Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

That's not quite what I meant.
I've seen many times the argument that if there are natural laws (like the law of gravity, etc), then there must be a lawmaker, and this lawmaker is God. It is based on the flawed assumption that laws of nature are made the same way as laws of government. Laws of nature are not just something that some person or persons decided to enact the way people decide to enact a law against theft. The objectively true laws of nature are inherent properties of reality. If morality is objective, then they too must be inherent properties of reality and not something that was proclaimed by some entity. And that's a problem if we claim that God is the source of morality.

But if objective moral laws are created by God and all humans intuitively know them then a government is just utilizing those known laws to govern society. You’re elevating the government to a position of being the original creator of those moral laws when they are just imposing what may be moral laws of nature.

If God says, "This particular thing is morally wrong," then it's still just some being declaring something to be the case. It's not based on some inherent aspect of reality. Thus, even if morality does come from a God, it's still subjective.

I don’t think anyone is hearing or seeing God dictate the moral laws just like no one is seeing God wave a wand in making the laws of nature work. They are invisible qualities that govern the way the universe and morality work.

Just like C. S. Lewis argument against God. Lewis had inadvertently acknowledged that Gods moral laws were in all of us and part of the universe. Where did his idea of unjust come from in the first place when he was angry with God for an unjust universe?. Just like how does a man know a stick is crooked if he doesn’t know what straight is.

If it was just his personal view about God being unjust then this carried no weight in his argument against God. So his idea of just and unjust had to come from beyond him like some law of the universe and it actually supported the idea of a moral law maker beyond subjective humans.

I get what you're saying, but I think you missed the point. A person could give incorrect information for many reasons. They may not have the whole picture, and so have reached an incorrect conclusion based on the incomplete data they have. Or their personal biases might be affecting them subconsciously. It does not need to involve any deliberate act of deception on their part from them to be wrong.

OK I see now. Honesty is a big enough value to accommodate most things as we know in real debates. People can usually tell when something isnt right. They will question biases and will accept that people don't have the whole picture to be able to determine the truth clearly. That’s part of debating and nutting out all those influences.

The point is without honesty as the guide people could not negotiate through those things and everything would breakdown where people didn’t know what was true or an attempt at truth and what was just lies and misrepresentations.

Whether something is an honest statement or not can be objective, I agree. But honesty itself carries no moral weight. It is simply a measure of whether something is a true statement or not. Making an honest statement and whether it is morally correct to make such a statement are two different things.

I think your overlooking the value of honesty itself. When you say whether something is an honest statement or not can be objective and that honesty itself carries no moral weight what you are missing is that without the value of honesty there would be no way to determine honest or dishonest statements. How would you know what an honest statement looked like if you didnt have the value of honesty in the first place.

Once again I am not talking about honesty applied but honesty as an epistemic value which becomes a rule or guide as to whether a statemnet is honest or not. So we cannot do without the value of honesty if we want to determine an honest statemnet within a debate or discussion. Take honesty out of the equation and we just have statements without value claiming all sorts of things and no way to tell the truth.

Sadly, it does happen.
This story is a confronting one, I advise that you don't read it if the topic of sexual assault against children will be triggering for you: Martina's story | Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse

The first paragraph states that Martina's father was abusing the children, and that Martina's mother knew but did nothing to stop it.

Yes as you point out this is a shocking and morally wrong situation. But I fail to see how this supports the idea that anyone who was abusing the child thought it was morally good. They all acknowledge that it was morally wrong by the fact that the parents and priests kept the abuse secret (the actions of a guilty conscience).

This is a common mistake that people think just because someone is doing something that it must be morally good. But once again this is another example of lived moral experience showing that we all know there are objective morals and they will affect the way we act/react in morally lived situations. In this case it was the fact that every abuser tried to hide their actions thus exposing their true beliefs about morality.

If they had the subjective view that it was OK to abuse a child then their actions certainly didn’t show that. It actually contradicted their subjective moral position otherwise they would have been happy for everyone to know. So in reality even the people acting out their morals were not happy to have a child abused because they could not live with the truth exposing their actions.

Not sure what point you are trying to make, since it fits perfectly with what I said.

We live in a particular society. Thus we have a moral compass that has been shaped by that society and the requirements we face living with other people within that society. Other societies have different moral compasses because their society is different to ours, and so they have developed different moral viewpoints.

That’s more or less describing relative morality.

We look at them and conclude those morals are bad because they do not match the morals that we have. However, this fails to see the point that people from those societies could just as easily look at us and claim we are the ones who are morally wrong because we do not fit with what they consider to be moral.

The point is under relative morality a societies view on morality should stop at their border. They cannot condemn another society or culture for a different moral view because otherwise they are claiming to know and hold the truth about morality not just for themselves but for other societies. That is actually objective morality.

