Is there Objective Morality?

[durangodawood]

Is there an objective morality?

1. Yes
2. No

1. Yes: the most common and enduring moral rules are based on objective facts about what behaviors support or oppose natural human values.

2. No: there's no evidence for an objective morality that exists "out there" beyond what we find in human minds.

 

[zippy2006]

1. Yes: the most common and enduring moral rules are based on objective facts about what behaviors support or oppose natural human values.

Does the fact that a behavior supports or opposes natural human values mean that the behavior is objectively moral or immoral?

 

[zippy2006]

Sure we do. We have ways to assign people to self-identified racial categories. And we have ways of measuring wealth or loan approvals or what have you. And it is an objective measure whether one correlates with the other to some level of statistical significance.

That's not a laser level. It's a highly contestable set of criteria that could be argued until the cows come home.

But we have no way of measuring wickedness or virtue.

We have similar contestable sets of easily-measurable criteria for morality, such as allegations, fines, felonies, charitable giving, etc. I actually think it would be easier to determine whether someone is moral or immoral than it would be to determine whether race affects access to resources in North America. A criminal background check is a simple way to get an initial reading, and they are widely used for this very purpose.

I think you're uncharitably reading my definition of objective. Obviously murders involve people.

I don't follow. Have I questioned whether murders involve people? I think there is a genuine problem with your definition, and I explained why.

 

[durangodawood]

Does the fact that a behavior supports or opposes natural human values mean that the behavior is objectively moral or immoral?

This get tricky because "moral" and "morality" are not really the same thing.

Morality is the set of rules societies agree to.
Moral is more like the feeling of judgement, the sense of this is right or this is wrong that registers emotionally.

So,
While I find the most important parts of morality to have an objective basis, the feeling of judgement that something is right or wrong is completely a subjective experience. Judging is only performed by a mind. As such its inherently an internal experience and so, not objective.

 

[zippy2006]

This get tricky because "moral" and "morality" are not really the same thing.

Morality is the set of rules societies agree to.
Moral is more like the feeling of judgement, the sense of this is right or this is wrong that registers emotionally.

So,
While I find the most important parts of morality to have an objective basis, the feeling of judgement that something is right or wrong is completely a subjective experience. Judging is only performed my a mind. As such its inherently an internal experience and so, not objective.

The idea of objective morality is usually associated with the "bindingness" of morality. That is, an objective morality binds whereas a non-objective morality doesn't.

So you say that morality is a set of rules, but is there a reason we are bound by those rules? Since morality always implies normative behavior the question is: how is that normative behavior grounded? What makes it normative? What makes it binding? What makes it obligatory?

 

[durangodawood]

The idea of objective morality is usually associated with the "bindingness" of morality. That is, an objective morality binds whereas a non-objective morality doesn't.

So you say that morality is a set of rules, but is there a reason we are bound by those rules? Since morality always implies normative behavior the question is: how is that normative behavior grounded? What makes it normative? What makes it binding? What makes it obligatory?

I dont see anything that makes judgements of right or wrong binding except to the extent that consequences are imposed by society, family, associates. (Possibly we are biologically hard wired to make certain inescapable judgements on ourselves, the sort of self judgements that haunt people, which they perhaps drink to hide from. Thats about as close to binding moral rules as I can see. But thats speculation on my part.)

I do understand that religious people often believe there is a divinity who makes moral judgements binding on people by imposing eternal consequences. But thats entirely a matter of faith. And faith is an internal subjective matter.

 

[zippy2006]

I dont see anything that makes judgements of right or wrong binding except to the extent that consequences are imposed by society. (Possibly we are biologically hard wired to make certain inescapable judgements on ourselves, the sort of self judgements that haunt people, which they perhaps drink to hide from. Thats about as close to binding moral rules as I can see. But thats speculation on my part.)

Okay, so you would say that societal consequences or inescapable self-judgments are ways that morality could bind.

