum rules strongly suggest that you do so.

Handling Disagreements

When you disagree with someone's position, you should post evidence and supporting statements for your position. This policy sometimes referred to as "X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial.​

 

[o_mlly]

[STAFF EDITED DELETED QUOTES]
If you say so, par.

Apparently you have not read my argument -- my arguments do not appeal to any religion.

Strawman, again. Cite the post where I assert that I am infallible. You won't because you cannot.

It hard to argue with ignorance because ignorance never recognizes itself. Ignorance is an enemy, even to its owner.

 

[durangodawood]

See, I can't get a clear picture of what you're trying to prove. Are we still talking about proving that "One ought not X" is factually true, or do we agree that's nonsense?

In this sidebar discussion we're having I'm just contesting your assertion in post #1821 that (if I understand you right) we cannot ever argue to an ought statement from raw facts because whenever you do there's always an unacknowledged ought-statement in the premises.

As for my larger thoughts about what morals are and how we get them, I think we've been over that enough that you know where I stand. But I can re-state if you want.

 

[o_mlly]

There are 97 pages of your asserting that you can't possibly be wrong.

But if you would like to dispute that... it would be an easy thing to do, simply admit that you could be wrong about the existence of objective morality.

If you're not willing to do that, then I'm right...you think that your position on the existence of objective morality is infallible.

Well that simply isn't true. Ignorance often recognizes itself. There are a great many things of which I'm ignorant. But one thing that I'm definitely not ignorant of, is my own fallibility. In fact that's pretty much the definition of epistemological solipsist.

So if one of us isn't recognizing their own fallibility and ignorance, it's far more likely to be you than me.

Does anyone care to attack my argument instead of me? Or, just offer an argument? Your ad hominems will not resolve the issue.

 

[Ken-1122]

Not really. The harm done by not disciplining a child can also be measured to an extent. The position of "Not disciplining your kid" may be based on a view about child rearing or "Not disciplining your kid" may prove the right way. So we can look to see what has happened in cases where children were not disciplined and see what the results show. There will be studies done somewhere.

These studies are based on averages because you never get the same result from child to child. Some children it may be harmful, for others it might be the right thing to do. But with things that are objective, the results are the same with everybody.

 

[Bradskii]

Just what question does your strawman above answer?

I was simply reiterating what you said: '...the truth of our judgments, opinions, or beliefs is a proper concern, we should be prepared to argue with those who disagree with us, with the firm hope that our disagreement can be resolved'.

So there are moral problems. And if the truth of your judgements, opinions or beliefs regarding those moral problem are disputed then you should debate the matter so that a decision might be made as to who is correct.

Sounds like a great idea to me. It would prevent some people starting from a position 'I am right therefore you must be wrong'. A better point from which to argue would be: 'My judgement, opinion and belief tells me I'm right. What's your opinion?'

As @partinobodycular just said, we should all start from the position that we could be wrong. He's admitted that. I will admit that. How say you?

 

[Kylie]

My question to you: "Why is morality subjective?" Your answer: "Because ... morality is subjective." All I hear from you is that same clanging gong (btw, it's in need of a tune-up). Do let me know if you ever find an argument to support your ridiculous assertion.

Okay then, here's the answer to the last part of your question:

Because the morality of rape can't be measured.

I've stated that very clearly quite a few times now. Apparently you've forgotten? That's the only reason I can think of that you'd keep asking me the same question again and again.

Now, perhaps you can answer MY question to you:

How do we know the moon objectively exists?

 

[VirOptimus]

Does anyone care to attack my argument instead of me? Or, just offer an argument? Your ad hominems will not resolve the issue.

Please, lay down your argument(s) for the existance of a objective morality.