Relative morality states that there are no ultimate moral truths and each society/culture is entitled to hold their own moral truth and other societies should realize that they have the right to do so because of the fact there is no ultimate moral truth. Because there is no ultimate truth no society can claim another societies morals are wrong because they cannot possibly know the ultimate truth as to whether they are really wrong.

The moment a society condemns another society of being morally wrong they are actually supporting objective morality by saying their view of morality should be applied to every society in the world thus making one objective morality for all to abide by. This is an example of how lived morality pops its head out and exposes even societies for living like there is objective morality.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Can you make an argument for a case that justifies the acts of either rape or murder for "similarly situated individuals"?

I am not a sophist, but I can report that other people have said things like "I like Brussels sprouts" or "She was asking for it." "Look how she was dressed." "She led me on." "She didn't scream or fight back."

But I don't think the existence of different opinions tells us much of anything about whether morality really is or isn't objective. Except I guess, if it is objective, it is certainly not intuitive or immediately obvious what the right answer is.

 

[o_mlly]

I am not a sophist, but I can report that other people have said things like "I like Brussels sprouts" or "She was asking for it." "Look how she was dressed." "She led me on." "She didn't scream or fight back."

But I don't think the existence of different opinions tells us much of anything about whether morality really is or isn't objective. Except I guess, if it is objective, it is certainly not intuitive or immediately obvious what the right answer is.

So, are you saying that if the alleged rapist reports that: "She was asking for it", or "Look how she was dressed." "She led me on" or "She didn't scream or fight back" then those circumstances justify rape as a moral act? Or are you saying the act was not one of rape?

 

[essentialsaltes]

So, are you saying that if the alleged rapist reports that: "She was asking for it", or "Look how she was dressed." "She led me on" or "She didn't scream or fight back" then those circumstances justify rape as a moral act?

Not to me. But it does (apparently) to the rapist.

I don't think there's a way to factually prove the rapist wrong, as a matter of objective fact. It is not like saying the earth is flat, where there is an objective fact to the matter.

Fortunately, the law (which is an entirely separate subject) agrees with my opinion. So we lock him up, regardless of his lousy opinions.

 

[o_mlly]

I don't think there's a way to factually prove the rapist wrong, as a matter of objective fact. It is not like saying the earth is flat, where there is an objective fact to the matter..

Prove? Science does not prove anything as true.

Do you agree that everyone has a right to their own bodily integrity?

 

[Ken-1122]

I already did with the moral value of honesty being needed to have a meaningful and coherent debate/discussion between people who are seeking the truth of a matter.

You never proved honesty is needed in order to have a meaningful and coherent discussion between people; you just made the empty claim with nothing to back it up.j And just for the record, there have been plenty of meaningful and coherent discussions where both parties were not honest, and plenty of honest discussions that go nowhere; so you’re wrong twice. Care to try again?
Provide an scenario of something immoral, and provide objective proof that it is immoral

Are you serious, depending on the type of torture. No torture is morally good. Can you show me an example of torturing a child for fun is morally good.

I didn't say for fun. Torture is just an extreme form of abuse. Many people consider whipping a child extreme abuse. It isn't too much of a leap for them to consider such extreme abuse akin to torture; while others will consider the same action deserved punishment. It’s all a matter of where you draw the line.

You havent given any example of what you are talking about so I cannot know what it is I should prove them wrong about.

Provide objective proof that torture is immoral.

Thats not the point. The point is like above people act/react like its wrong. The west speaks out against the African tribes who mutilate their women yet the same western society claims morals are subjective/relative. If morals were really subjective/relative then they would not condemn the African tribes. They would understand that different cultures have different relative morality.

You make the common mistake of assuming subjective morality means all other views are respected; it does not, It means you recognize other views exist, and why they exist.

You miss the point. As mentioned above, people want to stop the child abuse even before they find out what the reasons are for that child abuse. In otherwords they dont care about the reasons (the subjective reasons). All they know is the abuse should stop and there is no excuse for it. Thats objective because it doesnt allow for subjective reasons.

I disagree. A mother spanks a naughty child, some people will say the child deserved the spanking while others will say the mother is abusing the child. There is no consensus on what constitutes child abuse.

 

[Ken-1122]

Rape is the sexual violation of a person's body without their consent (there is no need to be more graphic for purposes of this thread). Statutory Rape extends the definition of rape to include those who cannot freely give consent. The age of consent is a matter of judgement.

As I pointed out before, the age of consent varies from State to State so two people having consensual sex in one state is considered rape in another; do you agree? If so, you’ve made my point.