I was recently talking to a Jungian who claimed that Carl Jung believed that moral decisions manifest in physical and psychological health, which is similar to your second point. Quid also touched on something like this when he said, "Morality is similar in my mind, or even an aspect or causation of health itself, in fact."

I do understand that religious people often believe there is a divinity who makes moral judgements binding on people. But thats entirely a matter of faith. And faith is an internal subjective matter.

It strikes me as objective in the sense that it obtains independent of subjective opinions. "There is a God who punishes and rewards." That statement is either true or false regardless of anyone's opinion. Again, it will depend on the definition of "objective" in play.

 

[durangodawood]

.....It strikes me as objective in the sense that it obtains independent of subjective opinions. "There is a God who punishes and rewards." That statement is either true or false regardless of anyone's opinion. Again, it will depend on the definition of "objective" in play.

Its proposed to be objective. Its not demonstrable either way. All you can show me is that people express a belief, a position held internally in their mind. I dont count pure assertion as defining objective reality. Do you?

(Good chat. will catch up tomorrow).

 

[zippy2006]

Its proposed objective. Its not demonstrable either way. All you can show me is that people express a belief, a position held internally by a mind. I dont count pure assertion as defining objective reality. Do you?

Believing that some thing exists does not thereby establish the existence of the thing, but I don't think anyone claims otherwise. The preacher on the street corner is presumably doing something more than "pure assertion."

Similarly, your claim that, "It's not demonstrable either way," is a pure assertion. It is proposed as objective. It assumes a context (of Protestant fideism). We can presume that the mere assertion would yield to justification upon request. But even if I ask for justification, you provide it, and I remain unconvinced, it does not follow that the claim is unjustified, untrue, or non-objective.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Apart from people born with hermaphroditism.

No, God did not create people like that. Such abnormalities are a consequence of the fall. The vast majority of people seeking to change gender are physically normal. Wanting to change is a symptom of mental illness, not physical abnormality.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Problem with that is that what God says is right or wrong depends on the time he said it.

Sometimes it’s okay to kill people, sometimes not.

God has never OK'd homosexuality. It's outlawed in the OT under pain of death. According to Romans 1, it is the consequence of deliberate rebellion against God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuality disqualifies someone from entering the Kingdom of God. Sin is sin. However, consequences definitely vary. Telling a lie on you tax return is not good. But it is unlikely to kill you. A gay friend of mine (I did not know he was gay at the time) backslid and contracted AIDS. He died. He repented, but he did not get healed. God is not mocked. Is there a time when it is OK to cheat the taxman? I used to think it was OK, but it's not. Stealing is never right. Adultery is never right. Fornication is never right. And the same is true of homosexuality.

 

[Larniavc]

Wanting to change is a symptom of mental illness, not physical abnormality.

No, this does not appear to be the case.

 

[Larniavc]

God has never OK'd homosexuality. It's outlawed in the OT under pain of death. According to Romans 1, it is the consequence of deliberate rebellion against God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuality disqualifies someone from entering the Kingdom of God. Sin is sin. However, consequences definitely vary. Telling a lie on you tax return is not good. But it is unlikely to kill you. A gay friend of mine (I did not know he was gay at the time) backslid and contracted AIDS. He died. He repented, but he did not get healed. God is not mocked. Is there a time when it is OK to cheat the taxman? I used to think it was OK, but it's not. Stealing is never right. Adultery is never right. Fornication is never right. And the same is true of homosexuality.

I was talking about killing people. Sometimes God mandates killing, sometimes not.

 

[Astrid]

God has never OK'd homosexuality. It's outlawed in the OT under pain of death. According to Romans 1, it is the consequence of deliberate rebellion against God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuality disqualifies someone from entering the Kingdom of God. Sin is sin. However, consequences definitely vary. Telling a lie on you tax return is not good. But it is unlikely to kill you. A gay friend of mine (I did not know he was gay at the time) backslid and contracted AIDS. He died. He repented, but he did not get healed. God is not mocked. Is there a time when it is OK to cheat the taxman? I used to think it was OK, but it's not. Stealing is never right. Adultery is never right. Fornication is never right. And the same is true of homosexuality.