Murder

is the act that directly kills an innocent person.

Murder is a legal term defined according to the law of the land. Different lands have different laws. In Nazi Germany, it was not considered murder to kill a Jewish person. In some Islamic States, it was not considered murder to kill Homosexuals, or killing a daughter who shames the family for refusing to marry someone she doesn’t love. My point is; an act committed in one country is called murder, but the same act committed in another country is not. Do you agree? If so you make my point.

Can you make an argument for circumstances that would make the acts of rape or murder moral acts?

I believe rape and murder to be immoral, and I believe all moral and immoral acts to be subjective.

 

[zippy2006]

And there you go, the moral relativist thinks they can make a case for an objective morality.

What do you mean “there you go”? Do you think there is something about the SEP quote that counts as evidence for your hypothesis that moral relativism purports to be a form of moral objectivism, or a form of moral realism? (I don’t even see the relevant different between moral realism and moral objectivism, so I don’t know how that distinction helps you)

In reality you haven’t produced a single piece of evidence for your hypothesis that moral relativism purports to be a form of moral objectivism, or moral realism. For claims and arguments which contradict your hypothesis, see here, here, here, here, and here, in addition to the three sources I gave in post #290.

Ahh, but the relativist is speaking of objectivity in the same sense you are.

No they aren’t. We have a giant mass of encyclopedias and articles that are all uniformly contrary to your personal opinion.

We're talking about whether the theories of relativists and subjectivists are similar. They aren't because they make mutually exclusive claims about the nature of moral statements.

No, we’re talking about whether moral relativism is a form of moral objectivism. This began when in post #206 you questioned the inference that moral relativism is contrary to moral objectivism. All moral relativism is non-objective, but that doesn’t mean that it is subjective. I think it is subjective, but some seem to think it is neither objective nor subjective. Either way, it’s not objective.

The claims of moral subjectivism and the claims of moral relativism are mutually exclusive, but that doesn’t mean moral relativism is a form of moral objectivism.

It's relativism vs absolutism and objectivism vs subjectivism.

If you want to know what a term means, such as “moral relativism,” you have to look at usage. You can’t just make up a meaning based on an attempt at logical deduction. Moral relativism arose in the context of de-colonization and de-universalization. It is the claim that a culture or historical period are morally autonomous and cannot be held to universal, absolute, or objective standards.

Subjectivism is the odd man out, everything else claims objectivity.

You seem to be making this up as you go. Moral relativism does not claim objectivity. The whole point of moral relativism was to relativize objective standards.

Moral subjectivism is premised on characteristically subjective phenomena, and it is opposed to moral objectivism which claims that all subjects are beholden to an objective and universal moral standard that binds them all. Similarly, moral relativism is premised on characteristically cultural phenomena, and it is opposed to moral objectivism which claims that all cultures are beholden to an objective and universal moral standard that binds them all.

It doesn’t matter that the logical contraries are relative/universal and subjective/objective, for only things which are universal qua rationality can be objective to humans. To say, “X is only true for the Mexican culture,” is at the same time to say that X is not objectively true, even though the immediate inference is that it is not universally true. As noted in post #3, objective means something like, “true and accessible to all.” If a proposition is not true for all humans then it isn’t objective.

 

[zippy2006]

To cut to the chase a bit, let me ask this question: Do you hold that every single circumstantial theory is non-objective?

The circumstantial evidence itself may be objective (in the example I used later in the post you are quoting, the fact there was someone running away is objectively true, the fact someone was assaulted is objectively true), but the conclusion that is reached using this circumstantial evidence can't be held to be true.

But that doesn’t answer my question at all. Again: Do you hold that every single circumstantial theory is non-objective?

Whether to discipline a child will certainly depend on things, such as whether the child misbehaved.

This sounds like it was answered by a politician.

1. You falsely attributed a claim to me that I never made. I have no need to answer for other people’s claims.
2. Usually people have no idea what they are talking about when they refer to circumstances in a moral context, and this is likely why your original comment was made.
3. You have been asked, over and over, what you mean by circumstances, and you consistently fail to give a straight answer, which provides me with more evidence that you don’t know what you mean when you use that word.
4. I have already given two examples of so-called “circumstantial theories” which were based on your own examples (throwing a ball and assessing the gravity of a planet). You ignored them both, despite the fact that they are obviously both objective.

So how would you answer the question I asked? Is it objective or isn't it?

Why do you insist on yes/no answers to non-yes/no questions? I clearly stated my position.

This just so happens to be a thread on objective morality. You made a claim that circumstantial theories are not objective. I asked you why, and you couldn’t say. I then asked about other circumstantial theories, and you couldn’t say. I then asked about your own circumstantial theory of disciplining a child, and again, you couldn’t say. If you don’t have an answer as to whether any of these circumstantial theories are objective, then it is remarkable that you would make an umbrella statement about the non-objectivity of circumstantial theories.

Regarding yes/no questions, they are the simplest kind. When I find that someone is unable to give straight answers to my questions, I resort to yes/no questions. When they are unable even to answer yes/no questions, it is obvious that they have no interest in rational dialogue. At that point the conversation ends.

But it's based on CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence.

And at every opportunity you have failed to tell us why that matters, what it has to do with objectivity, or what circumstantial evidence even is. So that tells us absolutely nothing.

Okay then, let's try that with morality.

I will give you a situation and I want you to tell me what the morally correct thing would be for that situation. But before I tell you what the situation is, I want you to set out the moral viewpoints you will be using ahead of time, and you will not be allowed to redact it after it is set.

So please, lay out the moral framework you will be using.

It should be fairly straight forward, right? I mean, if I was doing this regarding the projectile trajectory on Mars, I could easily just provide a formula and say, "This variable here is where I plug in the value for Mars' gravity, this value is where I plug in atmospheric density, this value is where I plug in windspeed, etc." Can you do this sort of thing with morality?

I follow the moral philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. He died 750 years ago, so nothing in his collected works, which cover about 18 volumes, is liable to change. It is a robust and sophisticated system, as is any moral philosophy. If you aren’t able to answer yes/no questions then trying to learn moral philosophy probably won’t be of much interest to you, but feel free to ask away. His primary treatises on circumstances are found in Summa Theolgiae I.II q. 18 and De Malo q. 2.

I will at this time point out that I clearly said RATIONAL people. I said this twice in the passage you quoted, yet you seem to have missed it both times.

In any case, given that relativity disagrees with quantum mechanics in certain situations, I think there's enough reason to rationally conclude that there are pieces of the puzzle that are missing. So I don't think we can say that relativity is ALWAYS going to be the best explanation. But that's getting off topic...

If there is an objectively true solution to these problems, no matter how difficult, then all rational people will agree to it once it is shown.

Again, I said RATIONAL people.

Oh, right, you were singling out the “rational” people. How could I have missed that. I should have known that we don’t have to worry about all those irrational people. And it’s always easy to know who’s who, right? Let me guess: the rational people agree with you and the irrational people disagree with you?

 

[Kylie]

Rape is usually still bad for everyone because of its facility to spread disease. The powerful Lord strikes mankind with many unpredictable and devastating diseases.

Again, I will point out that EVERY act of sex can do this, even those between happily married people.

Even when a woman doesn't yell, such sexual act is still not justified in the bible. In fact, it's considered adultery and both parties are considered to have done wrong. Again, nobody benefits and everyone gets hurt.

Especially the woman, who gets killed because she didn't cry out, perhaps out of fear for her life.

Rape is the lack of consent (where a woman is yelling) and the chance of spreading disease increases. She could be withholding consent because she has a sexually transmitted disease or cautious about diseases. There is no restraint or measure to control the disease, when there is no consent. However, with consent, there is a greater chance for observation of disease, cleanliness, and morality.

So, is the "sex = disease" really the hill you're choosing to fight on?

 

[Kylie]

But if objective moral laws are created by God and all humans intuitively know them then a government is just utilizing those known laws to govern society. You’re elevating the government to a position of being the original creator of those moral laws when they are just imposing what may be moral laws of nature.

Woah, hang on there.

If all Humans intuitively know them, then we should see ALL human societies tend towards the same moral viewpoints. Yet in some we see plural marriages are find, but not in other societies. We see some societies are okay with the death penalty, and others are not.

I don’t think anyone is hearing or seeing God dictate the moral laws just like no one is seeing God wave a wand in making the laws of nature work. They are invisible qualities that govern the way the universe and morality work.

It doesn't matter if anyone sees God do it or not.

If you claim that moral laws are laws because God has declared them to be so - that there is a law maker - then that's all that matters.

Just like C. S. Lewis argument against God. Lewis had inadvertently acknowledged that Gods moral laws were in all of us and part of the universe. Where did his idea of unjust come from in the first place when he was angry with God for an unjust universe?. Just like how does a man know a stick is crooked if he doesn’t know what straight is.

We don't need some external source to show us what works to keep a society working. Any society where murder, theft, etc was common would quickly find itself falling apart and failing. So any society that lasts is naturally going to have attitudes against murder, theft, etc.

If it was just his personal view about God being unjust then this carried no weight in his argument against God. So his idea of just and unjust had to come from beyond him like some law of the universe and it actually supported the idea of a moral law maker beyond subjective humans.