Stealing is never right?
Surely you're joking.

 

[stevevw]

In the thread on mortal force there was a side-discussion about objective morality (for example, see this post). Is there such a thing as objective morality? If so, what is it? If not, why not?

Anyone who answers the question needs to give their definitions of “objective” and “morality.” Once they have set out their definitions they should go on to explain why they believe there is or is not an objective morality. Some starter definitions of objectivity can be found at Merriam-Webster and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

If you want to critique someone’s position you should begin by telling them 1) Whether their conclusion accords with their definitions, 2) Whether you agree with their definitions, and 3) Why you believe their argument is sound or unsound.

Morality according to the dictionary means "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour". I think that is a pretty good definition. Objective relates to facts and when it comes to morality it is facts independent of the persons (the subject) views, feelings and opinions.

Objective facts don’t have to be like scientific facts. Though some people like Sam Harris (the Moral Landscape) relate objective morality to scientific type facts that can be determined by using "human well-being" as the measuring stick. If an action supports human wellbeing its morally good.

But this reduces morality to human pain and pleasure. The question then is how we measure human wellbeing. This can be subjective as well. Human wellbeing is a common method of measuring morality.

But I think objective morality is like a law that we all know within us (our conscience). But this inner knowledge of moral right and wrong can be obscured or denied through rationalization depending on the circumstances which can then be mistaken as subjective morality.

When it comes to moral values they can be measured objectively through human experience because if we have an inner knowledge of right and wrong then it must be something we cannot avoid. Our lived experience (the way we act and react) will reflect that inner moral truth regardless of what we say.

We all know that certain things are wrong like abusing a child, rape, killing ect. It can get complicated for some things as they involve social and cultural understandings but we should still be able to find a similar moral value that we all know and acknowledge. Often it is not recognised and just assumed.

So the measure of moral truth is based on real human lived experience and not what people say as what people say is not always how they act and therefore what they really believe. So when someone claims morality is subjective they will often contradict their own subjective position in lived moral experiences. They may for example say it’s OK to steal but then object when someone steals from them.

Whenever anyone argues with another they expect that person to be honest and not misrepresent their arguments. Otherwise it is impossible to have any coherent differences with people to determine truth. If the person says that there is no moral truth such as honesty then the other person can lie. But when that happens there are objections of misrepresentation. So certain object moral values are inherent in human interactions and cannot be avoided.

Because these moral truths as lived experiences are unavoidable, contradict what people claim about morality and remain the same despite people’s personal views of morality they are therefore independent of the person (the subject) and objective.

 

[durangodawood]

Believing that some thing exists does not thereby establish the existence of the thing, but I don't think anyone claims otherwise. The preacher on the street corner is presumably doing something more than "pure assertion."

We've reframed the question of an objective-binding morality correctly, I think: does the God of the Bible exist? If the answer is yes, then I'd agree, the sort of binding morality you assert is real.

Similarly, your claim that, "It's not demonstrable either way," is a pure assertion. It is proposed as objective. It assumes a context (of Protestant fideism). We can presume that the mere assertion would yield to justification upon request. But even if I ask for justification, you provide it, and I remain unconvinced, it does not follow that the claim is unjustified, untrue, or non-objective.

Is it? Its seems like a very sound inference to me. If youve got a demonstration of the existence of God, I'm all ears. In fact the world is waiting.

If the question of the existence of the Christian God can be settled anywhere else other than in a personal internal decision to believe, Id love to hear about it. If you can show me that, then your proposal that there's a divine-origin objective morality can advance to something more certain.

(Not sure why we're going down this route when I think we agree about your post #3 idea of an objective morality that arises from wisdom about how virtuous action advances natural human values. That morality applies whether we are beholden to divine judgement or not.)

 

[variant]

The objective portion of morality is that there is an objective and optimal way to obtain both personally and societally what we value.