How do you figure? Why does a person's personal views have to come from beyond that person?

OK I see now. Honesty is a big enough value to accommodate most things as we know in real debates. People can usually tell when something isnt right. They will question biases and will accept that people don't have the whole picture to be able to determine the truth clearly. That’s part of debating and nutting out all those influences.

In my experience, the average person doesn't.

The point is without honesty as the guide people could not negotiate through those things and everything would breakdown where people didn’t know what was true or an attempt at truth and what was just lies and misrepresentations.

True. Honesty is needed for clear communication. However, I don't see that makes it a moral issue. There are cases where dishonesty can be the more morally correct thing to do. I could meet a friend for a night out on the town and think she's wearing a dress that looks bad on her, but I'm not going to tell her that. It will ruin her whole night. I'll just tell her that she looks great and we'll both go out and have a good time.

I think your overlooking the value of honesty itself. When you say whether something is an honest statement or not can be objective and that honesty itself carries no moral weight what you are missing is that without the value of honesty there would be no way to determine honest or dishonest statements. How would you know what an honest statement looked like if you didnt have the value of honesty in the first place.

That doesn't make it a moral quality.

Once again I am not talking about honesty applied but honesty as an epistemic value which becomes a rule or guide as to whether a statemnet is honest or not. So we cannot do without the value of honesty if we want to determine an honest statemnet within a debate or discussion. Take honesty out of the equation and we just have statements without value claiming all sorts of things and no way to tell the truth.

Again, this is making a connection that honesty has some bearing on morality, and I don't see that this is the case.

Yes as you point out this is a shocking and morally wrong situation. But I fail to see how this supports the idea that anyone who was abusing the child thought it was morally good. They all acknowledge that it was morally wrong by the fact that the parents and priests kept the abuse secret (the actions of a guilty conscience).

This is a common mistake that people think just because someone is doing something that it must be morally good. But once again this is another example of lived moral experience showing that we all know there are objective morals and they will affect the way we act/react in morally lived situations. In this case it was the fact that every abuser tried to hide their actions thus exposing their true beliefs about morality.

If they had the subjective view that it was OK to abuse a child then their actions certainly didn’t show that. It actually contradicted their subjective moral position otherwise they would have been happy for everyone to know. So in reality even the people acting out their morals were not happy to have a child abused because they could not live with the truth exposing their actions.

I've heard situations where parents allow people to assault their children in return for money. It's very rare, thankfully, but it does happen.

That’s more or less describing relative morality.

It's subjective, because the ideas of what is moral or not will depend on the opinions of those in the society.

The point is under relative morality a societies view on morality should stop at their border. They cannot condemn another society or culture for a different moral view because otherwise they are claiming to know and hold the truth about morality not just for themselves but for other societies. That is actually objective morality.

There are always going to be people who think that what is good for them will be good for everyone. A person can hold a moral view and think that since it works for them, everyone should hold the same view, but that doesn't make it objectively true.

Relative morality states that there are no ultimate moral truths and each society/culture is entitled to hold their own moral truth and other societies should realize that they have the right to do so because of the fact there is no ultimate moral truth. Because there is no ultimate truth no society can claim another societies morals are wrong because they cannot possibly know the ultimate truth as to whether they are really wrong.

Doesn't stop a person from holding such a view and still thinking it's objectively moral.

The moment a society condemns another society of being morally wrong they are actually supporting objective morality by saying their view of morality should be applied to every society in the world thus making one objective morality for all to abide by. This is an example of how lived morality pops its head out and exposes even societies for living like there is objective morality.

I don't see how thinking other people should share your opinion makes that opinion objectively moral.

A person living in a large European city may hold a certain moral viewpoint, and so think that this moral viewpoint should be applied to the man living in a tribe in the Amazon. The city man may believe that his viewpoint is objectively true, which is why he feels justified in trying to apply it to the Amazon man. But that doesn't make it an objectively true viewpoint, even if he thinks it does.

In short, living like there is an objective morality doesn't mean there is an objective morality.

 

[Kylie]

But that doesn’t answer my question at all. Again: Do you hold that every single circumstantial theory is non-objective?

The question is meaningless. They are two separate issues. A determination about can't be made from knowledge of the other.

You falsely attributed a claim to me that I never made. I have no need to answer for other people’s claims.

And I admitted that I made a mistake, and then asked if you agreed with the claim Steve made. That was back in post 275, so I don't see why you are only now getting upset about it, particularly when I just asked if you agreed with a claim made by someone else, not demanding that you justify his claim.

Usually people have no idea what they are talking about when they refer to circumstances in a moral context, and this is likely why your original comment was made.
You have been asked, over and over, what you mean by circumstances, and you consistently fail to give a straight answer, which provides me with more evidence that you don’t know what you mean when you use that word.
I have already given two examples of so-called “circumstantial theories” which were based on your own examples (throwing a ball and assessing the gravity of a planet). You ignored them both, despite the fact that they are obviously both objective.

Then perhaps if you clearly define what you mean, not just give examples.

This just so happens to be a thread on objective morality. You made a claim that circumstantial theories are not objective. I asked you why, and you couldn’t say. I then asked about other circumstantial theories, and you couldn’t say. I then asked about your own circumstantial theory of disciplining a child, and again, you couldn’t say. If you don’t have an answer as to whether any of these circumstantial theories are objective, then it is remarkable that you would make an umbrella statement about the non-objectivity of circumstantial theories.

I am talking about what I understand circumstantial evidence to mean. If you claim "circumstantial" means something different in a moral context and yet fail to define exactly what that meaning is, then it's on you for being unclear.

Regarding yes/no questions, they are the simplest kind. When I find that someone is unable to give straight answers to my questions, I resort to yes/no questions. When they are unable even to answer yes/no questions, it is obvious that they have no interest in rational dialogue. At that point the conversation ends.

And I clearly answered it. There are some kinds of punishment that just about everyone would say were unacceptable, and if someone believed in objective morality, they would cite this as evidence that those punishments were objectively wrong. "It is objectively morally wrong to execute a child for stealing a chocolate bar," they'd say. But they couldn't agree on what was the objectively morally right punishment. Which I clearly stated in my post.

Another example to hopefully demonstrate this.

Let's say I ask people to sort marbles based on colour. I have a box for all the green marbles. Now, it's an objective fact that red is not green. There will be no disagreement there. But when it comes to colours that are closer, there will be disagreement. I might put a marble into the green box, and someone else might say, "No, that's not green, it's yellow." I'd say, "Sure, it's a bit yellowish, but it's a yellowish green and I still think it's close enough to green to go in the green box."

So we can objectively state what ISN'T a green marble (such as the red marbles), but we can't objectively agree on what IS a green marble.

And at every opportunity you have failed to tell us why that matters, what it has to do with objectivity, or what circumstantial evidence even is. So that tells us absolutely nothing.

As I've already said, I've been using what I understand circumstantial evidence to be. If you want to claim that it means something different when it comes to morality, the onus is on you to provide such a definition before starting the discussion begins.

I follow the moral philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. He died 750 years ago, so nothing in his collected works, which cover about 18 volumes, is liable to change. It is a robust and sophisticated system, as is any moral philosophy. If you aren’t able to answer yes/no questions then trying to learn moral philosophy probably won’t be of much interest to you, but feel free to ask away. His primary treatises on circumstances are found in Summa Theolgiae I.II q. 18 and De Malo q. 2.

Okay, here's the situation.

John's wife is very sick, and without an expensive medication she will die. But they are very poor and John can't afford to get the medication his wife needs. One day, John is walking down the street and he finds a wad of money on the ground. This will be enough to buy the medication his wife needs. He picks it up and puts it in his pocket, grateful that his wife isn't going to die. But just as he is walking away, a little old lady hurries down the street, looking for something. She says that she lost her money and she needs it to pay rent. If she can't pay rent, she will be evicted and since it is the middle of winter, she will be homeless in the bitter cold. She would surely die in the night.

Tell me, objectively speaking, what the morally correct thing for John to do is in this situation. Since we can be precisely exact when talking about things like trajectories, I expect you to be equally exact when talking about the morality of this situation.

Oh, right, you were singling out the “rational” people. How could I have missed that. I should have known that we don’t have to worry about all those irrational people. And it’s always easy to know who’s who, right? Let me guess: the rational people agree with you and the irrational people disagree with you?

No need for snark.

A rational person is one who when faced with demonstrably true claims will accept those claims.

I can demonstrate that the claim that Earth's gravity is 9.8 meters per second squared is true. I can demonstrate the claim that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters in one second is true. Any person who disagrees with these claims has no rationality for doing so, and thus is irrational (at least when it comes to the issue they are rejecting).

Of course, if you can think of a way to get irrational people to always agree to what is objectively true, then I'd love to hear it.

 

[stevevw]

Have you ever tasted some food or drink that you found just delicious, but when you mentioned to someone else they said it was disgusting, and you were shocked? You, if only for a short while, thought they were wrong to disagree with you. Surely if it tasted delicious, then it must truly be delicious, right?

Maybe you've seen a movie or television show or heard a song that you felt was a masterpiece, and are surprised to hear someone hate it. Surely you can't be wrong to like it. Surely it must truly be good and the other person is mistaken for hating it.