The subjective portion of morality are the values themselves.

What you care about and what you want to happen ideally must be part of your morality, and if such things are different between different observers morality can not be objective.

Religious views that there can be objective value systems based upon the known wishes of Gods, have in my opinion, been very poor at being an objective measure of value.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

In the thread on mortal force there was a side-discussion about objective morality (for example, see this post). Is there such a thing as objective morality? If so, what is it? If not, why not?

Anyone who answers the question needs to give their definitions of “objective” and “morality.” Once they have set out their definitions they should go on to explain why they believe there is or is not an objective morality. Some starter definitions of objectivity can be found at Merriam-Webster and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

If you want to critique someone’s position you should begin by telling them 1) Whether their conclusion accords with their definitions, 2) Whether you agree with their definitions, and 3) Why you believe their argument is sound or unsound.

There are two senses in which the term "objective" has meaning. In metaphysics the term means that reality exists independent of conscious activity such as wishing, liking, preferring, demanding, believing, faith, etc. The more important meaning of "objective" is in the epistemological sense. In that sense, objective means facts-based and discovered by an objective method of cognition.

Morality is a code of values to guide one's actions and choices, which choices and actions determine the course of one's life.

So what is an objective moral code. It is one that is facts-based and discovered by means of reason guided by logic. Logic is the art or skill of non-contradictory identification of facts. It is the method of objectivity and as such, it adhere's to the primacy of existence, the view that the things that exist are what they are and do what they do independent of anyone's conscious activity. Wishing doesn't make things so, to make it concrete for you.

A subjective moral code is one that is based on feelings and adhere's to the primacy of consciousness view of reality. This is the view that the things that exist are what they are and do what they do because some consciousness determines what things are and how they act. Wishing does make things so. There are three versions of subjective morality: the individual, the collective, and the divine. In the individual version, something is right because you say it's right. In the collective, something is right because society or the group says it's right. In the devine version, something is right because a divine being says so.

So there are subjective and objective moral codes. The difference is in the method and input that informs them.

 

[Astrid]

The objective portion of morality is that there is an objective and optimal way to obtain both personally and societally what we value.

The subjective portion of morality are the values themselves.

What you care about and what you want to happen ideally must be part of your morality, and if such things are different between different observers morality can not be objective.

Religious views that there can be objective value systems based upon the known wishes of Gods, have in my opinion, been very poor at being an objective measure of value.

It seems to me that a heavy burden is on all of us
in this as in all aspects of navigating through
life.
It's tempting to look for moral absolutes.
And terrif if they come with absolute
Authority.
Takes away the burden of having to think,
using the brain God is presumed to have given
them.

A question I've asked: Would you steal
anything, ever, from anyone for any
possible reason?

There was a movie, someone steals money from
a vending machine in order to make a phone call
to prevent all out nuclear war.

Your moral- absolute- from- God would say
no. God said not to steal.

I believe such God as there may be, if he has
any actual interest in people one way or
another, would like people to THINK.
Take responsibility for themselves, not
use Him as an excuse.

There's possums and trout and so forth if
there's any demand for brains that don't think.

 

[zippy2006]

We've reframed the question of an objective-binding morality correctly, I think: does the God of the Bible exist? If the answer is yes, then I'd agree, the sort of binding morality you assert is real.

Well, no. You yourself gave two forms of binding morality. I gave one in post #3. None of these were related to God. In fact, you are the one who brought up God, not me.

Is it? Its seems like a very sound inference to me.

There was no inference. Where were your premises? Where was your inferential reasoning? There was none. It was just an assertion.

(Not sure why we're going down this route when I think we agree about your post #3 idea of an objective morality that arises from wisdom about how virtuous action advances natural human values. That morality applies whether we are beholden to divine judgement or not.)

We’re talking about God because you brought him up in post #30.

----------

What you care about and what you want to happen ideally must be part of your morality, and if such things are different between different observers morality can not be objective.

See post #2.