And yeah, when you stop to think about it you realize that different people have different tastes and preferences, but that initial gut reaction makes you feel that things you like are objectively good, even if the feeling is fleeting, doesn't it?

But that analogy is wrong as likes and dislikes are subjective as well. They dont relate to innate objective morals that people have within them which they intuitively know about. A taste for some food can change as well. We all know the story of a kid who said he use to hate peas or brocolli but now he is an adult he loves them (I was one of those kids lol). Then people can turn off certain foods due to various reasons.

Also likes and dislikes to food is a poor comparison to morality because it equates morality to pleasure and displeasure/pain. Pleasure and pain are also subjective.

 

[Moral Orel]

If you want to know what a term means, such as “moral relativism,” you have to look at usage.

True, I made a mistake. Pitting isms against each other was incorrect. So let me rephrase.

It's relative vs absolute and objective vs subjective. Relative isn't excluded from being objective, so proving that something is relative doesn't prove that it isn't objective.

(I don’t even see the relevant different between moral realism and moral objectivism, so I don’t know how that distinction helps you)

There is no distinction, that was my point. All moral realists claim that morality is objective, even if you wouldn't call them "objectivists".

So okay, "moral objectivists" think that morality is universal, that doesn't exclude relative statements from being objective. It just means that "moral relativists" aren't "moral objectivists". Let's try an example.

Let's say you see a person in need of CPR, but you haven't been trained in CPR, you just kinda sorta remember seeing it in a few TV shows and movies. Should you perform what you think is CPR? No, right? But if you are a trained paramedic, then yes, you should perform CPR. If I grant for the sake of argument that morality can be objective, and aiding folks in need is objectively good, then the statement "Trained professionals should perform CPR on people that need CPR" would be a factual, objective statement. Not a subjective opinion. Just like "Untrained non-professionals should not perform CPR" would be a factual, objective statement. But the statements makes clear that what action you should perform is relative to your level of training, does it not?

And yes, I know I snipped most of your post out. But I hope that acknowledging my mistake is sufficient to shift gears away from my faulty claims about this "ist" or that "ist".

 

[Kylie]

But that analogy is wrong as likes and dislikes are subjective as well. They dont relate to innate objective morals that people have within them which they intuitively know about. A taste for some food can change as well. We all know the story of a kid who said he use to hate peas or brocolli but now he is an adult he loves them (I was one of those kids lol). Then people can turn off certain foods due to various reasons.

Also likes and dislikes to food is a poor comparison to morality because it equates morality to pleasure and displeasure/pain. Pleasure and pain are also subjective.

Nothing you've said can't also be applied to morality.

A person can change their moral views. They might support the death penalty, but then decide that no crime warrants execution, just as they might change their views on whether pineapple belongs on pizza or not.

If a position is based on "intuition," then it can't be objective. Objectivity requires there be some externally demonstrably evidence outside a person's opinions.

 

[Moral Orel]

But that analogy is wrong as likes and dislikes are subjective as well. They dont relate to innate objective morals that people have within them which they intuitively know about.

That's the point! We know that those things are subjective, but you have a reaction as though they are objective. That's human intuition at work.

 

[Kylie]

True, I made a mistake. Pitting isms against each other was incorrect. So let me rephrase.

It's relative vs absolute and objective vs subjective. Relative isn't excluded from being objective, so proving that something is relative doesn't prove that it isn't objective.

There is no distinction, that was my point. All moral realists claim that morality is objective, even if you wouldn't call them "objectivists".

So okay, "moral objectivists" think that morality is universal, that doesn't exclude relative statements from being objective. It just means that "moral relativists" aren't "moral objectivists". Let's try an example.

Let's say you see a person in need of CPR, but you haven't been trained in CPR, you just kinda sorta remember seeing it in a few TV shows and movies. Should you perform what you think is CPR? No, right? But if you are a trained paramedic, then yes, you should perform CPR. If I grant for the sake of argument that morality can be objective, and aiding folks in need is objectively good, then the statement "Trained professionals should perform CPR on people that need CPR" would be a factual, objective statement. Not a subjective opinion. Just like "Untrained non-professionals should not perform CPR" would be a factual, objective statement. But the statements makes clear that what action you should perform is relative to your level of training, does it not?

And yes, I know I snipped most of your post out. But I hope that acknowledging my mistake is sufficient to shift gears away from my faulty claims about this "ist" or that "ist".

Without wishing to go off topic, you actually should perform CPR even if you haven't been trained. I've had to do a few first aid courses for work, and the instructors have said that even bad CPR is better than no CPR. It's not like you can make the situation much worse by doing it wrong.

 

[zippy2006]

True, I made a mistake. Pitting isms against each other was incorrect. So let me rephrase.

Okay, I agree. Thanks for that.

It's relative vs absolute and objective vs subjective. Relative isn't excluded from being objective, so proving that something is relative doesn't prove that it isn't objective.

When "relative" is used to arbitrarily subdivide humans then it is non-objective, which is what I was saying in that last post. That is, when "relative" has the effect of exempting some humans from moral precepts, or establishing entirely different standards for different groups of people, then it is not objective.

So okay, "moral objectivists" think that morality is universal, that doesn't exclude relative statements from being objective. It just means that "moral relativists" aren't "moral objectivists". Let's try an example.

If something is objective then it is true and accessible (or confirmable) for all, not just for some. Since moral relativism always subdivides the human race into different moral sects, it is never objective.

Now I agree that those who believe that morality is relative to certain situational variables can at the same time be moral objectivists (or hold to an objective morality). We just wouldn't tend call them moral relativists. As noted earlier, I'm not quite sure who qualifies as a "moral absolutist." From my reading it would seem that a moral absolutist holds to only one single moral principle so that there are no conflicting principles even in theory. If that is right then moral absolutists are few and far between, and it's not clear to me what your relative concept of morality is concretely opposed to?

Let's say you see a person in need of CPR, but you haven't been trained in CPR, you just kinda sorta remember seeing it in a few TV shows and movies. Should you perform what you think is CPR? No, right? But if you are a trained paramedic, then yes, you should perform CPR. If I grant for the sake of argument that morality can be objective, and aiding folks in need is objectively good, then the statement "Trained professionals should perform CPR on people that need CPR" would be a factual, objective statement. Not a subjective opinion. Just like "Untrained non-professionals should not perform CPR" would be a factual, objective statement. But the statements makes clear that what action you should perform is relative to your level of training, does it not?

In this case "relative" is not subdividing humans into different moral sects. This is because the moral rule, "Do not perform CPR if you are untrained," applies to all humans regardless of culture, historical epoch, etc. It is universally applicable and accessible. So it would not be moral relativism in the colloquial sense of the "ism", and yes, you are right that it would be objective.

But it is worth pointing out that the common understanding of morality is objective and is also "relative" in the sense you are describing. Nearly everyone would agree that the application of moral rules requires prudence, and thus it seems to me that what you describe has no special name because it is characteristic of all (or nearly all) moral systems. I don't understand why such a ubiquitous quality of moral reasoning would need to be highlighted, or what it is intended to be contrasted with.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do you agree that everyone has a right to their own bodily integrity?

Yes, I hold that opinion. But this kind of discussion is not getting us any closer to whether moral statements are objective or not. Have you answered the OP's questions? Maybe that's a better place to start.

 

[zippy2006]

My position is pretty clear. But as I was trying to say, and Moral Orel and others in this thread, being universal is different from objective. I think Brussels sprouts are nasty, even when I am in Argentina. They were nasty when I was a child, and they are still nasty today. My opinion applies everywhere. That Brussels sprout you just ate? It tasted nasty. Maybe not to you, but that doesn't change my judgment.

The point is that there is a sense of universal such that all objective things are universal, for an objective thing is universally available to rational minds. No rational mind is excluded from the possibility of knowing something which is truly objective. Of course this doesn't mean that everything which is universally held is objective.

That said, your opinion is quite odd, for you are equivocating on 'universal'. When we say that something is universal we usually mean that the entire universe of subjects relate to the thing in a similar way. So if an opinion is held by the entire universe of subjects then it is universal, or if a fact is accessible to the entire universe of subjects then it is universal.

Your first claim is that Brussels sprouts are always nasty to you, regardless of your circumstance, and this is an entirely equivocal use of the term. In this case you are referring to the universe of circumstances rather than the universe of subjects, which is unconventional. It would be more apt to say, "I hold that Brussels sprouts are bad in every situation, without exception."

Your second claim is that Brussels sprouts are nasty for other people as well, and in this case you are using 'universal' in the univocal and conventional way that it is used in metaethics. But the problem in this case is that you want it to be subjective, "That Brussels sprout you just ate? It tasted nasty. Maybe not to you, but that doesn't change my judgment." You are trying to show that what is universal can also be subjective, but you are having a difficult time. To say that something which someone else ate tasted nasty, not to them, but to you, doesn't make a great deal of sense.

You are presumably attempting to claim that your opinion should be universally held, but that is something that a subjectivist is unable to do. Moral subjectivism strikes me as a chimera that is primarily used as a label to describe other people. The moral subjectivist can never prescribe how another subject should relate to a moral proposition, much less the entire universe of subjects. I am even doubtful that most people are thoroughgoing "taste subjectivists."